So Bibi Wants To Begin The "Final Solution."

[Arctish]

That's not in dispute, what is in dispute is that the term " Palestine" meaning Arabs becoming Palestinians only in the 20th century is in dispute.

What proper noun do you think we should use to identify the descendants of Judeans who converted to Christianity and Islam who still live in the area around Jerusalem?

Jews! What else!!

You think we should call them Muslim Jews and Christian Jews? Interesting.

Do you support their Right to live in the Jewish State?

 

[angelo]

A better question would be...........are Jews entitled to have their own state or not? If not, why not?

 

[Jarhyn]

A better question would be...........are Jews entitled to have their own state or not? If not, why not?

Nobody is entotled to have their own state at the expense of the people who were already there.

If you want to move somewhere you have to share it with the people who were there first. Of course as soon as a single generation is passed, the new genetation has as much right to a voice in government no matter who their parents were.

In this way your question is malformed. "Do people have a right to move around and have some say in how things are run wherever they end up?"

Most certainly I would say yes to that better question. But that means the palestinians need to get that same deal, the right to have some equal say in how things are run in the place they already were, in addition to the voice the others who moved in should have...

Currently, neither side wants to acknowledge the voice of the other as valid. Anyone whould have a right to move in. Anyone who lives there should have a voice in government. The government shouls NOT favor the voices of any one group except to defend the fundamental rights of all as equals

 

[repoman]

A better question would be...........are Jews entitled to have their own state or not? If not, why not?

Nobody is entotled to have their own state at the expense of the people who were already there.

If you want to move somewhere you have to share it with the people who were there first. Of course as soon as a single generation is passed, the new genetation has as much right to a voice in government no matter who their parents were.

In this way your question is malformed. "Do people have a right to move around and have some say in how things are run wherever they end up?"

Most certainly I would say yes to that better question. But that means the palestinians need to get that same deal, the right to have some equal say in how things are run in the place they already were, in addition to the voice the others who moved in should have...

Currently, neither side wants to acknowledge the voice of the other as valid. Anyone whould have a right to move in. Anyone who lives there should have a voice in government. The government shouls NOT favor the voices of any one group except to defend the fundamental rights of all as equals

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem here is that by calling them "Palestinians" there is the implicit claim that they are the sole rightful owners of the land.

You act like no one ever heard of the Jews of Palestine.

The Palestinian people - of all faiths, and of no faith - are the indigenous people of Palestine, descendants of the ancient Canaanites. Under modern notions of human rights, they have the Right to live in their ancestral homeland. Those same human rights grant others the Right to live in peace wherever they choose, so it isn't an exclusive Right, but it does take precedence if others want to force them out.

This is rather like the deception that repeatedly occurs in "pro-life" arguments where "human" is used both as "person" and as "of a human" and pretending it's a single meaning. (For example, the reference to a "human" fetus. Correct by the second meaning but then used as support as if it was the first meaning.)

I think the problem is that you don't like calling Jews the P-word, even when it clearly applies, and you don't want to admit that people who aren't Jewish have the Right to live in a place you want to make an exclusively Jewish country.

You still don't get it. The Palestinians have appropriated the name that should apply to both.

 

[Arctish]

You still don't get it. The Palestinians have appropriated the name that should apply to both.

You act like no one ever heard of the Jews of Palestine.

 

[angelo]

A better question would be...........are Jews entitled to have their own state or not? If not, why not?

Nobody is entotled to have their own state at the expense of the people who were already there.

If you want to move somewhere you have to share it with the people who were there first. Of course as soon as a single generation is passed, the new genetation has as much right to a voice in government no matter who their parents were.

In this way your question is malformed. "Do people have a right to move around and have some say in how things are run wherever they end up?"

Most certainly I would say yes to that better question. But that means the palestinians need to get that same deal, the right to have some equal say in how things are run in the place they already were, in addition to the voice the others who moved in should have...

Currently, neither side wants to acknowledge the voice of the other as valid. Anyone whould have a right to move in. Anyone who lives there should have a voice in government. The government shouls NOT favor the voices of any one group except to defend the fundamental rights of all as equals

So what you're implying is that the Red Indians of North America also should have their own nation with many more rights , since they were the original inhabitants. Difference being that as I've stated before, Arabs living in Israel have more human rights than all other Arabs in the whole of the Middle East combined have. They can vote in elections, are free to come and go as they please and most importantly, have a much higher standard of living than most other Arabs in the region.

 

[Arctish]

So what you're implying is that the Red Indians of North America also should have their own nation with many more rights , since they were the original inhabitants. Difference being that as I've stated before, Arabs living in Israel have more human rights than all other Arabs in the whole of the Middle East combined have. They can vote in elections, are free to come and go as they please and most importantly, have a much higher standard of living than most other Arabs in the region.

Who are you talking about when you refer to "Arabs living in Israel" and "Arabs in the region"? Are you talking about the descendants of Judeans? Because you already said they should be called Jews, even if they are members of other faith groups.

 

[angelo]

So what you're implying is that the Red Indians of North America also should have their own nation with many more rights , since they were the original inhabitants. Difference being that as I've stated before, Arabs living in Israel have more human rights than all other Arabs in the whole of the Middle East combined have. They can vote in elections, are free to come and go as they please and most importantly, have a much higher standard of living than most other Arabs in the region.

Who are you talking about when you refer to "Arabs living in Israel" and "Arabs in the region"? Are you talking about the descendants of Judeans? Because you already said they should be called Jews, even if they are members of other faith groups.

The word " Jew" originated from the word Judeans!

 

[Arctish]

So what you're implying is that the Red Indians of North America also should have their own nation with many more rights , since they were the original inhabitants. Difference being that as I've stated before, Arabs living in Israel have more human rights than all other Arabs in the whole of the Middle East combined have. They can vote in elections, are free to come and go as they please and most importantly, have a much higher standard of living than most other Arabs in the region.

Who are you talking about when you refer to "Arabs living in Israel" and "Arabs in the region"? Are you talking about the descendants of Judeans? Because you already said they should be called Jews, even if they are members of other faith groups.

The word " Jew" originated from the word Judeans!

Yes. it did. But the word "Jew" isn't synonymous with Judean.

Some Judeans worshipped Baal, and Moloch, and Yam, and Ashera. And when Christianity and Islam came along, some Judeans converted to those faiths, too. Heck, some of them probably converted to Jupiter and Mars worship when Jehovah proved unable or unwilling to prevent the Roman Legions kicking His Chosen People's asses.

What proper noun do you use when referring to the descendants of Judeans living in and around Jerusalem who aren't of the Jewish faith? Are they the ones you mean when you refer to "Arabs living in Israel" and "Arabs in the region"?

 

[angelo]

Yes, and the first xtians were also Jews. But what's that got to do with Arabs claiming to be the sole owners of what today is Israel?

 

[Arctish]

Yes, and the first xtians were also Jews. But what's that got to do with Arabs claiming to be the sole owners of what today is Israel?

Who are you calling Arabs? Do you mean the Christian and Muslim descendants of the Judean people? Do they claim that Palestinian Jews aren't really Palestinians, or do they deny the existence of Palestinian Jews altogether?

From what I've read, it was only the recent Zionist Jewish immigrants from Europe they objected to, and that was mostly due to the Zionists' openly declared goal of creating a Jewish State in a place where native born Jews were only about 10% of the total population. In their counter proposal to the UN Partition Plan, they offered full citizenship to Jews who were born in or had legally immigrated to Palestine prior to 1920 in the single, unified State they wanted to create.

There was no declaration of sole ownership made by the Christians or Muslims. That nonsense about an exclusive Right to live there was Zionist dogma, not Palestinian.

 

[angelo]

Not sure this will help you seen you're an antisemitic.................................

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)

 

[Arctish]

Not sure this will help you seen you're an antisemitic.................................

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)

What does a chart showing Jews were a minority in Palestine from the 5th century to 1947 have to do with being anti-Semitic?

And what does religion have to do with anything? Those Christians who were the majority from the 5th century to the end of the 12th century, and the Muslims who were the majority from the 13th century to 1947 were, and their descendants are, the indigenous people of Palestine. They're every bit as Semitic as the Palestinian Jews, and measurable more Semitic than the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

Are you under the impression that those Christians weren't local Judeans who converted? Do you honestly think Palestine was depopulated at the end of the 12th century and an entirely new, non-Semitic population of Muslims moved in? Where do you think the inhabitants of Jenin, Nablus, Jericho, Ramallah, and Jerusalem went, and where did the new folks come from?

 

[angelo]

You miss the point that Jews were inhabitants of this area of the middle east for thousands of years, not some Johnny come lately's as most antiemetics would have you believe!

 

[Arctish]

You miss the point that Jews were inhabitants of this area of the middle east for thousands of years

I have been saying the exact same thing!

I have said it over and over again in this thread, that Jews have lived in that part of the Middle East for thousands of years.

I have also said that many Jews converted to other faiths, and so did the article you linked to in post #153. Did you even read it?

I provided two additional sources of historic information, one of them with easy to read maps, that document the same cultural dynamics your article does. Did you read those?

The problem we have here isn't that one of us is denying that Jews have a historic and ancestral claim to the area around Jerusalem. The problem is that one of us thinks it's an exclusive claim but is unable to explain why it would be, considering that not every member of the indigenous population is Jewish and not every Jew is a member of the indigenous population.

 

[angelo]

As this article shows, it's not Bibi who wants to start a final solution...........................................https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/05/...s-answered-in-real-time-with-a-bombing-attack

 

[angelo]

You miss the point that Jews were inhabitants of this area of the middle east for thousands of years

I have been saying the exact same thing!

I have said it over and over again in this thread, that Jews have lived in that part of the Middle East for thousands of years.

I have also said that many Jews converted to other faiths, and so did the article you linked to in post #153. Did you even read it?

I provided two additional sources of historic information, one of them with easy to read maps, that document the same cultural dynamics your article does. Did you read those?

The problem we have here isn't that one of us is denying that Jews have a historic and ancestral claim to the area around Jerusalem. The problem is that one of us thinks it's an exclusive claim but is unable to explain why it would be, considering that not every member of the indigenous population is Jewish and not every Jew is a member of the indigenous population.

Just like all of North & South American continent's inhabitants are not members of the indigenous population. It all depends on how far back one wishes go. Why, not even the Romans can claim to be indigenous people of modern day Rome.

 

[Arctish]

As this article shows, it's not Bibi who wants to start a final solution...........................................https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/05/...s-answered-in-real-time-with-a-bombing-attack

That article says Netanyahu's response to a cyberattack was to have the IDF level a building without warning, killing everyone inside. You think it indicates he wouldn't slaughter Palestinians wholesale for racist, bigoted, and politically motivated reasons?

I think the thread title is intentional hyperbole. Netanyahu hasn't yet reached the point of implementing the Final Solution. He's still utilizing the Next-to-final Solution, the one where the undesired population is herded into ghettos and designated containment areas, surrounded by barriers and concertina wire and patrolled by soldiers with orders to kill anyone who tries to get out without permission. But if the Next-to-final Solution doesn't pan out, what do you think Netanyahu and militant Zionists like him will do? If past performance is indicative of future results, violating a few UN Resolutions will be the least of it.

 

[Arctish]

You miss the point that Jews were inhabitants of this area of the middle east for thousands of years

I have been saying the exact same thing!

I have said it over and over again in this thread, that Jews have lived in that part of the Middle East for thousands of years.

I have also said that many Jews converted to other faiths, and so did the article you linked to in post #153. Did you even read it?

I provided two additional sources of historic information, one of them with easy to read maps, that document the same cultural dynamics your article does. Did you read those?

The problem we have here isn't that one of us is denying that Jews have a historic and ancestral claim to the area around Jerusalem. The problem is that one of us thinks it's an exclusive claim but is unable to explain why it would be, considering that not every member of the indigenous population is Jewish and not every Jew is a member of the indigenous population.

Just like all of North & South American continent's inhabitants are not members of the indigenous population. It all depends on how far back one wishes go. Why, not even the Romans can claim to be indigenous people of modern day Rome.

UN Resolutions that deal with the Rights of Indigenous Peoples contain the current, internationally accepted definition of 'indigenous'. Whether a Roman meets that definition would depend on that individual's ancestry. Some Romans might be indigenous while others might not.