"Tonight we are Nazis"
Three cheers for self-awareness, I guess.
The people living there now? Yeah.
Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
"Tonight we are Nazis"
Three cheers for self-awareness, I guess.
Were Native Americans displaced for thousands of years. When were they ever given their land back? Most reservations are just unwanted land that whites gave to them to appease the Native Americans
The Palestinians would be far closer to Native Americans. The Bible talks about people who fought the original Israeli invasion over 3 thousands years ago. Guess whose the decedants of the Philistines etc?
They weren't, but for the analogy to work, they'd have to be. As in, hypothetically, Europeans would come in, scatter the Amerindians around the world, live in the area so long that they were indigenous, be subjected to waves of invasion and migration, the US wouldn't exist as a nation-state but simply a region part of waves of empires, etc.
Concerning the Philistines, the difference is that the Philistines haven't existed as a distinct group since about the 5th century BCE, and their genetic history is from all over the place - from Europe, to Egypt, to Persia, etc. The Palestinians almost certainly draw genetic history from this group, but just as surely as they draw genetic and cultural history from the Arabs, which swept over the area in the 7th century. Jews, on the other hands, have remained a distinct people even after their diaspora, and constantly remained in the area with a distinct identity. Claiming a Philistine identity now would be like a people in Italy calling themselves Etruscans.
If the Jews had been destroyed as a people and Jewish identity erased, we'd have another story. But basically, the story (or part of it) is that both groups can claim indigeneity to the land.
No, a bunch of people from Russia, Germany, Poland, and Brooklyn cannot claim that. Stop being absurd.
There's absolutely a cynical element where converts to Judaism can become citizens via the Law of Return, but these account for about 5% of the population (as in, Jews born outside Israel). Israel's population is about 75-80% Jewish, and of that %, the biggest group are Mizhrazi. As in, Jews from the ME and North Africa - a combination of those who've always been in the area, or who came/were expelled after the state's formation. That's in addition to Shepardi and Askanazi. So while the twat from Brooklyn that we've seen on the news is odious, he's not in the same category as the Yemeni Jews who've recently arrived as refugees.
Also, if your criteria is that people without a state aren't a distinct people, then that includes groups like the Roma (located outside the Indian sub-continent), the Kurds, and, paradoxically, the Palestinians themselves.
I was born in the United States, and yet it would be silly to describe me as indigenous to the United States. It is equally (or more) silly to describe the many second and third generation Israeli Jews as indigenous to Israel. Especially so when they are there because of the expulsion of actually indigenous Palestinians.
Hey, guess where Yemen and North Africa both are not?
Palestine!
This is irrelevant twaddle.
Then how many generations until non-Amerindians are considered indigenous? Because that's the argument for Palestinians.
It's not even an unreasonable argument that after living in the area for so long they can be considered indigenous, but considering that Jews have never NOT been in the area, even after waves of migration/invasion.
Highly debatable, unless you're pursuing the argument that after a certain period of time, if a people live outside an area long enough, they're no longer indigenous to the area. You're more or less admitting that after a period of time, the Palestinian diaspora can no longer be considered indigenous to Palestine.
As I've already posted, most Jews are in Israel because they were expelled from neighbouring countries, mostly by Arabs, as well as from the region itself.
And guess what North Africa and Yemen have in common?
Islamic states who, like all the other Islamic states in the region, have ethnically cleansed their countries of Jews.
And that's a non-answer.
Not that it matters, but where do you think they are from?
That a small Jewish minority exists somewhere is not a justification for other Jewish people to come and burn down Palestinian villages so that they can settle there.
A lot of Palestinian refugees are in Gaza. As for the rest of the Palestinian diaspora, we can revisit that question in 3000 CE.
Except that's false. You're treating a plurality as a majority. And it hardly matters, because those other countries are not Palestine. Which is being ethnically cleansed by a Jewish Supremacist regime.
So that means they can ethnically cleanse Palestine, according to you.
Anyway, do you actually know how much Jewish immigration from those countries is a result of hostility and how much is just wanting to go join Israel because it's a Jewish Supremacist state?
It's the truth, and as much of an answer as the irrelevant twaddle deserved.
So, for shits and giggles, I actually checked the UN definition of indigenous, since this has become a point of contention:
1: Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their
member.
2: Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies
3: Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources
4: Distinct social, economic or political systems
5: Distinct language, culture and beliefs
6: Form non-dominant groups of society
7: Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities.
What counts as "indigenous" is hazy at best, since people have been displacing other people since the dawn of time, but if we're using this definition, who meets the definition?
For the Jews:
1: Yes, but disupted (many don't see Jews as being indigenous)
2: Yes, the Jews have never not been present in the area, and have remained genetically distinct (90% of all Jews are genetically related to those who have occupied the Levant)
3: Yes, see above, and the Jewish diaspora in neighbouring countries pre-1947
4: Yes
5: Yes
6: Yes, prior to 1947, after which it becomes no - the Jews aren't non-dominant in Israel, though are non-dominant in historical Judaea.
7: Yes
For the Palestinians:
1: Yes, but disupted (many don't see Palestinians as being indigenous)
2: Not really, the Palestinians are descendants of a settler society (to use the term)
3: Yes.
4: Not sure - what distinguishes Palestinians from other Arabs?
5: Definitely not language and beliefs, maybe culture
6: No, prior to 1947, after which it becomes yes - the Palestinians aren't dominant in Israel, and are living under occupation in Palestine
7: Yes
1: Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their
member.
2: Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies
3: Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources
4: Distinct social, economic or political systems
5: Distinct language, culture and beliefs
6: Form non-dominant groups of society
7: Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities.
What counts as "indigenous" is hazy at best, since people have been displacing other people since the dawn of time, but if we're using this definition, who meets the definition?
For the Jews:
1: Yes, but disupted (many don't see Jews as being indigenous)
2: Yes, the Jews have never not been present in the area, and have remained genetically distinct (90% of all Jews are genetically related to those who have occupied the Levant)
3: Yes, see above, and the Jewish diaspora in neighbouring countries pre-1947
4: Yes
5: Yes
6: Yes, prior to 1947, after which it becomes no - the Jews aren't non-dominant in Israel, though are non-dominant in historical Judaea.
7: Yes
For the Palestinians:
1: Yes, but disupted (many don't see Palestinians as being indigenous)
2: Not really, the Palestinians are descendants of a settler society (to use the term)
3: Yes.
4: Not sure - what distinguishes Palestinians from other Arabs?
5: Definitely not language and beliefs, maybe culture
6: No, prior to 1947, after which it becomes yes - the Palestinians aren't dominant in Israel, and are living under occupation in Palestine
7: Yes
A collection of different groups, mainly Arabic in origin.
I agree, but the violence was going both ways from the 19th century, and similarly after the 1947 war.
Most Palestinian refugees are outside Gaza though, and the number keeps growing, in part because of the lack of citizenship. This is the only refugee group on Earth where refugee status is passed from parent to child.
So, basically, according to you, ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is bad (which it is, absolutely), but ethnic cleansing of Jews is fine.
You're already fine with ethnic cleansing as long as it's done by a certain group and not another.
Mostly hostility. Yes, you have some who flock to Israel because of its status as a Jewish state, just as some Palestinians voluntarily left Israel under the promise that the country would be destroyed by the Arabs. That some people leave a country voluntarily doesn't negate the reasons that cause them to leave.
Also, spare me the crocodile tears for "Jewish supremacy" when you're supported Islamic supremacy from the first page on this thread. I fully agree that both are wrong. I've listed possible solutions in this very thread. So far, you've advocated for nothing but a Hamas victory or something thereabouts, so unless you're still evading answering questions, once Israel is replaced by an Islamic state, where do the Jews go? Because certainly not the Middle East or North Africa.
And another non-answer.
You haven't stopped being absurd.
[Citation needed]
I guess it's just time to make shit up!
So... they are from where they are, basically.
I've proposed giving Hamas more accurate weapons so they can properly fight back against a Jewish Supremacist regime without indiscriminate rocket attacks when that regime breaks truces and ethnically cleanses neighborhoods. I'd rather Fatah win if we're just looking at the goals of the organizations, but it's kind of a shambles. Hamas is the one that is fighting back.
Why would a Hamas victory necessarily result in anyone having to leave Palestine who doesn't want to? I support them going wherever they like that isn't stolen from someone else, and with ample resources provided by my own government (USA) to make it a smooth transition in cases where the leaving isn't voluntary. This is despite the fact that so many are basically genocidal racists. Where do all the Palestinian refugees displaced by Israeli ethnic cleansing go now?
Last edited:
Says nothing about the actions which caused the violence, so at this point it seems rather meaningless.
On another forum it's been suggested that the IDF has met its goals and destroyed the targets it wants to destroy so can now graciously agree to a ceasefire.
Of course this claim will go out. Israel will claim success that it destroyed a large chunk of Hamas's offensive capability, and Hamas will claim it is substantially intact and all Israel did was blow up a load of civilians. We will never know what the truth is, just the two PR narratives.
I'm inclined to agree with Trunkage, though. Particularly considering the attacks on the more affluent areas of Gaza which still have something approximating a functioning economy, it's hard not to suspect that some of the aim was collective punishment: the more Palestinians who can be motivated to leave, the better.
And it helped Bibi by painting every arab as bad, so now the opposition most likely can't form a coalition against him.