Bob

Yes I remember someone telling me that the renaming of the Jewish kingdom to "Falastina" was at least in part an insult to the Jewish people. Much the same today! You know, I just went to Wikipedia and saw this "Palestine" article, and the first thing I noticed was how they describe the whole land of Israel, "from the river to sea", as "Palestine". It's so ridiculous. You can always see the political warfare on Wikipedia.

He's somewhat accurate. In the Torah the Torah there is a mention of a nation known as the Plishtim, who lives in the land known as modern-day Gaza (in the Torah and modern Hebrew it is referred to as Aza). Anyways, after the Roman destruction of the Jewish temple in the late 1st century BCE, and subsequent exile of the Jewish people from our lands, the Romans "renamed" our land to Falastina. More recently, "Palestine" was a province of the Ottoman Empire, although I think with different borders. Then we had the British Mandate for Palestine which included all of present-day Israel, the territories, and present-day Jordan. It's such a politicized and empty term, and the Arabs today taking on the name "Palestinians" is just a transparent attempt by them the characterize themselves as the rightful "owners" of a land lost. They're portraying themselves as some sort of deep-rooted people to this land who have been there since antiquity. Sadly, the term is now commonly used, and the automatic associations made by ignorant minds between their modern national namesake and one of the historical names of this land is the Arab objective. The real Palestinians, the Plishtim, are long gone. It's funny how the Arabs are trying to take on a name from a long extinct society. It's transparent political gaming. Anyways, that's what I remember about history without having to run to Google.

Here we are, many pages and posts later, and the goon-squad of dre, Remiel, bud, and GostHacked can't answer a straightforward question - how does the "Palestinian" culture distinguish itself from other Arabs in a meaningful way? If this group of people isn't unique (and it sure as hell isn't!), then why are they entitled to independence and self-determination when their nation already has more states and land than you can shake a stick at? They can reject my supposition that a distinct identity is a necessary prerequisite for being entitled to independence, as they've tried to argue by attacking my question rather than answering it, but none of them can simply concede the point that the "Palestinians" are a recently manufactured national identity - nothing more than a political tool to create the illusion of a distinct nation in limbo. Fine, my question about what distinguishes the "Palestinians" from other Arabs is irrelevant, so why not answer it? Why not concede the point? All they need to do is admit that I'm right about the Palestinians being indistinguishable from other Arabs, while still holding onto some other justification for their nationalistic ambitions (i.e they're currently stateless, so they deserve to form a state upon the lands they currently reside on, as I think dre argued). Maybe Alberta and Ontario, as examples, should become independent states in order to stop funding the have-not provinces. They actually have more of a legitimate claim to independence than the "Palestinians", because they haven't been waging wars and campaigns of terror against Canada, unlike the Arabs against Israel.

All of those countries existed historically. Open up your Torah. The societies/cultures, however, that inhabited those lands, have all but been wiped out by Islamic and Arabic imperialism. Aside from the Jewish people, of course. We're the one exception. Israel is the epitome of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism.

Israel CANNOT assimilate them. Arabs, overall, are not assimilated into Israeli society. They are not loyal citizens to Israel, and reject Israel's foundation as the homeland of the Jewish people. You cannot force an Arab to accept Jewish independence and self-determination in a land that he has believes belongs to his nation. Arabs have a thing called national pride, and you can't wish it away or "assimilate" them. To use the term "assimilate" and "Arabs" in the same sentence with respect to Israel show just how oblivious you are to this situation. They are a fifth column in this country as it is, and there's certainly no way we're going to increase their numbers. Do you not understand that the Arabs view Israel as being born in sin? That they view Israel as a mistake that must be undone? That they have waged war after war against us? That they've been committed to a campaign of terrorism against us since decades before1948? How the hell can we integrate people who are committed to the destruction of Israel? Why the hell should we, anyways? This is our land, not theirs. Let them resolve their statelessness in the neighbouring Arab countries, where no assimilation would be necessary. You obviously fail to ask the most basic of questions - why are they stateless in the first place? What actions brought them to where they are today and perpetuate their statelessness? Why should we give further autonomy to a group of people that has proven time and again that they wish to kill us? The argument that security would be improved is the most idiotic of all. Increasing the autonomy and independence of a group that actively works to kill us will do the exact the opposite. Look what happened after the withdrawal from Gaza, did that bring security? What about the withdrawal from southern Lebanon? If we withdraw from Judea and Samaria we will immediately give them access to every community in Israel, all of Israel will be within the range of their rockets and missiles. How many dead Jews have to be in the ground before our lack of trust in the Arabs is seen as justified? Have they not killed enough of us yet to illustrate their commitment? Are their regular anti-Semitic and anti-Zionistic declarations (across all forms of media - TV, radio, newspapers, as well as textbooks, political statements, etc) not enough to convince you that they mean what they say? With you, reality is turned on its head. Only a delusional person can believe that ceding territory to an enemy that has made its intentions clear - your destruction - is a step towards increased security. The artificial nation you refer to as the "Palestinians" forfeited any right it had to independence and self-determination long ago, when they waged wars and campaigns of terror against Israel in order to destroy us. And they regularly renew their forfeiture with their continued terrorism and political warfare against Israel. Lastly, this idiotic assertion of yours that somehow statehood would make the Arabs more accountable (and I've seen this garbage so many times, it's not even funny) is just that: idiotic. What makes you think Israel can go in with carte blanche to eradicate all these Arabs when they ramp up their terrorism after this hypothetical future Israeli withdrawal? The same team of idiots that you're a part of would be the loudest in decrying Israel for "war crimes" in its self-defense in this situation. We have manufactured outrage anytime terrorists are killed in Gaza (in the post-withdrawal context), and the same thing would happen in the context of an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. And when "civilians" are killed in Gaza, are the terrorists blamed for embedding themselves within the "civilian infrastructure"? No, Israel is blamed and said to either be A. negligent in its military operations or B. intentionally targeting civilians. And here you are, pretending that somehow these political games would cease in the context of a "Palestinian" state. As far as responsibility for the terrorism, that will continue with or without a "Palestinian" state, the political leadership of the Arabs will just claim that it isn't responsible for the rockets and missiles, blame some fringe group, and wash its hands of responsibility - just as they do today and have been doing for many years. And when Israel defends itself, we'll hear the same cries of "war crimes", but this time it'll include allegations of a "war of aggression" and a "violation of sovereignty". It's going to be the same political games, deflection and terrorism 2.0 with you and your ilk carrying the torch. If anything, terrorism waged against Israel from Judea and Samaria that would invariably occur in the context of a "Palestinian" state would be blamed on Israel in one way or another, in the same way you rats do so today. Israel isn't going to allow herself to be placed at greater risk in order to appease the wishes of her enemies to harm her masquerading as an "independence/liberation" movement for the artificial nation known as the "Palestinians".

I say this because of your quick reversal of position, you initally said this in response to DogOnPorch's question about conflicts initiated by Israel - "Sure the whole chain of events that lead to the war in 67 was started by Israel diverting water away from hashemite territory using its national water carrier, and then bombing a similar water diversion project by Lebanon and Syria." You then changed your position in your next post and suggested that "both sides" were equally responsible for the hostilities of the Six-Day War. This is your typical MO. On most discussions about issues related to the Israel-Arab conflict, you draw false moral equivalence between Israel and the Arabs. You do this in order to drag Israel into the same mud that the Arabs play in. That's your schtick. Feel free to elaborate further on your initial assertion that Israel initiated the conflict in the Six-Day War, and please tell us which reputable historians agree with you. I've read three books on this war, from Michael Oren, Tom Segev, and Benny Morris. My recollection of the information in those books doesn't jive with your simplistic assertions.

I get the impression that your knowledge of these events doesn't go any deeper than what Wikipedia has to offer.

I didn't want to ask that question, because I didn't really wanna get into it with him. There are quite a few good books on the events of the Six-Day War, for those interested.

What makes you think you can describe the events of June 1967 outside of the greater context of the Zionist-Arab conflict? Aside from the misrepresentation of events you're spreading here even if we were to examine the events of the Six-Day War in isolation of the broader context, it's dishonest and simplistic to forget that his entire conflict in rooted in widespread Arab rejection of Jewish national rights in Israel.

Ah, so your support for Zionism is quite conditional. Basically, it doesn't bother you if Israel is susceptible to cease its mission of being the Jewish homeland. I would imagine you think the Law of Return, allowing any Jew to make Israel his or her homeland, is discriminatory and unfair? The Law of Return codifies the claim of the Jewish people to this land. I think my characterization of you being anti-Zionistic was accurate. You don't care whether the Jewish people have independence and self-determination.

You support Israel's perseverance as a Jewish state? You support Zionism? Let's see you say that explicitly.

That's fine. It's quite clear that you're trying to obfuscate your true sentiment - anti-Zionism. You don't care about flotilla, or nationalistic claim, or 1967 lines, or anything else. It's all a smoke and mirrors. You oppose Jewish self-determination in Israel. Might as well be honest about it. You came close to revealing that when you implied your disdain for "ethnic nationalism", which was about as close as you would allow yourself to come to openly stating your opposition to Zionism.

That's fine, I expected you to be obstinate and refuse to concede the fallacy that is "Palestinian" nationalism. They even have their own Wikipedia entry! I'll trust the readers of this thread to see how you, bud, and Remiel all refused to answer the simple question - what meaningfully distinguishes the Palestinians from other Arabs towards legitimizing their claims of constituting a unique national identity, and therefore being entitled to national rights? (answer: nothing) Owning homes and properties is quite different than having sovereignty. Moreover, we have many good reasons (thousands of dead Jews and other Israelis) not to trust these Arabs with increased autonomy. As far as I'm concerned, the Arab forfeited any claims to sovereignty over this land when they waged war after war against us. You have no legitimacy to land claims when that land is regularly used as basepoint to wage hostilities against another state. You don't have a right to independence and sovereignty just because you create a flag, a national anthem, and have "observer status" at the UN.

So "acceptance" of a country is now akin to a country's creation? That's quite a feat of mental gymnastics, there. Look bus, in all seriousness, I've wasted more than enough time with you in this thread. There's a reason I ignore your posts, and that reason is being reinforced here. You're not equipped with the knowledge or honesty to debate me on these issues. Go troll someone else, perhaps you can get the attention you crave. I'm not going to feed your bullshit, anymore.

Because they refuse to live in peace with and acknowledge Jewish national rights in Israel. They're committed to violence against us and regularly call for our destruction. That's why they should be allowed to live here. fantasy that the "Palestinians" constitute a group of people who've lived here for centuries is laughable. This land so more turnover, including massive immigration and emigration, than most of the Ottoman Empire. Yes, some of these Arabs have deep roots in this land. Most don't. Who cares? Movement of peoples is a fact of life. And the movement, in this case, is entirely the result of Arab intransigence and machismo. My family has generations of roots in the Ukraine and Russia, that doesn't mean anything. Israel is the land of the Jewish people. Get used to it. A Jewish person living in Toronto who's never been to Israel has more claim to this land than a tenth-generation "Palestinian". It's our country. End of story.

I'm not being dramatic, you're just being stupid. A country isn't a document at the UN headquarters in NYC, which is what you clearly implied. Idiotic statements, which we've all become accustomed to reading from you, such as "international law created Israel" will be challenged. You might as well say "international law" created the USA, or Canada, or any other state.

And again, we have another deflection. You cannot support the facade of a distinct Arab nation known as the "Palestinians", so you create other illusions to support your advocacy for "Palestinian" statehood. It's clear you're unwilling to concede the simple point - that the concept of a "Palestinian" nation is baseless and hollow. If it is an irrelevant question, though, why don't you answer it? Tell us how the "Palestinians" are distinct from other Arabs? Are they or aren't they distinct? Is their validity to their sense of nationalism or isn't there? We have millions of stateless people, and that's a problem? Let's get them citizenship in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

No, it didn't. "International law" passed a resolution (which was rejected by the Arabs). The creation of the country, on the other hand, was done by the Jewish people. "International law" didn't defeat our enemies who wanted to destroy us in our wars. "International law" didn't fight back when the Arabs launched pogroms against us in and outside of Israel. "International law" didn't build schools, roads, farms, courts, an army, and industry. "International law" didn't fundraise and donate money to support the early Yishuv in the decades before 1948. "International law" didn't motivate and inspire the early Zionist pioneers to engage in national rebirth and reclaim our national rights. "International law" did one thing - it passed a document that you can now read on Wikipedia. See, this is how morons like you think - that a document "creates" something in and of itself.

Not that these demographics matter, but they can be changed.

Yes, of course, the "international law" written by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (55 Muslim-majority states that reflexively oppose Israel on all issues) along with their largely allies "non-aligned movement" (another 100-ish states). Of course the Jewish people, who compose a hundredth of a percent of the global population, have a quiet voice in the "international community". "Logic and reality" is just ironic rhetoric from someone like yourself.

Aside from this sentence between a non-sequitor, are you ever going to explain how the "Palestinian" people constitute a distinct nation entitled to self-determination and independence? Or should I just give up and start ignoring your endless deflections?

It would be interesting to see Arab leadership openly state that waging war against Israel in May of 1948 was a mistake. They made a decision to destroy the nascent state of Israel, and rejected the 1947 Partition Plan. Immediately after the war's conclusion, Israel's territory has already expanded by about 30%. The boundaries then expanded again in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in June of 1967. Now, the Arabs are saying they want negotiations for final-status agreements to be based on the 1949 Armistice Lines (referred to as the 1967 lines). If the really meant it, then they'd openly concede in retrospect, that they should have accepted that 194 Partition Plan, which would've given them even more territory than what they say they want today. They'll never make this admission, however, and neither will their supporters. You know why? Because they're opposed to Israel as a Jewish state within ANY BORDERS on this land. Their wars waged to destroy weren't mistakes, they were failures. In other words, the objectives were justified, but there were failures in the execution of their plans. You know, war isn't mini-put-put-golf. You don't get to call a mulligan and get a do-over because you don't like the outcome of the war. This is particularly true when you initiated the wars of aggression. This is what the Arabs are trying to do. They've repeatedly tried to destroy us, they lost territory as a result (we needed to capture it for defensive purposes), and now they want to hit the reset button and start all over again. What makes anyone think we trust these Arabs to not do again what they've never ceased trying to do - destroy us by any means necessary? If they really wanted independence and self-determination (the "Palestinians"), and has reasonable requests, then it'd be no problem. Of course that isn't the case. The make undeliverable demands regarding "settlements", continue to engage in terrorism and coordinate with their terrorist allies, and wage political warfare against us everywhere they ca: the UN, the media, abusing Israel's legal system, all while receiving more aid per capita than any other group of people in the world.

It's our land, and they live here.

There's also the problem of their track record and ongoing rhetoric. They have been a part of every war waged against Israel, and have the blood of thousands of Israeli victims of terrorism on their hands. We have thousands of reasons not to trust them with increased autonomy over land on our doorstep, and those thousands of reasons are in the cemeteries across the land of Israel. As far as I'm concerned, they have no right to independence when their entire existence has been dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Why should we improve their abilities to wage hostilities against us? They want independence? Fine. Let them build their "Palestine" in Jordan. Not here.

It's not a red herring, at all. Just because there are elements of subjectivity to a question doesn't disqualify it. Many things in life that are real and meaningful can't be precisely quantified. I am not surprised that you are joining the team to work to deflect from this most basic question about legitimacy of nationalistic claims to independence and self-determination. The fact that the "Palestinian" people is a meaningless rhetorical weapon that was conceived in the aftermath of the Six-Day War is inconvenient to your political agenda and narrative. They're Arabs, like all the others. They have more than enough land and states, as it is. The world doesn't need another. Your statement boils down to this - since any possible answer to my question will necessarily contain within it elements of subjectivity, it is irrelevant. That's quite a stupid position. The question of what distinguishes the Jewish people, on the other hand, is not a difficult question to answer.