11
   

George Galloway Full of Crap When He Says Jews have no right to be in Palestine

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 01:29 am
oralloy says:
Quote:
Wrong again. DNA shows that they are the direct descendants of the Israelites.


No, it doesn't show that. What it DOES in fact show is that Palestinian and Jewish DNA are essentially indistinguishable, and that the range of Palestinian variation falls smack in the middle of the range of Jewish variation. Oralloy persistently misreads it. They've always been part of the same population.



which means
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 01:42 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
oralloy wrote:
DNA shows that they are the direct descendants of the Israelites.

No, it doesn't show that. What it DOES in fact show is that Palestinian and Jewish DNA are essentially indistinguishable, and that the range of Palestinian variation falls smack in the middle of the range of Jewish variation.

Poor logic there. Even if what you said were actually true, that would still count as proof that the Jews are direct descendants of the Israelites.

However, your weasel word "essentially" is masking an important truth. Palestinian DNA can be distinguished from Jewish DNA.

They were the same population during the Bronze Age (when they were both Canaanites). However, they then diverged and became two independent Iron Age populations.


MontereyJack wrote:
Oralloy persistently misreads it.

Funny how you are unable to point out any errors on my part.


MontereyJack wrote:
They've always been part of the same population.

They haven't been the same population since they were Bronze Age Canaanites.


MontereyJack wrote:
which means

Which means the Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel. They come from somewhere else.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 10:40 am
oralloy says:
Quote:

Which means the Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel. They come from somewhere else.


Liar. To use one of your favorite words, oralloy. What it means, oralloy, is that the Palestinians have been there all along. They are as indigenous to the land as the Jews (and anyway, indigeneity has never been the question. It's just your red herring.there are rights recognized under international law, including rights of return of people displaced by war, which the Israelis have violated for decades, and that's the true question).

Read the often-cited artticle on Palestinian and Jewish DNA. It simply does not say what you keep saying it does.



that
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 02:12 pm
@MontereyJack,
Oralboy is very fond of calling people anti Semites when making outrageous, and untrue, claims about the Palestinians, and defending the very worst excesses of the Israelis. Yet when someone comes onto A2K and starts denying the Holocaust, he's nowhere to be seen.
http://able2know.org/reply/post-5786901
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 02:31 pm
@MontereyJack,
oralboy wrote,
Quote:
Which means the Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel. They come from somewhere else.


CLUE: everybody outside of Africa "came from someplace else." That's true of all the land mass of this world. The issues are a) who migrated to that part of the world in early human history, and b) most cultures have always been a mix of other cultures through mating with others. It seems that the Palestinians have a very long history in that general area.

Learn your human history - if that's possible.
0 Replies
 
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 03:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:

They ARE THE SAME PEOPLE genetically and by religion and culture.


I'll agree, native Palestinian Jews and native Palestinians share the same roots with the exception of the newly arrived European Jews who believe they have a god-given right to kick the natives out. Where I disagree with you, CI, regards the different religions. Some Palestinians are Muslims who practice Islam; some are Christians and some practice Judaism. Going back 2000 years ago all were Palestinians who gradually chose different religions. The religion, Islam, came along 600 years later, and is observed today by the descendants of the original people. (The poster Advocated reminded me that Islam did not exist prior to 600 years ago.)* Those who make a mountain out of this chasm between Jews and Palestinians are usually motivated by religion, bias, and or greed. Israel is desperately hungry for land and will not stop until its taken over all of the West Bank with the silent acquiescence of the US. It had captured Mount Sinai but under US President Jimmy Carter's Camp David accord in 1979, Egyptian President Anwar El-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin the Camp David, the US gave Israel 3 Billion dollars in economic aid, and two billion dollars of military aid, and the Zionist nation returned Mt. Sinai. Modern Israel continues to occupy the Golan Heights which belongs to Syria....I'll be curious to see how ISIS will handle this.

Israel is trying to capture all the land which once belonged to ancient Israel over 2000 years ago....even back then, Israel only ruled Judea for 600 years out of the 5000 years of recorded history. The Zionist nature knows full well no court in the land will recognize such a laughably preposterous claim that the ancient land of Israel from 2000 years ago rightfully belong to European Jews. Israel cannot live as just a purely Jewish state forever, or else it will take on the label of Apartheid....some call it that already, comparing it to the former South African apartheid state.

*BTW, where is Advocate?!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 03:28 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
You wrote with which I agree,
Quote:
. Some Palestinians are Muslims who practice Islam; some are Christians and some practice Judaism. Going back 2000 years ago all were Palestinians who gradually chose different religions.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 05:09 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Which means the Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel. They come from somewhere else.

Liar.

Just the opposite. When I point out the fact that the Palestinians are from somewhere other than Israel, that is called telling the truth.


MontereyJack wrote:
To use one of your favorite words, oralloy.

You get rather petty when the facts go solidly against you.


MontereyJack wrote:
What it means, oralloy, is that the Palestinians have been there all along.

The fact that the Palestinians were a separate population during the Iron Age means that they were somewhere else during the Iron Age.


MontereyJack wrote:
They are as indigenous to the land as the Jews

Being from somewhere else means they are not at all indigenous.

But it is nice to see an admission that the Jews are indigenous.


MontereyJack wrote:
(and anyway, indigeneity has never been the question. It's just your red herring.

If it is a red herring, it is certainly not mine.

All these pages and pages of stuff about indigeneity came about because some anti-Semites were futilely trying to deny science and history and claim that the Israelis are not indigenous to the West Bank area.

Perhaps you were not one of the ones making the claim. I don't remember who exactly was making it at this point. But the cause of all the stuff about indigeneity was anti-Semites who were trying to deny that Jews are indigenous.


MontereyJack wrote:
there are rights recognized under international law, including rights of return of people displaced by war, which the Israelis have violated for decades, and that's the true question).

Israel has not violated anything. International law requires measures from both sides (for instance, it requires the Palestinians to stop making war on Israel).

Israel has faithfully tried to reach a just arrangement under international law, and they've tried over and over and over again. Every single time, the reason it never happens is because the Palestinians refuse to ever make peace with Israel.


MontereyJack wrote:
Read the often-cited artticle on Palestinian and Jewish DNA. It simply does not say what you keep saying it does.

I have a good memory. No need for me to read it again.

It says that they were the same population during the Bronze Age, but then split and became separate populations during the Iron Age.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 05:30 pm
@oralloy,
You wrote,
Quote:
Just the opposite. When I point out the fact that the Palestinians are from somewhere other than Israel, that is called telling the truth.


So did the Jews. So, what's your point?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 05:31 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
Moment-in-Time wrote:
I'll agree, native Palestinian Jews and native Palestinians share the same roots with the exception of the newly arrived European Jews who believe they have a god-given right to kick the natives out.

Agreeing with a retard like CI is a guarantee of being wrong.

In this case, you are going against history and science, which is quite clear that the Israelis are the indigenous population and the Palestinians come from somewhere else.

The only people here who are trying to kick out the natives, are the Palestinians.


Moment-in-Time wrote:
Going back 2000 years ago all were Palestinians who gradually chose different religions.

Nope. In the year 14 AD, the West Bank was mostly populated by the Jewish descendants of the Israelites.

The Palestinians were somewhere else at the time.


Moment-in-Time wrote:
The religion, Islam, came along 600 years later, and is observed today by the descendants of the original people.

Nope. The descendants of the original people adhere to Judaism.


Moment-in-Time wrote:
The poster Advocated reminded me that Islam did not exist prior to 600 years ago.

It is a shame that he did not cure you of the rest of your ignorance.


Moment-in-Time wrote:
Israel is desperately hungry for land and will not stop until its taken over all of the West Bank with the silent acquiescence of the US.

Stop lying. Israel has repeatedly offered to actually give up land if only people would make peace with them. The only reason it never happens is because the Palestinians refuse to ever make peace.


Moment-in-Time wrote:
Israel is trying to capture all the land which once belonged to ancient Israel over 2000 years ago.

No they aren't.


Moment-in-Time wrote:
The Zionist nature knows full well no court in the land will recognize such a laughably preposterous claim that the ancient land of Israel from 2000 years ago rightfully belong to European Jews.

Don't presume that courts share your anti-Semitism.

In any case, if anyone tries to deprive the Israelis of their ancient homeland, the IDF can simply kill them. Problem solved.

If there is ever an invading army that Israel cannot handle conventionally, atomic artillery shells will make short work of that invading army.


Moment-in-Time wrote:
Israel cannot live as just a purely Jewish state forever, or else it will take on the label of Apartheid....some call it that already, comparing it to the former South African apartheid state.

You anti-Semites can be quite monstrous in your hate speech.

However, your hate speech reflects only on yourself.
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 05:47 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:



In this case, you are going against history and science, which is quite clear that the Israelis are the indigenous population and the Palestinians come from somewhere else.

The only people here who are trying to kick out the natives, are the Palestinians.


Not so fast. oralloy. Are you forgetting where the words Palestine and Palestinians come from? Every etymology I'm familiar with suggests that it's a relatively recent (last 1,000 years or so) corruption of the ethnic identification of Philistines who were the original inhabitants of Canaan and of the real estate package which eventually became the twin kingdoms of Judea and Israel. That's according to the Bible anyway.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 06:46 pm
@InfraBlue,
neologist wrote:
It's certainly understandable that the Jews would hope to be restored to their anscestral homeland.
InfraBlue wrote:
The simplistic idea that "the Jews" have an ancestral homeland in Palestine is a part of Zionist ideology that's based on religious mythology. The Jewish religion began in Palestine, "the Jews" have origins in the various parts of the world where they live. The Ashkenazim, the Jews that came up with Zionism, are a European people.
neologist wrote:
Well flip my flapjacks, Blue. I could have sworn they were clustered about Jerusalem until about 1900+/- years ago.

The destruction of the temple in 70 CE changed things in a big way.
InfraBlue wrote:
Don't flip your skirt too high. This is just more simplistic thinking. There was a minority of Jews living "clustered about Jerusalem," during that timeline. Most Jews lived outside of Palestine throughout the Roman Empire by the time of the destruction of the second temple. These Jews were mostly coverts from what is now Syria who helped spread their religion and language, Aramaic, throughout the Middle East. It was these Jews, for the most part, that spread the religion westward and then throughout Central and Eastern Europe.

There were no Ashkenazi Jews "clustered about Jerusalem" during your timeline.
That observation, if indeed valid, certainly escaped the sensibilities of those promoting and participating in the second 'Exodus'.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 08:29 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
Not so fast. oralloy. Are you forgetting where the words Palestine and Palestinians come from? Every etymology I'm familiar with suggests that it's a relatively recent (last 1,000 years or so) corruption of the ethnic identification of Philistines who were the original inhabitants of Canaan and of the real estate package which eventually became the twin kingdoms of Judea and Israel. That's according to the Bible anyway.

Canaan was populated by the Canaanites, during the Bronze Age at least.

At the end of the Bronze Age, Canaanite culture broke apart into smaller Iron Age cultures.


The Iron Age culture that arose from the ashes of the Canaanites in the West Bank area was the Israelites.

The Jews of today are the descendants of the Iron Age Israelites.


Other Iron Age cultures that came out of the collapse of Canaanite culture were the Phoenicians, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites.

The Palestinians of today are descended from one or more of these other Iron Age cultures.


The Philistines, whoever they were, had no connection with the Bronze Age Canaanites, no connection with the Israelites/Jews, and no connection with the Palestinians of today.

It may well be that they are what the word Palestine was derived from however.
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 09:23 pm
@oralloy,
Again, according to the Bible --

The Israelites certainly did not arise out of a Canaanite Bronze Age culture. The ancestors of the Israelites, led by Abraham, were native to Mesopotamia, specifically a city called Ur of the Chaldees (that's modern-day Iraq). They were called Hibaru or Hebrews; Israelite is a much later term, in use only after the Kingdom of Israel was established in contradistinction to the Kingdom of Judah. Read the story of Samson if you want to know who the Philistines were. They were the original occupants of the area and fought the invading Hebrews.

Now whether modern-day Palestinians can actually claim descent from the Philistines of old is just as meaningless and irrelevant a question as whether modern-day Jews are really direct descendants of those polytheistic nomads who, under Father Abraham, came into Palestine from Iraq. It has little bearing on the contemporary situation in the Near East,

Please note: you are probably aware that I am generally allied with you on this one issue of supporting the rights of Israelis against Palestinian terrorism. You'll get no arguments from me on that. But you do our cause no service by muddling generally accepted historical facts.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 12:44 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
Again, according to the Bible --
The Israelites certainly did not arise out of a Canaanite Bronze Age culture.

According to archaeological science though, they did arise from the wreckage after the collapse of Bronze Age Canaan.


Lustig Andrei wrote:
The ancestors of the Israelites, led by Abraham, were native to Mesopotamia, specifically a city called Ur of the Chaldees (that's modern-day Iraq).

Perhaps.

If the story is true, it would be much more realistic that they were the ancestors of the specific Israelites who escaped slavery in Egypt, as opposed to ancestors of all Israelites.

Archaeology would not produce evidence of a single family though, so there is no scientific data for or against the story.


Lustig Andrei wrote:
Read the story of Samson if you want to know who the Philistines were. They were the original occupants of the area and fought the invading Hebrews.

If the story of Samson says that the Philistines were the original inhabitants, that is a good reason to disbelieve the story's accuracy regarding the Philistines.

Bronze Age Canaanite culture isn't something that the archaeologists simply imagined.


Lustig Andrei wrote:
Now whether modern-day Palestinians can actually claim descent from the Philistines of old is just as meaningless and irrelevant a question as whether modern-day Jews are really direct descendants of those polytheistic nomads who, under Father Abraham, came into Palestine from Iraq. It has little bearing on the contemporary situation in the Near East,

The fact that the Israelis are indigenous to the area does give them a certain right to live in their homeland.


Lustig Andrei wrote:
Please note: you are probably aware that I am generally allied with you on this one issue of supporting the rights of Israelis against Palestinian terrorism. You'll get no arguments from me on that. But you do our cause no service by muddling generally accepted historical facts.

What historical fact have I allegedly muddled?
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 12:56 am
oralloy says:
Quote:
The fact that the Israelis are indigenous to the area does give them a certain right to live in their homeland


No, it doesn't. Not two thousand years after theyir ancestors went to live somewhere else. And if you think it does then you have to admit that the Palestinians who are also indigenous have the same rights to the land, and by any reasonable standard have more right, because their ancestors didn't leave. And to repeat, supposed indigeneity is not a basis in international law for who has rights.

Quote:
If the story of Samson says that the Philistines were the original inhabitants, that is a good reason to disbelieve the story's accuracy regarding the Philistines.


So basically you're saying that if the bible can be somehow be made to support your view of history it's true, but if it doesn't support it, it's false. That's cherry picking, oralloy, and it's logically indefensible.In addition of course the bible proudly talks about the genocide committed by the Israelites to construct their teeny tiny state, which you apparently gloss over, while at the same time condemning the Islamic conquest and never even dealing with the Roman conquest at all. If one conquest is all right with you, then the others should logically be too.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 01:38 am
Now this is historic, and a probable bellwether of change. The news on my phone just said that Parliament in the UK voted 274 to 12 to recognize the Palestinian state.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 02:17 am
@MontereyJack,
Here's a bit more detail.

Quote:
MPs have voted in favour of recognising Palestine as a state alongside Israel.

The House of Commons backed the move "as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution" - although less than half of MPs took part in the vote.

The result, 274 to 12, is symbolic but could have international implications.

Ministers abstained on the vote, on a motion put forward by Labour MP Grahame Morris and amended by former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

Middle East Minister Tobias Ellwood said the UK reserved the right to recognise Palestine when it was "appropriate for the peace process".

In 2012 the UN General Assembly voted to upgrade the Palestinians' status to that of "non-member observer state". Some 41 nations - including the UK - abstained.

Current UK government policy is that it "reserves the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace".

'Two-state solution'

During the Commons debate on Monday Mr Morris said recognising Palestine as a state would be a "symbolically important" step towards peace, saying relations between Israelis and Palestinians were "stuck at an impasse".

The full motion stated: "That this House believes that the government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution."

Explaining Labour's support, shadow foreign minister Ian Lucas said it would "strengthen the moderate voices among the Palestinians who want to pursue the path of politics, not the path of violence".

"This is not an alternative to negotiations. It is a bridge for beginning them," he said.

Conservative Nicholas Soames said: "I'm convinced that to recognise Palestine is both morally right and is in our national interest."

Another former foreign secretary, Conservative MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind, said he too wanted to see a two-state solution but added: "Symbolism sometimes has a purpose. It sometimes has a role. But I have to say you do not recognise a state which has not yet got the fundamental ingredients that a state requires if it's going to carry out its international functions and therefore, at the very least, I would respectfully suggest this motion is premature."

It is convention that ministers abstain when voting takes place on a backbench MP's motion and those of both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties did so. It is, however, Lib Dem policy to support recognition of Palestinian statehood.

The government is not bound to do anything as a result of the vote. Mr Ellwood said the timing of when the UK opts to accept Palestinian statehood was "critical", insisting: "You can after all only play this card once."

He added that Israel lived "in a tough neighbourhood" and had the right to defend itself. But he said its recent expansion settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem made it hard for its friends, including the UK, to make the case that it was committed to peace.

Mr Ellwood also said: "Only an end to the occupation will ensure that Palestinian statehood becomes a reality on the ground. The UK will bilaterally recognise a Palestinian state when we judge that it can best help bring about the peace."

The vote comes amid moves elsewhere in Europe to recognise Palestinian statehood officially, more than 100 countries having done so.

Israel says moves to recognise Palestine are premature and undermine efforts to reach a peace settlement between the two sides.

But Palestinian officials say they have been forced to pursue measures including seeking greater recognition internationally because a succession of peace talks has failed.

Labour has twice called on the government - in 2011 and 2012 - to back Palestine's request for official state recognition at the UN.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29596822
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 02:23 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The fact that the Israelis are indigenous to the area does give them a certain right to live in their homeland.

No, it doesn't. Not two thousand years after theyir ancestors went to live somewhere else.

The passage of time does not cause a legitimate owner to lose their claim to property that has been stolen from them.


MontereyJack wrote:
And if you think it does then you have to admit that the Palestinians who are also indigenous have the same rights to the land, and by any reasonable standard have more right, because their ancestors didn't leave.

The Palestinians had endless opportunities to have their own state. All they had to do is make peace with Israel.

It's their own fault that they aren't going to get a state.


MontereyJack wrote:
And to repeat, supposed indigeneity is not a basis in international law for who has rights.

I wonder what the Native Americans think of your ideas.


MontereyJack wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If the story of Samson says that the Philistines were the original inhabitants, that is a good reason to disbelieve the story's accuracy regarding the Philistines.

So basically you're saying that if the bible can be somehow be made to support your view of history it's true, but if it doesn't support it, it's false.

No. I'm saying that any part of the Bible that contradicts science and archaeology should not be accepted as true.


MontereyJack wrote:
That's cherry picking, oralloy, and it's logically indefensible.

I'm content with my adherence to science and archaeology.

You are free to go deny science if you like however. I won't try to stop you.


MontereyJack wrote:
In addition of course the bible proudly talks about the genocide committed by the Israelites to construct their teeny tiny state, which you apparently gloss over,

I don't think anyone has ever raised it before. But since you brought it up, the genocide in question clearly didn't happen.

When the Bronze Age ended, Bronze Age cultures everywhere collapsed. The people continued to live on though, scraping by like Mad Max in the wreckage of their former society. Eventually they formed new societies and cultures, leading to the Iron Age.


MontereyJack wrote:
and never even dealing with the Roman conquest at all. If one conquest is all right with you, then the others should logically be too.

Since you asked, in my view the Romans clearly had no business whatsoever conquering Israel. They should have stayed out of the area and minded their own business.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 02:25 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Now this is historic, and a probable bellwether of change. The news on my phone just said that Parliament in the UK voted 274 to 12 to recognize the Palestinian state.

Yes. It means that Oslo is defunct and Israel is free to forcibly annex everything west of the Security Fence.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/12/2021 at 02:51:39