@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:Oralloy is also very chummy with Krumple,
No more than I am with most other people on a2k.
Of course, "being polite and respectful to other people" is probably not something you can really understand.
izzythepush wrote:Krumple, who although not denying the Holocaust outright questions the extent of it, which is almost as bad in my book.
My guess is you are lying about him just like you lie about me and everyone else. That's all you ever do, lie and attack people.
izzythepush wrote:The indigenous Jewish population in Israel are the Sephardic Jews, and they get treated pretty badly by the European/American colonists too.
All Jews are indigenous to the West Bank area. It is their rightful homeland.
In 132 CE, Jews rose up against the Romans because Hadrian had changed the name of Jerusalem. That rebellion was crushed in 135, the province was reorganized as Syria-Palestina, and most of the Jewish population was expelled. After other, more minor insurrections, almost all of the remaining population of Jews was expelled in about 160 CE. The majority of "Jews" living in Palestine at that time were, in fact, Aramaeans, who were confessional Jews rather than ethnic Jews. Some ethnic Jews filtered back, especially after the establishment of the Sassanid or Neo-Persian empire, which ruled in Palestine from the mid-third to the mid-seventh centuries. The majority of the population were Hellenic christians, Aramaeans who were confessional Jews, and some Persians who were, in the eyes of christians and Jews, pagans. The Muslim invasion took place in the mid-seventh century, and ended with the fall of the Sassanid empire in 651 CE. Persia itself was overrun by the great Holy Warrior, Ali, first cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, as well as the founder of Shia, considered the first imam by Shi'ites. The population then included a large amount of Arabs who came in the wake of the conquest. After the Seljuk conquest of the middle east, there was a small but important population of Turks in Palestine. The arrival of the so-called Mongols had little impact on the region, as the death of Ogedie Khan (son of Temujin, Genghis Khan) lead the Mongol commanders to hurry back east to dispute the succession in about 1240 CE. Those are the population antecedents of modern Palestine, and it was only in the 1890s that large numbers of European Jews began to settle in Palestine, then controlled by the Turks.
The proposition that Jews are the indiginous population west of the Jordan River, but that Arabs are not, is a self-serving, propagandistic load of old bullsh*t. Oralloy makes such statements as though from authority, but I know of no authority which he possesses. He does not provide links to reliable information--which is why I rarely link information in response to the horse sh*t he posts. In my post which he is attempting to dispute, I provided a link to the text of GA Resolution 181 in November, 1947, and to a map at the Jewish Virtual Library showing the outrageous land claims of the Zionists. I am content with that, and don't intend to waste any more time on Oralloy's self-serving bullsh*t.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:The proposition that Jews are the indiginous population west of the Jordan River, but that Arabs are not, is a self-serving, propagandistic load of old bullsh*t.
Nope. History and archaeology both strongly show that the West Bank area is the ancient homeland of the Jews.
Setanta wrote:Oralloy makes such statements as though from authority, but I know of no authority which he possesses. He does not provide links to reliable information
Nonsense. I always provide cites to reliable information upon request. Slandering me because you dislike the facts that I post is shameful behavior.
Setanta wrote:--which is why I rarely link information in response
The reason why you rarely provide links that contradict me is because you can't. There are no reliable sources that contradict me.
Setanta wrote:to the horse sh*t he posts.
I note your inability to point out any facts that I am wrong about.
Setanta wrote:In my post which he is attempting to dispute, I provided a link to the text of GA Resolution 181 in November, 1947, and to a map at the Jewish Virtual Library showing the outrageous land claims of the Zionists. I am content with that, and don't intend to waste any more time
In other words, you can't find any links that contradict my facts, and you are hoping to fool people into falsely believing that your existing links contradict me when they do nothing of the sort.
Setanta wrote:on Oralloy's self-serving bullsh*t.
Your dislike of reality and facts does not make reality and facts bullsh*t.
@InfraBlue,
The really nice thing about reality is, when you insist that reality isn't true, reality ignores you and keeps on being true.
@InfraBlue,
I think your reply just shot over his head.
@izzythepush,
You must have been really desperate to say something mean and childish, and yet could not come up with anything noteworthy.
@oralloy,
Quote:Nope. History and archaeology both strongly show that the West Bank area is the ancient homeland of the Jews.
Nope. Genetic research only shows that closely-related Semitic people (the ancient Canaanites) lived in the area. These populations later diverged into Jewish, Palestinian, Syrian, and other middle-eastern peoples. Jews have no exclusive claim to the West Bank area.
@hightor,
hightor wrote:Nope. Genetic research only shows that closely-related Semitic people (the ancient Canaanites) lived in the area. These populations later diverged into Jewish, Palestinian, Syrian, and other middle-eastern peoples.
That is incorrect. Bronze Age Canaanites lived in the entire area of Palestine. When Canaanite society collapsed at the end of the Bronze Age, that unified culture split up into a series of smaller Iron Age cultures.
The Iron Age culture that formed in the West Bank area became the Jews. Non-Jewish descendants of the Canaanites were part of other Iron Age cultures that arose in a part of Palestine
other than the West Bank area.
hightor wrote:Jews have no exclusive claim to the West Bank area.
History and Archaeology clearly show that the only Iron Age kingdoms in the West Bank area were Judah and the northern Israelite kingdom. They don't record any other cultures living in the West Bank area.
@hightor,
The claim is political, and polemical--it is not scientific nor historical. It is a strong underpinning argument of Zionism, that somehow ancient tenancy (and even that is not supported) justifies any actions to "take back" the land.
Years ago, in a thread started by RG, the founder of this site, I posted a more detailed map of the proposed Palestine of the WZO, which was submitted to the Paris Peace Conference. That map came from the Jewish Virtual Library, but is no longer available there. That map shows that the WZO was attempting to claim the land upon which the only existing railroads at that time were located. In effect, it was a claim for all of the infrastructure of Palestine. It shows the cynical attitude of the WZO in its attempt to create a state of Israel which was positioned to dominate the region.
The problem that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians represents for peace in the region is a direct result of the domination of Palestine by the Zionists, both before 1947 and since that time.
@oralloy,
Quote:History and Archaeology clearly show that the only Iron Age kingdoms in the West Bank area were Judah and the northern Israelite kingdom. They don't record any other cultures living in the West Bank area.
But how does this establish any contemporary "right" to the territory? Those Hebrew kingdoms have long ceased to exist.
It was also curious, though little noticed, that right after signing the proclamation recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Mr. Trump also signed the national security waiver enabling him to avoid moving the U.S. embassy to the city for another six months. Since the campaign promise he made was to move the embassy, the waiver seemed to contradict his claim of standing by his word. Moreover, senior aides said it would take years to build an embassy in Jerusalem, possibly requiring the president to sign many further waivers.
Mr. Trump could have ordered his ambassador in Israel to move his office and top staff immediately to a recently completed U.S. consular facility in west Jerusalem. That would have satisfied the requirements of the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act that mandated the embassy move, avoided any of its sanctions, and enabled Mr. Trump to claim that he had fulfilled his campaign promise.
The fact that he did not do so is consistent with another strange feature of Mr. Trump’s announcement. To any reasonable observer, the move was not an act that would facilitate peacemaking since it was bound to elicit sharp criticism and potentially violent protest from the Palestinians and their supporters in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Yet Mr. Trump went to great pains to claim that it was designed to advance the peace process and that it did not in any way reflect “a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement.”
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/12/08/donald-trumps-jerusalem-move-may-prove-too-clever-by-half/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=fp
@hightor,
hightor wrote:But how does this establish any contemporary "right" to the territory? Those Hebrew kingdoms have long ceased to exist.
Today's world would look very different if all those "Iron Age kingdoms" would be re-installed.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:The claim is political, and polemical--it is not scientific nor historical. It is a strong underpinning argument of Zionism, that somehow ancient tenancy (and even that is not supported) justifies any actions to "take back" the land.
History and archaeology strongly support the reality that the Jews are the indigenous people of the West Bank area.
@hightor,
hightor wrote:But how does this establish any contemporary "right" to the territory? Those Hebrew kingdoms have long ceased to exist.
I just use the principle that indigenous people have the right to live in their ancient homeland.
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:Today's world would look very different if all those "Iron Age kingdoms" would be re-installed.
Perhaps Israel
is the modern re-installation of those two kingdoms.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
hightor wrote:But how does this establish any contemporary "right" to the territory? Those Hebrew kingdoms have long ceased to exist.
I just use the principle that indigenous people have the right to live in their ancient homeland.
The Ashkenazim, from whom the Zionists arose, are largely a European people. Europeans are not indigenous to Palestine. You're conflating religious profession with indigenity. This conflation, in turn, is based on religious mythology.
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:The Ashkenazim, from whom the Zionists arose, are largely a European people.
Only because they were forced out of their homeland against their will.
InfraBlue wrote:Europeans are not indigenous to Palestine.
Most aren't. The Jews are.
InfraBlue wrote:You're conflating religious profession with indigenity.
The indigenous population identifies themselves based on their religion.
InfraBlue wrote:This conflation, in turn, is based on religious mythology.
No. I base it on historical facts.
@hightor,
hightor wrote:But how does this establish any contemporary "right" to the territory? Those Hebrew kingdoms have long ceased to exist.
By the way, I'm not using the fact of Jewish indigenousness to argue that they should possess all of the land. I merely defend their indigenous status because it is the truth.
My argument against the Palestinians is based entirely on the fact that Israel has made a fair peace offer over and over and over again, and the only thing Israel has to show for their trouble is people making outrageous denials of these peace offers. At some point Israel has the right to say they've tried diplomacy, now it is time for military force. We've reached that point.
