oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 06:14 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Factually, the Jews and the Palestinians have common ancestors. Genetic studies have proven this.

Yes. Both were part of the same Bronze Age Canaanite civilization.


maxdancona wrote:
They are both the indigenous population of the West Bank and Israel because they are genetically the same race.

Not quite. After the global collapse of Bronze Age civilizations, smaller Iron Age cultures arose from the ashes of Canaanite culture.

The Iron Age culture in the West Bank area was the Israelites. But DNA shows that by the time of the Iron Age, the Palestinians were a separate population from the Jews. This means the Palestinians had to be one of the other Iron Age cultures that arose from the ashes of Canaanite civilization.

Likely candidates for ancestors of the Palestinians are the Ammonites, Edomites, Moabites, or maybe the Phoenicians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kingdoms_around_Israel_830_map.svg

Linguistics indicates that those four groups were all closely related to Bronze Age Canaanites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_languages



Now, this is not to say that the Palestinians have no right to be there today. I would have been fine with the Palestinians accepting 1967 borders back when Israel was peacefully offering it.

But enough is enough. Israel has done more than enough to try to make peace, and it is unreasonable to ask them to do more.

The Palestinians had their chance, and they blew it.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 06:55 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Now, this is not to say that the Palestinians have no right to be there today. I would have been fine with the Palestinians accepting 1967 borders back when Israel was peacefully offering it.

But enough is enough. Israel has done more than enough to try to make peace, and it is unreasonable to ask them to do more.

The Palestinians had their chance, and they blew it.


You clearly have your mind made up, and you have a solid narrative that backs up your beliefs and that you believe justifies your position.

But let me ask you a question... how much is your position based on you understanding of the facts.

If (hypothetically speaking) you honestly looked at the facts and found that you were wrong, and that Israel didn't actually try to make peace... would you change your position?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 07:46 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
You clearly have your mind made up, and you have a solid narrative that backs up your beliefs and that you believe justifies your position.

But let me ask you a question... how much is your position based on you understanding of the facts.

If (hypothetically speaking) you honestly looked at the facts and found that you were wrong, and that Israel didn't actually try to make peace... would you change your position?

Probably.

But I didn't just wake up to this issue yesterday and read a convincing narrative on a website. I've been paying close attention to this issue for many years. Back in 2000 I was actively posting on messageboards about the peace process under Bill Clinton when it was a current event. So I actually remember all the peace offers when Israel made them. And I actually remember all the violence and hate that Israel got as thanks for their peace offers.

I can't imagine how there could possibly be evidence that Israel didn't make the peace offers that I remember them making.


I guess I can soften my hard line slightly though. Israel is not in a place right now where they can pursue yet another round of peace talks (I doubt they would have been too eager for yet another round even if the Left had won the recent elections). But if Israel could be allowed to take a break for awhile, and if the world repudiated all the hate being directed at Israel and everyone openly acknowledged that Israel has been offering fair peace offers all along, I would support an eventual new round of peace talks conducted in an environment where people were not telling horrible lies about Israel.
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 08:03 pm
@oralloy,
That's interesting Oralloy, the offer of peace you are referring to from Camp David was not a very good offer for the Palestinians. The resulting Palestinian state would have been riddled with Israeli settlements that would have made a viable state impossible, and Israel would have remained in control of water rights and airspace.

There was no offer to return to the 1967 borders. It may have been a "return to 1967 border except for these 69 settlements plus and roads and infrastructure we need to support them and except for East Jerusalem and water rights and the airspace". But, with so many exceptions the "1967 borders" aren't really the 1967 borders.

This was more of a demand of capitulation on the part of the Palestinians than a negotiation. The Palestinian state that Israel was offering wasn't even contiguous.

I don't approve of the actions of the Palestinians in response to this... but I also don't think the Israeli claim that they made a fair offer for a viable state is true.

coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 08:27 pm
@maxdancona,
Palestinians got their best offer in 2000-1. Arafat blew it. And could you tell me who led the Palestinians before Arafat?

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 08:34 pm
@coldjoint,
http://able2know.org/topic/269323-18#post-5918026

It is alleged by a historian that Likud never wanted a deal, they want extermination.

Maybe the plan is to make the Palestinians and the rest of the world so miserable that they will be offered a homeland, somewhere else.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 08:53 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
they want extermination.


A lot of people to exterminate. Palestinians are Muslims and there is no shortage.

Also your article is from the Guardian, and they do not like the Jews.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 08:56 pm
@coldjoint,
Do Jewish Oxford professors not like Jews either?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 08:57 pm
@ehBeth,
It was always in the British camp to finally decide where to put the Jews, but there was considerable pressure from the USA . The USA had plans for a war with Britain after WW2, but events brought them a better opportunity to destroy the British Empire with lend lease . Transjordan was created so the British could get to India if other routes were blocked . The USA liked the idea of stopping that route as well as promoting independence of all former colonies .

These colonies of Europe were to be given freedom no matter what the cost to its citizens so the USA could have greater trade opportunities . The USA wanted a money empire and was very successful in doing that . Many of these colonies were simply prestige or coal stations for Naval vessels . They did not have the ability to succeed by themselves as history has shown . The USA found Africa to be a basket case and to have very little trade so they have never fought a war there .

Putting all those Jews with their higher education and trade ability in amongst the Arabs should open up the Middle East . The USA underestimated the violence inherent in Islam .
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 08:59 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Maybe someone can diagram it for you.
Yes please, just so long as your hand is not in it . Crayons dont work on computer screens in quite the way you think .
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 09:01 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Putting all those Jews with their higher education and trade ability in amongst the Arabs should open up the Middle East

Then why did Lebanon end up as the trading bazaar and not Israel?
NSFW (view)
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 09:06 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Maybe the plan is to make the Palestinians and the rest of the world so miserable that they will be offered a homeland, somewhere else.
That is the plan with the refugees in Palestinian Camps . Force the world to move them back and the Israelis out . The Palestinians do have a homeland, it is called Jordan .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 09:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Then why did Lebanon end up as the trading bazaar and not Israel?
An outcome can be quite different from a plan .
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 09:26 pm
Quote:
Soft power, unfortunately, has never counted for much in the Middle East. In the Islamic world, even supreme religious authority, such as that now claimed by "Caliph" Baghdadi of Islamic State, has always rested ultimately on temporal power. The Ottoman caliphate died in 1924 not because of Sykes-Picot or Wilsonian self-determination, but because World War I and the subsequent Greco-Turkish war destroyed the sultan's power and prestige.

The fate of Baghdadi's caliphate, likewise, will depend not on what clever ideas westerners come up with to peel off his Sunni supporters, but on the success or failure of his armies. The borders of tomorrow's Middle East will be settled by force, as they always have been.

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/in-the-mideast-borders-have-always-been-drawn-in-blood-1.10123287

Sean McMeekin, a professor of history at Bard College, is the author of "The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East, 1908-1923," forthcoming in November.

This would mean that Israel wins so long as they can keep Iran from running the table militarily.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 09:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Do Jewish Oxford professors not like Jews either?


There are plenty of self hating Jews.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 10:13 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
Do Jewish Oxford professors not like Jews either?


There are plenty of self hating Jews.


Ya know, about 70% of your content is sound and reasonable.....then you go do crap like this and call names. You are an idiot and/or an asshole the other 30% of the time. This guy no way no how is a self hating jew....you could have figured that out with Google and a minute and change of your time. That would have been the considerate civilized thing to do.

Robert seems to want to improve place....be part of the improvements, please.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 11:32 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You're confusing religious mythology with history.

No I'm not.

Uh-huh


oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
"The Jews" are indigenous to where ever they and especially their ancestors professed the Jewish religion.

They are indigenous to the West Bank region.

Nuh-uh


oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
The originators of Zionist ideology were indigenous to Europe.

They are indigenous to the West Bank region.

Nuh-uh
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 10:01 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
you could have figured that out with Google and a minute and change of your time.



Quote:
He is a regular contributor to The Guardian newspaper, and signed an op
Quote:
en letter to that paper in January 2009 condemning Israel's role in the Gaza War.[8]


He condemns Israel for defending itself?

Quote:
]Josef Heller and Yehoshua Porath have stated that Shlaim "misleads his readers with arguments that Israel had missed the opportunity for peace while the Arabs are strictly peace seekers".[9][10]

You believe that?

Quote:
In a 2012 article in the academic journal Shofar, Shai Afsai criticised Shlaim for repeating a story "The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man," for which Afsai could not trace an original source, in his 2001 book The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World.[11]

According to Gelber, Shlaim's claim that there was a deliberate and pre-meditated anti-Palestinian “collusion” between the Jewish Agency and King Abdullah, is unequivocally refuted by the documentary evidence on the development of contacts between Israel and Jordan before, during and after the war.[12] Marc Lynch however wrote that "the voluminous evidence in [Gelber's] book does not allow so conclusive a verdict".[13]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi_Shlaim
That from your own source. If he doesn't hate Israel, he sure doesn't like them.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 05:10 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh

Your hateful lies are the reason why the Palestinians will never have 1967 borders.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dear Israel,
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/29/2023 at 05:52:43