Canada rejects Palestinian Statehood

[Remiel]

So next you are going to be telling us that those nasty Saxons should be giving back all of the terroritory that they stole from the Angles...

As a matter of historical interest, despite the name, the stock the average Englishman comes from is about 60% "native" to the Isles. They are, more or less, exactly where their ancestors belonged.

[Bob]

You support genocide and mass murder of the Palestinians, so you have no interest in seeing a Palestinian nation-state, no matter what it looks like.

Again, not the brightest candle on the menorah... genocide and mass murder, eh?

It's funny how you've displayed hollow outrage at your perception of the "anti-Semite" label being thrown around too loosely by some when countering criticisms of Israeli policies, but look how you completely dodge an obvious point of mine and label me a supporter of such crimes because I corrected your stupidity. You've literally become a caricature of the oblivious anti-Israel fanboy.

[Machjo]

I am telling you if the palestinians are arabs, arabs migrated to the region around 600AD...the jews were exiled from the region around 70AD.

Whether or not a few jews or a few arabs intermarried or converted is irrelevant

It is relevant because that would mean many of those Arabs trace their ancestry to Hebrews.

[M.Dancer]

It is relevant because that would mean many of those Arabs trace their ancestry to Hebrews.

There were very few Jews in the area in 600 AD for the arabs to trace their ancestry to...

[Bob]

There is something to consider here as an aside. One study had found that many Palestinians have many cultural and genetic traits shared between them and Jews, suggesting that while other Jews had chosen to leave Palestine, their ancestors chose to remain and over time adopted Islam.

Remember too that as per Israeli law, to become an Israel citizen you need to prove you're a Jew, not necessarily a Hebrew. Considering that Judaism has always been a proselyte religion, even if less so than Christianity or Islam (though it has always welcomed converts), many Jews imigrating to Israel may be descendants of Jewish converts who have had nothing to do with the land of Israel.

These are just some points to consider, that some Jews may have no historical link to Israel whereas some Palestinians may have links going back to Ancient Israel. The division here is therefore quite rbitrary.

Consider too the weakness of the religious argument. If God gave that land to Jews, converted or not, then he also required them to stone anyone violating any of the ten commandments, right?

Again, just food for thought.

You're trying to make some racial argument, as if race is a consideration when evaluating the legitimacy of national rights in this land. Judaism isn't race, first of all. Neither are "Palestinians". They are cultures. There are Jews with all sorts of hair textures, skin colours, eye colours, eye shapes, and everything else. Although I think these Arabs are slight more ethnically uniform (we're a much much much older nation and been around much more of the world), the genetic diversity among the "Palestinians" is significant. This shouldn't surprise anyone, considering how much traffic of peoples there have been in this land.

Again, this false argument that these Arabs are the "true" people of this land by referring to an unlinked study is just racism. The logical conclusion of your idiotic position is that we should do genetic tests to determine who the "real" inhabitants of this land are. The Jewish people are a distinct nation. We are multiethnic and multiracial. Now, there is somewhat of a genetic component to the Jewish people considering that Jews tended to marry one another which led to certain elements of genetic homogeneity in various Jewish populations - this is why there are quite a few typical "looks" to certain Jewish groups. Still, there are many exceptions, and this can be seen within seconds of walking around Israel and observing the physical diversity of the people. As far as Judaism "always having been a proselyte religion", you're dead wrong. The examples of proselytization in Jewish history are few and far between. Moreover, this suggestion that somehow a Jewish person whose ancestry includes people who converted has less of a claim to this land is pure racism. Aside from the fact that we were ethnically diverse to start with, a Jewish convert is just as Jewish as any other Jew, and has more of a claim to the land of Israel than anyone else. Our claim to this land is primarily one of culture.

I never advanced a religious position, either, so it's clear you're another one of those people who imagines things that weren't said. And spare me your non-existent understanding of religious Jewish law as it relates to capital punishment. Aside form the fact that you don't understand the extremely circumstances under which an execution for a transgression is carried out (as if we were just going around and stoning people nonchalantly in biblical times), it's completely irrelevant to anything we're talking about in this thread.

[Bob]

Chosen?

His whole post was trash, don't forget he implied that "Jews converted to Islam" freely, and as if that was a widespread phenomenon (the Jews were kicked out, too, so it's not like we stayed around to convert to Islam!), and as if contemporary Arabs are the "real" Hebrews. He's literally advancing Islamist talking points. If you go around the Jihadi/anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist/liberal websites and discussion forums, this is exactly the imaginary history they espouse. Not only is it completely false, but it's predicated on pure racism.

[Bob]

The courts of Canada are the only place where such disputes can be resolved.

Exactly. As if the "International Court of Justice" has any legitimacy beyond anti-Western mental masturbation.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

Yes, and settlement of Africa by Europeans was not colonialism, as they were just heading back to their homeland. Give me a break.

You'd have a point if there wasn't an extensive Jewish heritage in Israel. You're basically advancing the standard anti-Semitic rhetoric of the Jewish people not having a claim to Israel, without saying it explicitly. I really expect nothing less from a communist like yourself, keeping with the tradition of the Soviet Union supporting the Arabs/Muslims.

[Remiel]

There were very few Jews in the area in 600 AD for the arabs to trace their ancestry to...

Supposedly a lot of folks from around Nablus have Samaritan ancestry. How much of that is mixed in with Palestinian Arabs in general, who knows.

[Bob]

Many Palestinians gradually integrated into the Arab community, which explains the genetic and cultural similarities that were discovered between them and Jews. Just because they are Arabs today, it doesn't mean their ancestors always were. You're not going to tell me now that their integration into the Arab world therefore denies them the right to their land, are you?

You are so clueless about the history of this place, specifically the changes of populations over time. You really think that the modern day "Palestinians" are the descendants of people who've lived here for thousands of years? You're speaking about things of which you know nothing.

And please, spare us your imaginary commentary about the cultural similarities between Arabs and Jews. Considering you don't know much about either culture, I think we can pass on your "insights" into imagined similarities between us and them.

And yes, them being Arabs absolutely denies them the right, in a national sense, to the land of Israel. This country belongs to the Jewish people, so, naturally, non-Jews will be somewhat excluded in a collective sense. No matter, they've got plenty of other places to live if they wish to actualize their "self-determination". And they don't even need to travel too far to do it!

[Machjo]

You're trying to make some racial argument, as if race is a consideration when evaluating the legitimacy of national rights in this land. Judaism isn't race, first of all. Neither are "Palestinians". They are cultures. There are Jews with all sorts of hair textures, skin colours, eye colours, eye shapes, and everything else. Although I think these Arabs are slight more ethnically uniform (we're a much much much older nation and been around much more of the world), the genetic diversity among the "Palestinians" is significant. This shouldn't surprise anyone, considering how much traffic of peoples there have been in this land.

Again, this false argument that these Arabs are the "true" people of this land by referring to an unlinked study is just racism. The logical conclusion of your idiotic position is that we should do genetic tests to determine who the "real" inhabitants of this land are. The Jewish people are a distinct nation. We are multiethnic and multiracial. Now, there is somewhat of a genetic component to the Jewish people considering that Jews tended to marry one another which led to certain elements of genetic homogeneity in various Jewish populations - this is why there are quite a few typical "looks" to certain Jewish groups. Still, there are many exceptions, and this can be seen within seconds of walking around Israel and observing the physical diversity of the people. As far as Judaism "always having been a proselyte religion", you're dead wrong. The examples of proselytization in Jewish history are few and far between. Moreover, this suggestion that somehow a Jewish person whose ancestry includes people who converted has less of a claim to this land is pure racism. Aside from the fact that we were ethnically diverse to start with, a Jewish convert is just as Jewish as any other Jew, and has more of a claim to the land of Israel than anyone else. Our claim to this land is primarily one of culture.

I never advanced a religious position, either, so it's clear you're another one of those people who imagines things that weren't said. And spare me your non-existent understanding of religious Jewish law as it relates to capital punishment. Aside form the fact that you don't understand the extremely circumstances under which an execution for a transgression is carried out (as if we were just going around and stoning people nonchalantly in biblical times), it's completely irrelevant to anything we're talking about in this thread.

You totally misunderstood my point. I was saying that the argument that the Jews have a prior right to Israel based on history, religion, race, or ancestry does not hold water. I was taking that study of the cultruazl similarities to show that we could use the same argument either way. Based on that, the only legitimate argument for the state of Israel is the legal basis (i.e. that under the British mandate the UN decided to create establish the State of Israel). Seeing that the only basis for its existence is in fact legal and nothing else, therefore any modification of its territory must also be based on international law. Without the UN, Israel would never have come into being. In other words, Israel owes its very existence to the UN. And as such, just as the UN originally had the power to form Israel, it also has the right to define Israel's borders.

Should one deny the UN has the right to define Israel's borders, then we must conclude the UN also never had teh authority to form the state of Israel in the first place, thus making it an illegal state.

ON my part, i do recognize the UN authority to have formed the state of Israel, and so recognize it as a legal state in international law, though its original borders can be disputed seeing that Israel now occupies more land than originally granted to Israel.

[Bob]

And not one single Jew ever converted to Islam, and not one single non-Jew ever converted to the Jewish Faith? Remember that in the beginning, when Moses was on the Mount talking with God, there was no Jew. It could only have come into being via preaching and conversion. Though it has certainly become far less proselyte in the last few centuries or even thousand years, it has always been proselyte in principle in that people have always been free to convert to the Jewish Faith.

So are you telling me that not a single Palestineian is of historical Jewish descent and that each and every single Jew is of Hebrew Descent?

Apparently you don't know what proselytization is, or its relationship with Judaism. We don't actively recruit - that's what proselytization is. If anything, conversion to Judaism is discouraged (you're just fine the way you are, thank you very much). Certainly some non-Jews choose to convert and do so, but it's rare. Of course there are historical exceptions to this rule, where Jewish groups actively sought to convert other groups of people,but they compose a tiny fraction of Jewish heritage.

[Black Dog]

. The Jewish people are a distinct nation. We are multiethnic and multiracial.

Our claim to this land is primarily one of culture.

I'm glad you've put to rest the argument that Israel's right of return is no different than that of any other country which allows descendants of citizens to come back to the land of their forefathers. Unlike most "nations", there's no common language, ethnicity, or historical state to support the Zionist claim to the land. Your argument is that the Jews are special, deserving of special consideration above and beyond that of lesser nations and races.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Black Dog

[Remiel]

You'd have a point if there wasn't an extensive Jewish heritage in Israel. You're basically advancing the standard anti-Semitic rhetoric of the Jewish people not having a claim to Israel, without saying it explicitly.

I never said the Jewish people had no claim to Israel. That would be clearly absurd. I merely repudiate any argument that Jews have the only claim to Israel, and the relevant details are the relative strength of those claims.

I really expect nothing less from a communist like yourself, keeping with the tradition of the Soviet Union supporting the Arabs/Muslims.

I am frankly shocked that you have such contempt for your socialist kibbutznik brethren.

[Machjo]

You are so clueless about the history of this place, specifically the changes of populations over time. You really think that the modern day "Palestinians" are the descendants of people who've lived here for thousands of years? You're speaking about things of which you know nothing.

And please, spare us your imaginary commentary about the cultural similarities between Arabs and Jews. Considering you don't know much about either culture, I think we can pass on your "insights" into imagined similarities between us and them.

And yes, them being Arabs absolutely denies them the right, in a national sense, to the land of Israel. This country belongs to the Jewish people, so, naturally, non-Jews will be somewhat excluded in a collective sense. No matter, they've got plenty of other places to live if they wish to actualize their "self-determination". And they don't even need to travel too far to do it!

Bob. If I went to an Orthodox synagogue, did everything to convert to the Jewish Faith, or at least pretend (I wouldn't even have to be honest about it), got circumcized and all, guess what. I could become an Israeli citizen no problem. Meanwhile, a Palestinian coudn't even though he may very well have ancestors going back to Ancient Israel. Unless the Palestinian converted to the Jewish Faith too of course. So clearly this whole right is based on religious affiliation and not any historicity whatsoever.

[Bob]

You totally misunderstood my point. I was saying that the argument that the Jews have a prior right to Israel based on history, religion, race, or ancestry does not hold water. I was taking that study of the cultruazl similarities to show that we could use the same argument either way. Based on that, the only legitimate argument for the state of Israel is the legal basis (i.e. that under the British mandate the UN decided to create establish the State of Israel). Seeing that the only basis for its existence is in fact legal and nothing else, therefore any modification of its territory must also be based on international law. Without the UN, Israel would never have come into being. In other words, Israel owes its very existence to the UN. And as such, just as the UN originally had the power to form Israel, it also has the right to define Israel's borders.

Should one deny the UN has the right to define Israel's borders, then we must conclude the UN also never had teh authority to form the state of Israel in the first place, thus making it an illegal state.

ON my part, i do recognize the UN authority to have formed the state of Israel, and so recognize it as a legal state in international law, though its original borders can be disputed seeing that Israel now occupies more land than originally granted to Israel.

I cannot waste any more of my time talking to you. If you can't understand that Israel's foundation is the establishment of a state through which the Jewish people can actualize our national rights to independence and self-determination, what's the point? These moronic ideas that the UN "formed" Israel, and "legalities" of the Jewish people seizing our own destiny.... really? You think we're going to accept national suicide because fools like you selectively interpret meaningless "international law"? What do you think this is, something like throwing out evidence in the form of a confession against the accused in a courtroom because he wasn't advised of his rights to silence and an attorney promptly after his arrest?

Like I said - monumentally stupid. Keep on advancing that racist "genetic" argumentation to an unlinked "study" you supposedly read.

[Machjo]

Apparently you don't know what proselytization is, or its relationship with Judaism. We don't actively recruit - that's what proselytization is. If anything, conversion to Judaism is discouraged (you're just fine the way you are, thank you very much). Certainly some non-Jews choose to convert and do so, but it's rare. Of course there are historical exceptions to this rule, where Jewish groups actively sought to convert other groups of people,but they compose a tiny fraction of Jewish heritage.

But you wont' deny that those converts have a right of "return" though a Palestinian with much more history in the land doesn't. Right?

[Bob]

I never said the Jewish people had no claim to Israel. That would be clearly absurd. I merely repudiate any argument that Jews have the only claim to Israel, and the relevant details are the relative strength of those claims.

Nice doubletalk. We're not going to accept "sharing" arrangements which destroy our rights to elf-determination and independence. Shouldn't you be advancing more "genetic" arguments predicated on racism? Telling us who has which right to which lands based on imagined genetic "proofs"?

I am frankly shocked that you have such contempt for your socialist kibbutznik brethren.

What makes you think I hold a Jewish communist in any less contempt than a communist like yourself? If anything, I despise them even more.

[Remiel]

What makes you think I hold a Jewish communist in any less contempt than a communist like yourself? If anything, I despise them even more.

So you are saying you hate Jews?

[Bob]

But you wont' deny that those converts have a right of "return" though a Palestinian with much more history in the land doesn't. Right?

Of course, and I've said it many times before. Any Jew, not the least of which a convert to Judaism, has as much claim to this land than anyone else, including a hypothetical tenth-generation "Palestinian". That's codified in the Law of Return, in a sense. Of course this is hard for you to grasp based on your racist point of departure (imaginary deep-rooted "genetic" connections to land among the Arabs), but like I said, the connection here is cultural, more than anything else - which is inextricable from history.

You obviously have some perverted hang-up with this issue considering your anti-Semitic signature which casts Zionism in a disparaging light. It's always fascinated me how people like yourself, who are so clueless about the very issue they claim to be interested in, can be so ignorant of that very issue.

[Machjo]

So you are saying you hate Jews?

Why are you so worried, Remiel. If you want to receive Israli citizenship, all you have to do is convert, make sure your conversion is officially approved by your local Orthodox Jewish comunity, show up in Israel, request citizenship on arrival, present the proof that you're an "approved Jew" and, Bingo! You're an Israeli citizen. So what are yu so concerned about?

Personally, if I were Hamas, I'd tell all Palestinians to convert to Judaism, get citizenship, and then all convert back.

[Bob]

So you are saying you hate Jews?

I despise sick ideologies, like communism, and I don't act differently if those sick ideologies are advanced from a Goy like yourself or a Jewish person. It makes no difference to me what the source of a despicable perspective is.

You know, this post of yours really demonstrates just how stupid you are. As if I said I "hate Jews". At best, this is a desperate attempt to attack me in a blatant misrepresentation of my own words. Even a below-average intellect would be able to see that I certainly never said anything close to what you're trying to allege I said.

[Shady]

You really aren't the bright, are you?

He's really not. He's a 911 truther, that also think corporations force him to listen to music that he doesn't like.

[Machjo]

Bob, you prove the point of the signature. Ever hear of Jews Against Zionism?

Now I don't agree with them entirely and think they go too far in opposing Israel's right to exist. I can also agree with where they're coming from though. From a Biblical perspective, they argue that since the Messiah has not yet returned, therefore the current state has no legitimacy. Based on that argument, on the assumption of course that the Messiah has not in fact returned, they'd be right.

Since, unlike "Jewis Against Zionism, I based my defense of Israel on international law, I'd therefore argue that since the UN did recognize Israel's pre-1967 borders already, Israel therefore has a right to those borders.

Now my question is, which argument do you use? If religious, then we must first ask if the Messiah has yet returned. And secondly, if he's not yet returned, then on what grounds you defend the state? And even if he had returned to promulgate a Jewish state, then why not stoning for violation of any of the ten commandments too?

And if your argument is on legal grounds, then how do you defend Israel's claim to its post-1967 borders?

I've reveraled my position, which is a more legalistic one(i.e. based on official international recognition of Israel's borders, which is the pre-1967 ones).

So on what grounds do you defend Israel's post-1967 borders if neither on legal nor religious grounds?

Ethnic grounds? If so, then would that not be ethnicist and racist?

"National grounds"? Then define the nation? Based on religion (Has the messiah returned yet)? Ethnicity (not racist)?

Or some other grounds. Before we can continue any rational debate, we furst have to know the basic departure pont, whether religious, ethnic, legal or other on which he bases his argument?

Mine is lega? And your?

[Remiel]

You know, this post of yours really demonstrates just how stupid you are. As if I said I "hate Jews". At best, this is a desperate attempt to attack me in a blatant misrepresentation of my own words. Even a below-average intellect would be able to see that I certainly never said anything close to what you're trying to allege I said.

Well, Bob, it seems you are right for once. You have not said that you hate Jews.

...However, I am not so sure that you have not attributed hatred of Jews to people based on similar logic; that of disliking a certain contingents of Jews.