The "Nakba" Myth

[lionking]

When Israel can produce land treaties with the Palestinians the same as the US has with the Indians get back to me.

Another question then. Should Australia give the entire nation to the aborigines? No land treaties to speak of here.

 

[Matt Giwer]

What? So treaties extracted under threat of extermination was all the the Israeli's needed? Do you realise how nonsensical this argument is?

Treaties are in essence contracts. Contracts extracted by force may be declared null and void by the courts. The Indian challenges to treaties are for enforcement of the provisions of the treaties nor for their nullification by reason of duress. If in fact a legal case could be made for duress and the plaintiffs wished to overturn the treaties then it is clear they could do so.

So there is no parallel between the two.

In this case the zionists only used the threat of extermination on the Palestinians if they did not leave Palestine.

If in fact you consider it nonsense I invite you to recite the nonsense instead of the merely declaring it is nonsense. Reason not rhetoric is desired.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Another question then. Should Australia give the entire nation to the aborigines? No land treaties to speak of here.

I did not realize they were asking for their land back. But if they are and they are using their moral right of deadly force to expel the occupying people then it would pathetic to read the folks down under whining about being killed for their actions.

These days Americans cheer when Gene Autrey gets shot by an Indian. It is no different when Palestinians have nothing but force to retrieve their private property. No one told the zionists to make enemies. No one but a child could believe the Palestinians would ever acquiesce to it.

They chose to go to Palestine. They chose to steal the land. They chose to have the lawful owners of the land try to kill them for their crimes. It is all free will. No one forced them to do it or to choose it.

 

[lionking]

If in fact a legal case could be made for duress and the plaintiffs wished to overturn the treaties then it is clear they could do so.

And if a case like this succeeded, the US should be handed back to the Indians? And Australia to the aborigines?

BTW, your reference to "izzyhuggers" or whatever the stupid word you coined was, makes any argument you make extremely difficult to take seriously.

 

[lionking]

I did not realize they were asking for their land back. But if they are and they are using their moral right of deadly force to expel the occupying people then it would pathetic to read the folks down under whining about being killed for their actions.

Well the first sentence makes sense, and yes there are some aboriginal activists asking for sovreginity of Australia. The second makes no sense at all.

 

[DC]

Huh? It was a rhetorical question.

so you was against the Jews getting back their land?

 

[Matt Giwer]

And if a case like this succeeded, the US should be handed back to the Indians? And Australia to the aborigines?

In the case of a treaty being overturned that could not happen. There are literally hundreds of treaties. Overturning any one treaty would not affect any of the others. I assume the same issue of individual tribes exists in Oz.

BTW, your reference to "izzyhuggers" or whatever the stupid word you coined was, makes any argument you make extremely difficult to take seriously.

I invented it long ago when debating only Americans and discovered passionate attachment to a foreign country among them. Rather than explore the dual/questionable loyalty issue I simply adapted the treehugger to make it a designation of fact. The term only applies to those hug Israel as Greenies hug trees.

Of course there are some who feel it improper to question the loyalty of anyone but Israel is working on laws which will require mainly its non-jewish citizens to swear loyalty to Israel as both a Jewish and Zionist state. So I am suggesting nothing that Israel itself does not think reasonable.

I do not mean to confuse the issue of Israeli citizen here as Israel has not citizens in the common sense. The designation of nationality as Israeli does not exist rather only Jewish and Arab exist. Those are also the lawful designation on their internal passports -- if their papers are to be in order.

 

[lionking]

so you was against the Jews getting back their land?

I'd respond to this question if it made sense.

 

[lionking]

In the case of a treaty being overturned that could not happen. There are literally hundreds of treaties. Overturning any one treaty would not affect any of the others. I assume the same issue of individual tribes exists in Oz.

Are you going to address the point that expecting Israel to give their nation to the Palestineans is precisely the same as Australia and the US giving their nation to the indigenous inhabitants?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Well the first sentence makes sense, and yes there are some aboriginal activists asking for sovreginity of Australia. The second makes no sense at all.

Let me try to explain it to you. Kant developed the concept of moral imperative. Defense of life and property are among them. A reasonble person first uses the lawful social means for righting a wrong such as theft of property. But when lawful means for correcting the harm do not exist then the moral imperative supports the use of any availble force including deadly force to correct the immoral harm they have experienced.

Thus in the final analysis, resistance to zionism is a moral imperative.

We can go beyond that to the Geneva conventions with retroactively legalized the WWII resistance movements as resistance to military occupation including infiltration and sabotage. Thus since 1947 lethal force to kill the occupiers has been lawful. I never wrote a treaty in my life so I am not responsible for what they say.

Further any member of the military and any military asset is a lawful target. Israel lets it military freely mingle among civilians and uses buses as a military asset. Israel creates the lawful targets and then whines about the consequences.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Are you going to address the point that expecting Israel to give their nation to the Palestineans is precisely the same as Australia and the US giving their nation to the indigenous inhabitants?

Give? Since when to thieves voluntarily return what they have stolen. I expect the world to aid the victims of zionists to force the return of their private property. An oil embargo would be fine, the lights would go out in a week. After that is all over but the shouting.

Now I am not idealistic enough to think the tens of millions redneck fundies in the US who are also registered voters are going to turn on a dime against their crackpot religious beliefs but they are the only thing standing in the wan of the US chosing its side based upon its basic principles.

Why do you keep returning to the implication that the zionists committed genocide on the Palestinians? Is that not counterproductive?

 

[Virus]

Matt, the Palestinians don't even want peace. They've turned down every offer for peace put in front of them. They want war.

 

[a_unique_person]

When has secularism ever been a significant movement amongst Arab Muslims?

Ba'athism.

 

[a_unique_person]

Matt, the Palestinians don't even want peace. They've turned down every offer for peace put in front of them. They want war.

Oslo.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Matt, the Palestinians don't even want peace. They've turned down every offer for peace put in front of them. They want war.

Does the zionist propaganda never cease? I had been informed JREF was a rational and informed forum. I am surprised to discover otherwise.

Israel has made no peace offers which anyone other than a rabid zionist could find other than laughable. Israel has never offered a single thing which would lead to peace meaning something which would compensate the victims of the crimes of 1948 and 1967. If I am in error you are free to recite what Israel did in fact offer.

Compensation for the Palestinian losses? Only after Jews are compensated for their losses when they left Iraq and Egypt and such even though Israel was behind driving them out AND there is no connection between the two.

Since 2002 there has been an Arab league proposal on the table which 48 Muslim countries have agreed to. All of them have agreed to recognize Israel and establish normal relations if Israel will return to its only recognized borders, those of 1948. Israel has NEVER formally considered it. Israel pretends that it does not exist. Because of that you cannot tell me what Israel "really" thinks of it because there is no official Israeli position on it.

In reality the Palestinians have never been offered a single thing of interest. In reality Israel continues to steal from non-Jews in the occupied territorities. Israel continues to terrorize Palestinians in the occupied territories although usually through Jewish terrorists whom it can never arrest.

More than a few Germans were hanged at Nuremberg for settling their citizens in occupied Poland. The US does not do anything about it because so many of those criminals in the West Bank squattertowns have Brooklyn accents. And most of the rest have Russian accents so support from there either.

 

[lionking]

Give? Since when to thieves voluntarily return what they have stolen. I expect the world to aid the victims of zionists to force the return of their private property. An oil embargo would be fine, the lights would go out in a week. After that is all over but the shouting.

Now I am not idealistic enough to think the tens of millions redneck fundies in the US who are also registered voters are going to turn on a dime against their crackpot religious beliefs but they are the only thing standing in the wan of the US chosing its side based upon its basic principles.

Why do you keep returning to the implication that the zionists committed genocide on the Palestinians? Is that not counterproductive?

Have you been drinking? Look, come back when you can make a sensible post.

ETA Are you an Holocaust denier?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Ba'athism.

Which the US has worked to destroy. Bush and the Bushistas choose to destroy the most secular country in the middle east and give Iran ascendancy. One might think there is some hidden plan behind the chaos.

Unfortunately I spent some years working for the DOD. The chaos is the reality.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Have you been drinking? Look, come back when you can make a sensible post.

That you know so little of this subject that you cannot understand material related to it does not establish the right to irrational personal attack in lieu of a rational response.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Pardon but you are in error. In the mid 5th c. BC Herodotus traveled to that part of the Persian empire. He mentions Palestine seven times.

Herodotus never travelled to Egypt, Syria and the surrounding area, and actually relied on 2nd hand accounts to make his assessments.

And the term he refers to is not 'Palestine', but a derivation of Philistine as define the area between Egypt and Phoenicia as 'Syria Palaistina'. This assertion was just as erroneous as the recent archeological find in Syria dating back to the period of the Philistines playing the same word play game with 'Palestine' apparently existing in Syria and Turkey:
'Palestine existed in Syria, Turkey'

Additionally, Herodotus (Herodotus, III – 91, p. 181) clearly defined his designation of the areas as having 3 distinct groups of people: Palestinians, the Phoenicians, and the Arabians. Modern Palestinian Arabs are just that, Arab. The derivation of the origin term adopted by the Arabs is nothing more than a designation for the region and doesn't have anything to do with Arabs (South Semitic) that settled there substantially later after the Indo-Europeans.

What is interesting is that he makes no mention of any Judeans or anyone who could have been them even when he discusses the people who practice circumcision, aka ritual genital mutilation.

How can he when he's never been there?

Compounding this the when Alexander rolled through a century and a half later there is no mention of any Judeans in the region. In fact there is no mention of any Judeans in history until Pompey arrives in 67 BC.

Since all the previous claims above of yours are superficial fiction, what is your intention here anyways? That Judeans, Israelites, and/or Jews didn't exist or have a lengthy history in the area. This is all being supported by physical evidence. But don't let get in the way....

Philistine is not really a problem. There is nothing to suggest they are other than a name created by the fiction writers who created the Septuagint. As both real history and archaeology have shown the stories in the Septuagint have no factual relation to the people and events the real history of Palestine there is no reason to assume Philistines really existed than there is to assume Atlanteans really existed just because Plato wrote of them.

So all other history books that trace the connections between the Philistines and the Mycenaeans are also swept under the rug here...

 

[bigjelmapro]

The Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.

Yes, and I'm sure that these claimants will be waving around land ownership claims dating from the mid-1920's British land reforms, since during the better part of the Ottoman empire, there were barely land owners, but the brunt of the land was owned by the state. The Beer Sheva district being the highest, at 99% state owned.

Don't mind the purchasing of land and the concept of state building which the Arabs made quite easily by the constant wars to destroy Israel. But I guess you'll try to peddle that the Arabs wanted peace from the get-go