Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[Carolina Red]

Next time the Arabs start yet another genocidal war against the Jews perhaps they should ask Sweden to help relocate the refugee's in case they lose again.

Excuse me?

 

[Carolina Red]

So why is the Al-Asqa mosque on top of Judaism's holiest site and not underneath it then?

Because the Romans tore the temple down. Duh.

 

[Fearless]

Because the Romans tore the temple down. Duh.

Whose temple? And why didn't the mosque fall down at the same time?

 

[Amir]

And Netanyahu wins again, as the new govenment that was about to overthrow him falls through.

 

[Giggs86]

I dont know how you think, your logic is Trump-like, but Sweds wrote these laws with their own hands because they believe in humanity and equality, money comes after that, I dont expect someone like you to understand that.

Cool. I guess some are ok with giving 50% of their income to the government.

 

[Fearless]

And Netanyahu wins again, as the new govenment that was about to overthrow him falls through.

And Abbas wins again, as the new govenment that was about to overthrow him falls through

 

[owlo]

Yeah, you nailed it.

I don't know who is having more of a rough time in this thread. @MacabbiUnited , @Giggs86 or @owlo .

?

 

[zing]

Can someone please recommend a good book on the history of the conflict?

 

[sun_tzu]

And Abbas wins again, as the new govenment that was about to overthrow him falls through

The should stick netenyahu and abbas in a ring and tell them it's a winner take all fight... then just dump a ton of concrete on the ring and fling it in the ocean

If there is going to be a peaceful solution I don't see it involving them

 

[calodo2003]

?

One of the three is definitely not like the other in my opinion.

 

[Giggs86]

I quite clearly didn’t say you did. Just reiterating the ridiculousness that is Israeli domestic policy.

Yes, because Israel in its core is a Jewish state first, democratic state second. That's why there is no point to debate on that issue because fundamentally Israel's 'democracy' is different to the the other western democracies we are familiar with.

 

[Giggsyking]

Cool. I guess some are ok with giving 50% of their income to the government.

It is off topic, but I will answer again. Nobody gives 50%. And even so, people gladly do that because they believe in a functioning society. Why is it difficult to understand?

 

[Fearless]

Can someone please recommend a good book on the history of the conflict?
[/QUOTE]

The Bible and the Quran are good starters.

 

[Foxbatt]

The should stick netenyahu and abbas in a ring and tell them it's a winner take all fight... then just dump a ton of concrete on the ring and fling it in the ocean

If there is going to be a peaceful solution I don't see it involving them

They are the biggest part of the problem. Abbas is kept in place by the Israelis. The Palestinians do not like him. He has delayed the election since Hamas got elected. The Israelis have jailed the only credible opposition to Abu Mazin.

 

[Foxbatt]

Yes, because Israel in its core is a Jewish state first, democratic state second. That's why there is no point to debate on that issue because fundamentally Israel's 'democracy' is different to the the other western democracies we are familiar with.

A bit like Russia and China eh?

 

[Fearless]

A bit like Russia and China eh?

Err...no. Israel has more political parties than both of those put together. Including Arab ones.

 

[Giggs86]

A bit like Russia and China eh?

Don't think so. Israel's 'democracy' is unique.

 

[Giggs86]

It is off topic, but I will answer again. Nobody gives 50%. And even so, people gladly do that because they believe in a functioning society. Why is it difficult to understand?

What is difficult to understand is that people 'gladly' give 50% of their paycheck to the government.

 

[Giggsyking]

What is difficult to understand is that people 'gladly' give 50% of their paycheck to the government.

It does not go to the government, it goes to their own pensions, their free high quality schools, free high quality medical care. It goes to their right to stay at home with your sick child and get paid to take care of your own sick child. It goes to the right to take 1.5 year paid parent leave. It goes for free education. The list goes on. I was not wrong, you do have difficulty understanding it. Feel free to ask more to let me enlighten you.

 

[calodo2003]

It does not go to the government, it goes to their own pensions, their free high quality schools, free high quality medical care. It goes to their right to stay at home with your sick child and get paid to take care of your own sick child. It goes to the right to take 1.5 year paid parent leave. It goes for free education. The list goes on. I was not wrong, you do have difficulty understanding it. Feel free to ask more to let me enlighten you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but that’s all socialist bullshit.

 

[Cheimoon]

In respond to statements like this I always hear from Zionists that Jewish people are the oldest ancestors of the land and therefore they deserve to live there. I then remembered that Jewish people were removed from Eygpt and migrated to the land that is now Israel, so surely there must have been someone living there already when they went there? I couldn't have been that the land was completely uninhabited when they arrived.

I started reading and watching up on Canaanites, who were the people living in that area (including parts of what is now Jordan, Syria and Lebanon). In the Bible it's mentioned though that the Israelites wiped out all the Canaanites, killing everyone including mothers and their children (ironic when you realize their whole claim to this land is based on a genocide and they complain about Arabs wanting to do that to them to get that land back).

Actually, Canaanites were not exterminated and their DNA has been found in people currently living throught that region, from Jewish people currently in Israel to Arabs from surrounding countries as well (93% of Lebanese DNA matches with Canaanite DNA). Therefore, their whole claim of being the oldest anchestors of that land is completely bogus and therefore Arabs have as much right to that land as Zionists believe they do.

Correct - the original Palestinians were the Jews after the Romans rebranded Judea as Palestine.
The word Palestine is from the word Philistine.....who were from Crete.

I am not really interested in joining the rest of the discussion, but on roots in ancient history - that's a total mess where no-one can claim anything reliably. As as a first step, though, it's a good idea to pretty much dismiss the Old Testament as a historical source. For starters, the exodus from Egypt has no basis in other evidence and likely never happened. There is also no major break in inhabitation in the wider area of Israel/Palestine before the first millennium BCE, be it massive invasions, replacements, or departures. So basically you have a pretty much constant habitation in the area, with an influx of migrants at some points in time, but nothing that would have completely altered the demographic make-up of the area.

(On the later point: you get the Sea Peoples entering the area in the 12th century BCE, including a group called the 'Peleset' by the Egyptians, where properly the later Greek name 'Philistines' comes from, which leads to 'Palestines' in Latin, and then 'Palestina'. It's not clear where the Peleset came from, although their material culture provides links with the Mycenaean culture of mainland Greece. But while archaeologists previsouly thought that the Peleset replaced the so-called Canaanites that were living in the area previously, they now think the Peleset rather mingled in, as also evidenced by their distinct material culture disappearing very quickly, pointing to a process of acculturation in which the Peleset immigrants were basically absorbed by the Canaanite population.)

So - a but of an historical mess, but mostly continuity, and (with @hasanejaz88 and @calodo2003) certainly not a place where you can find arguments for who most 'belongs' in the area.

 

[Flamingo Purple]

Can someone please recommend a good book on the history of the conflict?

For an overview of the area generally Black Wave by BBC reporter Kim Ghattas is very good. There's not a focus on Palestine-Israel but it does help understand the different interests in the region.

 

[2cents]

Can someone please recommend a good book on the history of the conflict?

I can recommend dozens covering most specific topics, but these are typically the type I’d recommend to anyone properly approaching the topic for the first time:

I think as a general history, Righteous Victims by Benny Morris (published just before his infamous political turn to the right) manages to hit the right notes.

The next two are a bit more scholarly:

On the development of Zionist thought, The Making of Modern Zionism by Shlomo Avineri guides the reader through the various forms Zionism took in its early years. The introduction stands alone as a really good explanation for the appeal of Zionism to late 19th/early 20th Jews.

Palestinian Identity by Rashid Khalidi is probably the most authoritative work on the development of Palestinian National consciousness.

Two good memoirs to consider from either side - Once Upon a Country by Sari Nusseibeh and A Tale of Love and Darkness by Amos Oz.

Two explicitly partisan explanations of each sides’ respective narrative - The Question of Palestine by Edward Said and Right to Exist by Yaacov Lozowick.

 

[zing]

For an overview of the area generally Black Wave by BBC reporter Kim Ghattas is very good. There's not a focus on Palestine-Israel but it does help understand the different interests in the region.

I can recommend dozens covering most specific topics, but these are typically the type I’d recommend to anyone properly approaching the topic for the first time:

I think as a general history, Righteous Victims by Benny Morris (published just before his infamous political turn to the right) manages to hit the right notes.

The next two are a bit more scholarly:

On the development of Zionist thought, The Making of Modern Zionism by Shlomo Avineri guides the reader through the various forms Zionism took in its early years. The introduction stands alone as a really good explanation for the appeal of Zionism to late 19th/early 20th Jews.

Palestinian Identity by Rashid Khalidi is probably the most authoritative work on the development of Palestinian National consciousness.

Two good memoirs to consider from either side - Once Upon a Country by Sari Nusseibeh and A Tale of Love and Darkness by Amos Oz.

Two explicitly partisan explanations of each sides’ respective narrative - The Question of Palestine by Edward Said and Right to Exist by Yaacov Lozowick.

Thank you.

 

[Foxbatt]

Don't think so. Israel's 'democracy' is unique.

A bit like South Africa before 1994 I guess.

 

[Fearless]

I am not really interested in joining the rest of the discussion, but on roots in ancient history - that's a total mess where no-one can claim anything reliably. As as a first step, though, it's a good idea to pretty much dismiss the Old Testament as a historical source. For starters, the exodus from Egypt has no basis in other evidence and likely never happened. There is also no major break in inhabitation in the wider area of Israel/Palestine before the first millennium BCE, be it massive invasions, replacements, or departures. So basically you have a pretty much constant habitation in the area, with an influx of migrants at some points in time, but nothing that would have completely altered the demographic make-up of the area.

(On the later point: you get the Sea Peoples entering the area in the 12th century BCE, including a group called the 'Peleset' by the Egyptians, where properly the later Greek name 'Philistines' comes from, which leads to 'Palestines' in Latin, and then 'Palestina'. It's not clear where the Peleset came from, although their material culture provides links with the Mycenaean culture of mainland Greece. But while archaeologists previsouly thought that the Peleset replaced the so-called Canaanites that were living in the area previously, they now think the Peleset rather mingled in, as also evidenced by their distinct material culture disappearing very quickly, pointing to a process of acculturation in which the Peleset immigrants were basically absorbed by the Canaanite population.)

So - a but of an historical mess, but mostly continuity, and (with @hasanejaz88 and @calodo2003) certainly not a place where you can find arguments for who most 'belongs' in the area.

Regardless, the oldest living traceable constant thats still around today are the Jews. Whether you accept the Bible/Quran or not, they didn't appear in it by accident or some crazy typo.

 

[Cheimoon]

Regardless, the oldest living traceable constant thats still around today are the Jews. Whether you accept the Bible/Quran or not, they didn't appear in it by accident or some crazy typo.

I don't accept either as a reliable historical source. Also, just because Islam did not exist before Muhammad does not mean that the people who become Muslims didn't already live in the area - just as not everyone living in the area in biblical times was a Jew. It's a false equivalency you're drawing here.

 

[Fearless]

I don't accept either as a reliable historical source. Also, just because Islam did not exist before Muhammad does not mean that the people who become Muslims didn't already live in the area - just as not everyone living in the area in biblical times was a Jew. It's a false equivalency you're drawing here.

Not at all. I agree with you. But the fact still remains that the Jews are the longest identifiable constant.

 

[Suv666]

Who cares about DNA and who lived where a billion years ago. Dont treat people you dont agree with like second class citizens

 

[oates]

Regardless, the oldest living traceable constant thats still around today are the Jews. Whether you accept the Bible/Quran or not, they didn't appear in it by accident or some crazy typo.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...m-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews

 

[Fearless]

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...m-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews

I agree - which is why it's so sad the Arabs repeatedly tried to destroy us.

 

[Fearless]

Who cares about DNA and who lived where a billion years ago. Dont treat people you dont agree with like second class citizens

Irony.

 

[oates]

I agree - which is why it's so sad the Arabs repeatedly tried to destroy us.

Which has nothing to do with your previous claims. Interesting that this stuff is just out there in abundance. Fascinating.

 

[Carolina Red]

Yes, because Israel in its core is a Jewish state first, democratic state second. That's why there is no point to debate on that issue because fundamentally Israel's 'democracy' is different to the the other western democracies we are familiar with.

You realize what that sounds like, right?

 

[Fearless]

Which has nothing to do with your previous claims. Interesting that this stuff is just out there in abundance. Fascinating.

Not at all. Jews are the longest identifiable constant. The Canaanites would be but they're gone.

 

[Cheimoon]

Not at all. I agree with you. But the fact still remains that the Jews are the longest identifiable constant.

I don't know why you'd say that. As I said, there were people living in the area before anyone called themselves a Jew, and there aren't major disruptions that I'm aware of, that either depopulated the area or replaced it with another population group entirely. There is thus some level of continuous inhabitation in the area from the third millennium BCE until now, and the Jews as a group come into the picture only in the first millennium BCE. So I'd rather say it's a continuous inhabitation with various comings and goings and lots of developments in religious and other sociocultural identities - with the current inhabitation just being the latest instance of that.

Edit: I would also agree that historical claims should have limited bearing on modern population. I mean, the descendants of the pre-Columbine peoples in the Americas have a strong point that their lives and lands have been stolen from them and that this needs to be addressed, but in most places, history is just too messy and convoluted (or simply unclear) to be able to make that argument.

 

[Fearless]

I don't know why you'd say that. As I said, there were people living in the area before anyone called themselves a Jew, and there aren't major disruptions that I'm aware of, that either depopulated the area or replaced it with another population group entirely. There is thus some level of continuous inhabitation in the area from the third millennium BCE until now, and the Jews as a group come into the picture only in the first millennium BCE. So I'd rather say it's a continuous inhabitation with various comings and goings and lots of developments in religious and other sociocultural identities - with the current inhabitation just being the latest instance of that.

So where do we disagree? What other present day group can show the same credentials?

 

[oates]

Not at all. Jews are the longest identifiable constant. The Canaanites would be but they're gone.

Genetically speaking as a related people you all were, you both just branched apart faith-wise.

I can't say I wasn't warned, I hope you're not insulted when I say that a Box of Frogs is going to be my best partial descriptor for you. I'm now going to do the adult version of putting you on 'Ignore'.

 

[Cheimoon]

So where do we disagree?

In that it matters for current land claims.

 

[Foxbatt]

The coalition against Netanyahu has collapsed.