General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Skeptic]

Are you saying that Palestinians never had aims for self determination during the time of the Ottoman Empire or British rule?

Essentially, yes.

The Arabs in the area didn't see themselves as a seperate nation of "Palestinians" until the 1940s or so at the earliest; before that they saw themselves as Egyptians, Syrians, or just as members of tribe X. There was Arab nationalism -- e.g., against Ottoman (Turkish) or British rule -- but not Palestinian one.

If we go further back to the 19th century, this is not surprising: most Arabs who were in Palestine in, say, 1920 were mostly those (or the descendents of those) who came to Palestine after the Jewish emigration started, attracted by better conditions than elsewhere in the levant. It is not surprising they didn't see themselves as part of a nationality at the time.

The father of Palestinian nationalism (again, as opposed to Arab nationalism is general) was the war criminal Haj Amin Al-Husseini, from the 1930s and 40s, who collaborated with Hitler, and who saw Palestinian nationalism more as an excuse to genocide the Jews than anything else. To this day, the Palestinian Constitution of the PLO (and that of Hamas as well) has as its #1 objective the destruction of the Jewish state: the only nation in the world whose constitution calls for the destruction of another nation.

But then again, looking at the founder of Palestinian nationalism, who begged Hitler to kill as many Jews as possible lest they emigrate to Palestine and declared his goal is for the Arabs to deal with the Jews in Palestine using the same methods the Nazis used in Europe, is this really surprising? After all, one wouldn't expect a constitution written by, say, Charley Manson to be all sweetness and light.

That aside, then, no: one can speak of Palestinian nationalism during the (later) British mandate, but certainly not during the earlier part of that rule, let alone Ottoman times.

Sorry to ruin your fantasy du jour.

 

[Skeptic]

So you've looked for and found reasons to continue believing the story.


http://hurryupharry.org/2011/06/19/the-dog-that-didnt-die/

Funny how some people will believe anything about Jews -- including those who, like these ultra-orthodox Jews, are almost certainly not zionists.

 

[Skeptic]

It should also be added that the Jews bought every single square inch of land they had in Palestine previous to 1948. So it was OK apparently to sell them land, take their money, and then shoot them for "invading".

Good advice. Remind me to only sell any real-estate to (other) Jews. Seems like a good deal. A bullet in the head sure beats actually giving the !@#!! money back to the !@#!! yid, I guess.

 

[a_unique_person]

Where were the calls by Palestinian Arabs for self-determination under the Ottoman period?

I do quite enjoy you trying to shift the burden of proof my way by these questions, but you made the claim.

Also answer the rest: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7289584&postcount=4593

And answer Mycroft's rebuttal to your claim that there wasn't rampant anti-semitism prior to Israel's (re-)establishment. And rebut your claim that a demographic war would cease to exist even with a two-state solution even with PA/PLO/etc. practices and polls pointing to the contrary.

Over to you...

WTF should I answer someone on ignore?

 

[a_unique_person]

Hey a_u_p, on what day did the Jews invade Israel?

Can Americans shoot Mexicans to prevent an "invasion"?

Can the French shoot North African Muslim immigrants to likewise resist the "invasion"?

Can members of the English Defense League shoot Muslims to "resist the invasion"?

Or are Palestinians the only group who can shoot immigrants, and then only if they're Jews?

Did the Mexicans have a war over Texas? Did the Australian aboriginals kill squatters in Australia. Did the American Indians kill immigrants in the US, or Indians kill the British. You get the idea. Invasions or Colonialism or Imperialism are resisted with violence. In each case, people lose their homes, and fight for their right for self determination.

 

[a_unique_person]

*dup*

 

[WildCat]

Did the Mexicans have a war over Texas? Did the Australian aboriginals kill squatters in Australia. Did the American Indians kill immigrants in the US, or Indians kill the British. You get the idea. Invasions or Colonialism or Imperialism are resisted with violence. In each case, people lose their homes, and fight for their right for self determination.

But we're not talking about a hostile invasion, are we? We're talking about immigrants, who arrived bit by bit and purchased property from a people who likewise had a long tradition of poperty ownership.

By your definition of "invasion" members of the English Defense League have every right to kill Muslim immigrants to the UK, yes? If not, explain.

 

[a_unique_person]

But we're not talking about a hostile invasion, are we? We're talking about immigrants, who arrived bit by bit and purchased property from a people who likewise had a long tradition of poperty ownership.

By your definition of "invasion" members of the English Defense League have every right to kill Muslim immigrants to the UK, yes? If not, explain.

Off on another gish gallop, it's the standard MO on this topic. If you don't want to talk about one point, just start another one. Can we just determine once and for all, did Palestinians want self determination. There is evidence they did.

 

[bigjelmapro]

WTF should I answer someone on ignore?

Thanks for avoiding everything yet again. I'm sure this will be brought up by you again at a later date. I'll link it again when you do.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Off on another gish gallop, it's the standard MO on this topic. If you don't want to talk about one point, just start another one. Can we just determine once and for all, did Palestinians want self determination. There is evidence they did.

And this you have yet to provide evidence for. Which was the whole point of the several previous posts of mine.

 

[WildCat]

Off on another gish gallop

Hogwash.

You're equivocating immigrants with invaders. By your own criteria the English Defense League is entitled to shoot Muslim immigrants to the UK. But I really doubt you'd support that, would you?

 

[funk de fino]

Hogwash.

You're equivocating immigrants with invaders. By your own criteria the English Defense League is entitled to shoot Muslim immigrants to the UK. But I really doubt you'd support that, would you?

Poor analogy, even for you. CFA next time.

 

[WildCat]

Poor analogy, even for you. CFA next time.

Not my analogy, it was a_u_p's analogy.

He actually compared Jews immigrating to British mandate territory to the British invasions of North America and Australia! Crazy, isn't it?

 

[IDB87]

Not my analogy, it was a_u_p's analogy.

He actually compared Jews immigrating to British mandate territory to the British invasions of North America and Australia! Crazy, isn't it?

If it was any sort of accurate analogy, he/she should have referenced the 1948 war for an attempted invasion or what have you.

As it stands, it's just silly.

 

[Mycroft]

and you appear to have found another blog repeating the story of your first blog. No links in there to anything they claim.

Okay, so you missed the part that had the statement from the court describing the incident. You have to scroll down some.

You seem to find blogs with no links repeating each others stories quite persuasive.

Yes I do, when they print a translation of a statement from the court that gives a very different version of the event.

But in a larger sense, those of us who are "in the know" who are often called "skeptics" understand that goofy stories in newspapers that make us feel good by making us feel superior to those "other" "ignorant" types of people, especially from populations of people who are unpopular for one reason or another, are often fabricated or at least greatly exaggerated and should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[The Fool]

Okay, so you missed the part that had the statement from the court describing the incident. You have to scroll down some.

no...I saw it....but they didn't link to its source.

Yes I do, when they print a translation of a statement from the court that gives a very different version of the event.

you have accepted that its from the court? who knows where they got it from or where it came from.

But in a larger sense, those of us who are "in the know" who are often called "skeptics" understand that goofy stories in newspapers that make us feel good by making us feel superior to those "other" "ignorant" types of people, especially from populations of people who are unpopular for one reason or another, are often fabricated or at least greatly exaggerated and should be taken with a grain of salt.

but blogs stories with no links are ok to accept eh? hold the salt?


actually whats happened here is quite common. A story is published. You need to deny it so search for anything that helps. A blog that also denies it without presenting any verification is all you can find so that will have to do.

has Ynet retracted the story yet? Maybe they are anti-semites.

Have we found the article in the newspaper that supposedly (according to your blog) retracts the story? Have we found the "court document" the blog displays?

I agree with you that the story is uber crazy but hey.....your blog fuelled response is right up there too.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Please list all the good things the Nazis did in the Balkans.

Killed a few Communists. That's about the limit of it, I suppose.

 

[Mycroft]

Poor analogy, even for you. CFA next time.

So you don't agree there is a huge difference between European colonists in Australia or the Americas imposing European models of land ownership on a native population that didn't understand them, and immigrants who purchased lands from property owners with a similar culture of land ownership going back a millenia or more?

 

[Darth Rotor]

So you don't agree there is a huge difference between European colonists in Australia or the Americas imposing European models of land ownership on a native population that didn't understand them, and immigrants who purchased lands from property owners with a similar culture of land ownership going back a millenia or more?

The law of blood and iron hasn't been invoked in a while. I'd like to point out that killing gets people to redraw lines on maps, and words in constitutions.

Sometimes.

What is fallacious is to pretend that once you draw lines, they MUST remain inviolate for all time forward.

Human history tells us that if you want to lines on the map to stay as you wish them to, you will now and again have to deal with those who want them drawn differently.

Sometimes, it's blood and iron. Other times, less dire means are used.

So, at present, a curious combination of blood and iron, and other means, are at work in that annoying little bit of acreage in on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

Play on, I'll get the popcorn.

 

[Mycroft]

no...I saw it....but they didn't link to its source.

Do you think that's necessary?

you have accepted that its from the court? who knows where they got it from or where it came from.

If I apply Occam's Razor, I think the simplest explanation is that the blogger found the statement from the court in it's original Hebrew, then used Google translate to translate it. The alternative explanation, that someone went to the trouble of forging a document in Hebrew but then didn't go to the effort to produce a decent English translation, seems both more complex and less likely to me.

Of course, I will not be surprised if you disagree.

but blogs stories with no links are ok to accept eh? hold the salt?

It's only an ordinary claim. It requires only ordinary evidence.

Of course, I will not be surprised if you disagree.