[ebuddy]

What I've learned from this thread;

Some Jews are white people and the white Jews are imperialist and evil and as such, have no right to live in Israel. The tan ones we must separate and run comprehensive DNA on them to make sure there wasn't any "race-mixing" like back in the days of slavery due to some politicians that found black women attractive. Jews have broken laws. So... they should be rounded up and shipped out. Wait a minute, maybe it's possible no friggin' point has been made here at all! Shocked as always.

In order to save this ever-ailing thread, I will wrap this up neatly.

Stop fighting over a plot of land the size of New Jersey to bolster a well-documented, bogus religious claim from the 60's when your brethren literally flank the region 360 degrees. It's really quite simple.

Don't like that idea? Okay, but war is hell. It's hell on white Jews and it's hell on dark Jews and it's hell on dark Arabs and mixed Arabs. It will eventually be everyone's hell until we recognize that life is full of loss and gain. Land was taken from Jews and Jews have taken it back. They want to worship as they please somewhere peacefully in the Middle East and I can't personally think of a smaller plot of land to give them this freedom. They have it now and a metric butt-ton of weaponry to ensure they keep it. Yeah, life's unfair. It's unfair to the Cherokee who had their land ripped away by the evil white man and it was unfair to the Wichita who had it ripped away from the evil Cherokee.

You don't have to like it so long as you like war less. Period. End of story.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yes, I do equate land rights with religious affiliation because God's eternal grant of the land to the nation He chose and our control of that land is a salient feature of Judaism. You, on the other hand, equate land rights with the random, meaningless distinction of skin color. I have absolutely no appreciation for your choice, and you have no appreciation for mine. Perhaps we need to let the conversation end there.

Yes, please do.


Although I do find your God-as-real-estate-purveyor line of thinking quite entertaining: "Jews have to live on that land because God promised it to them". Do you think other cultural and/or religious groups should be allowed to use that same line of reasoning for taking over land that was once theirs but was lost? Or do you think that only applies to the Jewish people?

How about the San people (Bushmen) of southern Africa? Should they be able to go into Botswana and South Africa and re-take large swaths of land taken from them recently because it had been their ancestral land for millennia?

Or what bout the Hmong people of Southeast Asia? Should they be allowed to re-claim the bulk of their ancestral homeland in southern China that was taken from them by the imperial Chinese government, followed by the Communist Chinese government?

Or what about or the Ainu people of northern Japan? Should they be allowed to re-claim their ancestral homelands in Hokkaido that were lost to the cnetralized governments of monarchial, feudal Japan?

And finally, what *about* the Native Americans in North America pre-contact? You have mentioned them several times but in an off-hand way even expressing doubts as to the numbers of them that were here prior to contact. Should they be allowed to re-claim all of the Americas that was theirs before the arrival of Europeans?


So, I ask of you: Do you think any of these qualify to go back to their original lands and re-claim based solely on the fact that it was theirs in the past or that it might have been promised to them by some deity? If so, why? If not, why not? Why should their assertions to re-claim their land be less valid than that of the Jewish people to the land of Israel?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Your analogy fails because the land in question is eternally Jewish, and the Jewish people merely returned home to claim it. The Arabs were not the original inhabitants, and in addition most of them were not there for centuries. Plus, as I said, there are no Canaanites around – in fact all the other empires in the region died out and only Israel was left - which means the Jewish people are the earliest rightful holders of the land in existence.

I should have read the rest of your post before submitting my previous reply. You already answered my questions about the whether or not you support a people having the right to return to a land that was formerly theirs but was taken from them. You support it. Good.

I hope I can count on your support then in advocating for the return of lost tribal lands to the San people of southern Africa. They *have* been living in one place continuously for several thousand years--no diaspora for them--but have been losing their land to colonisers (in the 19th century) and fellow Africans (in the 20th and 21st centuries). If anyone can make a claim to re-gaining land lost it is the San. They have never left; they have simply been squeezed into smaller and smaller areas of land to call their own. So, thanks in advance for your help in advocating for the reclamation of their land. I know you will support wholeheartedly this endeavour as you make it quite clear that those people who are the "earliest rightful owners of the land" should be allowed to re-claim it. And that is the case with the San, without a doubt.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I hope I can count on your support then in advocating for the return of lost tribal lands to the San people of southern Africa. They *have* been living in one place continuously for several thousand years--no diaspora for them--but have been losing their land to colonisers (in the 19th century) and fellow Africans (in the 20th and 21st centuries). If anyone can make a claim to re-gaining land lost it is the San. They have never left; they have simply been squeezed into smaller and smaller areas of land to call their own. So, thanks in advance for your help in advocating for the reclamation of their land. I know you will support wholeheartedly this endeavour as you make it quite clear that those people who are the "earliest rightful owners of the land" should be allowed to re-claim it. And that is the case with the San, without a doubt.

I'd have to research the topic for myself, but based on what you've described I would support the San's bid to reclaim their land.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have the same interest you have, Hawkeye. However, neither the United States nor Israel has any policy of targeting civilians. Too often civilians get hurt when Israel targets terrorists, but that's the unfortunate byproduct of the cowardice of terrorists and of the deliberate tactics they use. They hide within civilian population centers and within homes, launching their attacks from there so that the civilians can provide cover for them. Then, when civilians are injured or killed by Israel's legitimate reprisals, the propaganda machine starts up for another dogpile condemnation of the Jews. That's just what happened in Lebanon last summer. There's no way to fight a completely clean war with a terrorist force. Organized military powers have to operate by rules, while there are no restrictions recognized by terrorists. I know you probably realize all of this - I am also writing it for the benefit of the intellectually and morally challenged.

Thats what i meant . the message probably got lost in my ramblings, but yeah thast exactly my view as well.

When "civilians" form human shields, harbour militants or otherwise, they should no longer be classified as civilians.

[Kevin]

It boils down to this. Palistinianians want to live in Israel among the Israelis.

Why? So they can vote them out of power with their numbers, take control and make the Jews 2nd class citizens so they will eventually all leave. Like they did before. Like they have been doing for centuries.

This is their stated goal.

Who here supports this? And if you don't, what should we do about it?

(PS it doesn't matter what YOU think Israel should do for peace, it's irrelevant. This is what the guys attacking Israel wants. )

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Yes, please do.

You want him to end the conversation so you can continue asking questions that beg his reply?

Although I do find your God-as-real-estate-purveyor line of thinking quite entertaining: "Jews have to live on that land because God promised it to them".

I'm not hearing an argument from the Palestinians that sounds very much different. Are you equally entertained by their stated religious rights?

Do you think other cultural and/or religious groups should be allowed to use that same line of reasoning for taking over land that was once theirs but was lost? Or do you think that only applies to the Jewish people?

It applies to any peoples willing to travel and fight multiple wars to maintain their land rights. They will also grant recognized "Rights of Return" that often times create special circumstances and advantages for those of authentic origin. These rights are legislated and granted often such as in the cases of the; Armenians, Belarusians, Bulgarians, Chinese, Croations, Finnish, Volga Germans, Greeks, Indians, Irish, Japanese, Lithuanians, Norwegians, etc... i.e. this is standard practice. For whatever reason, it only becomes an issue when we're talking about a plot of land in the Middle East, the size of New Jersey.

How about the San people (Bushmen) of southern Africa? Should they be able to go into Botswana and South Africa and re-take large swaths of land taken from them recently because it had been their ancestral land for millennia?

First, you'll have to give the land back to the Bantu. The Bantu would then give the land back to the respective San tribe they stole it from. Good luck on that though. The number of various unnamed Bushmen tribes that fought amongst one another and took land are vast. Determining who took what from who and when may be difficult. Conflicts dictated who owns what. There is no fair way to "give" land to people.

Or what bout the Hmong people of Southeast Asia?

Who are they??? The "Hmong" will have to give the land back to the Miao who owned it prior. Right? At some point these arguments simply break down because they are not rooted in reality. Today is the reality. Again, you can argue the spoils of ancient battles and land grabs throughout history. The fact of the matter is that Israel has claimed statehood and they have a lot of weaponry to ensure it stays that way. You don't have to like it, but that is the reality today.

Should they be allowed to re-claim the bulk of their ancestral homeland in southern China that was taken from them by the imperial Chinese government, followed by the Communist Chinese government?

Obviously, in fairness you'd have to first give the land back to the Communist Chinese who would then give it back to the "Hmong" people (of which no determination can be made), then these virtually unidentified people would have to give the land back to the Miao people, and so on...

Or what about or the Ainu people of northern Japan? Should they be allowed to re-claim their ancestral homelands in Hokkaido that were lost to the cnetralized governments of monarchial, feudal Japan?

Nope, won't work here either. See, they'd have to give the land back to the Nivkhs, then to the Jomonese.

And finally, what *about* the Native Americans in North America pre-contact? You have mentioned them several times but in an off-hand way even expressing doubts as to the numbers of them that were here prior to contact. Should they be allowed to re-claim all of the Americas that was theirs before the arrival of Europeans?

"Pre-contact". As if they hadn't been in contact with one another. In fact, we'd have to give the land back to the Cherokee who would have to give the land back to the Wichitas who had it taken by the enter tribe name here .

So, I ask of you: Do you think any of these qualify to go back to their original lands and re-claim based solely on the fact that it was theirs in the past or that it might have been promised to them by some deity? If so, why? If not, why not? Why should their assertions to re-claim their land be less valid than that of the Jewish people to the land of Israel?

It's simple. Land ownership is not granted, it is taken. At some point in each of the above cases (no matter how unfair it is), conquest defined inhabitation. Period. You don't have to like it, but it is so. There is no perfect way to make this happen. You can try concessions and agreements, but if one insists on displacing the other, there will be no peace.

This is what we see in the New Jersey-sized plot of land in the Middle East flanked 360 degrees by fertile Arab territory.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The standard Fox News talking points I see. That's cool since at this point I would expect no different from you. But consider this ....

Let's say for the sake of discussion that the Israelis are all noble and they wear the white hat and are forces of peace, justice, and freedom in the world .... and they never target civilians. And the Palestinians are just a bunch of savage terrorists or terrorists in waiting who just won't let the Israelis live in peace .... and they always target civilians. The fact remains that the Israelis manage to kill 3 times as many civilians by accident than the Palestinians do on purpose. Go figure.

In the end. Dead is still dead. And when the Israelis drop a 500 lb bomb from an F-16 into an apartment building in the middle of the night when people are home sleeping, killing dozens, because they are after one "terrorist" is definitely straining the credulity of the "we don't target civilians" refrain.

OAW

How do you suggest Israel or any other army distinguish military targets from civilians on the Arab side of the equation ? do the armed personnel have a uniform ? do the civilians in those territories distance themselves from the armed personnel or do they reside in the same dwellings ? Do you suggest Israel do nothing while people from across the border launch rockets into Israeli neighbourhoods or attack border patrols ? it's fairly obvious that the neighbouring arab countries do nothing, if not encourage this....if you were in charge of a defence force, how would YOU deal with what goes on in these places?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Yes, please do.


Although I do find your God-as-real-estate-purveyor line of thinking quite entertaining: "Jews have to live on that land because God promised it to them". Do you think other cultural and/or religious groups should be allowed to use that same line of reasoning for taking over land that was once theirs but was lost? Or do you think that only applies to the Jewish people?

How about the San people (Bushmen) of southern Africa? Should they be able to go into Botswana and South Africa and re-take large swaths of land taken from them recently because it had been their ancestral land for millennia?

Or what bout the Hmong people of Southeast Asia? Should they be allowed to re-claim the bulk of their ancestral homeland in southern China that was taken from them by the imperial Chinese government, followed by the Communist Chinese government?

Or what about or the Ainu people of northern Japan? Should they be allowed to re-claim their ancestral homelands in Hokkaido that were lost to the cnetralized governments of monarchial, feudal Japan?

And finally, what *about* the Native Americans in North America pre-contact? You have mentioned them several times but in an off-hand way even expressing doubts as to the numbers of them that were here prior to contact. Should they be allowed to re-claim all of the Americas that was theirs before the arrival of Europeans?


So, I ask of you: Do you think any of these qualify to go back to their original lands and re-claim based solely on the fact that it was theirs in the past or that it might have been promised to them by some deity? If so, why? If not, why not? Why should their assertions to re-claim their land be less valid than that of the Jewish people to the land of Israel?

Doesnt it depend on the situation/circumstances ?

i know of the N.Americans and the guys from Tibet. N.Americans "were" pretty much killed off/ forced to relocate, which was very very evil, similar to what the Muslims the world over do to religious minorities. in recent years N.Americans have been afforded equal rights in pretty much every aspect, is there any tangible reason for them to want to reclaim control ? what would they gain ? or better yet...what would they loose ?...

The people from Tibet were expelled by the Chineeses clearly victims to this day, driven out of their homeland by racist governments, who wanted to treat the native budhists different to it's own. would i support their return if it meant forcing the chineeses out ? absolutely.

If the Jews in the area we now officially call Israel were treated as complete equals by the Arabs there would be good reason for this debate. but the truth of the matter is, the Jews were 2nd class citizens, it just so happens that....for whatever reason, they decided to stand upto the Arabs, and then carve out their own sliver of space. after all, where would you expect hebrew speaking, hanukka celebrating, people to settle ? Greenland ? Antartica ?

And what of religious racisms ? look at the condition of non-muslims in the muslim world. does it seem fair ? so when you have a group of muslims move into your county, and there's suddenly a vote as to whether or not women should wear veils, and you find yourself as a minority....do you move away ? thats just a badly-constructed example, but do you get the idea ? i just read a report that at an airport in MN, where most of the cabbies are muslim, they decided not to offer their services to passengers who are carrying alcohol. as rediculious as it sounds, it's actually true. do a google news search. thats just a cab ride...now extend that to taxes, employment, salaries, etc.... why should anyone have to put up with this ? because they dont follow the same religion ? would that fly in the free world today ?

Like ive mentioned ive lived in the mid-east. youd be surprised at the sort of 'priveledges' muslims get over non-muslims. whether its a company car, higher salaries, landing a job, etc....

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by bstone 

And sign away the existance of the State of Israel?

No™.

That's not the point. You claimed that Israel offered the palestinians everything they wanted and then some, which they then rejected. This is obviously wrong, since one of the longest standing demands of the palestinians was the right of return to their lands and homes in the area now known as Israel.

Originally Posted by bstone 

More like 97%, but you do tend to quote fictitious numbers.

I provided a site that detailed very handsomely the offer from Barak, using maps Barak showed to Arafat and Clinton. The offer was about turning 80% of the occupied territories into a palestinian state, while Israel retained full control of all borders as well as of the Jordan-valley, including the option for short-noticed military intervention inside of the palestinian state.

It was a laughable offer, although it was the best offer an israeli official ever made, which says more about Israel's politicians than anything else.

The idea, that it was really 97% that was offered is a much propagated one, but is nonetheless wrong. During the Camp-David-negotiations, there were no written israeli proposals, but only orally transmitted US-conceptions. What Clinton wanted was to get Barak and Arafat to come to a general agreement, an oral basis, on which the written and signed forms could be discussed.

What was proposed in oral form as a US-concept to Arafat was 91% of the Westbank. 9% of the Westbank with its settlements there should be annexed by Israel. For these 9% the palestinians were to get in return what amounted to (1% of westbank-territory) from Israel's territory, that Israel was supposed to choose to give away.

So, it was 92% of the Westbank plus 100% of Gaza that was proposed in oral form to Arafat, but there were also other aspects, that should reduce the pie: Israel wanted to keep additional 10% of the Westbank in the Jordan-valley as a security-buffer, which would mean that 82% of the Westbank would have remained in palestinian hands plus 100% of Gaza, but there were also israeli roads, tunnels and bridges that were meant to stay under israeli control, guarded by Israel's military.

But much more important is that the proposal with all the percentage-number didn't include East-Jerusalem. In all these calculations East-Jerusalem was not been seen as part of the Westbank, since Israel viewed it as being part of Israel proper.

That is why in reality the offer was about not more than 80% of the occupied territories, since East-Jerusalem is also an occupied territory, as well as the Jordan-valley.

But there were also additional problems: At Camp-David, the palestinians were offered a palestinian state in about 80% of the occupied territories, without a military, with no control over its borders and with no souvereignity over its airspace, which was supposed to remain in the hands of Israel, and Israel was granted the right to declare emergency at will and short notice, to conduct military interventions within the palestinian state and to prevent palestinians the crossing of the israeli roads within the palestinian state, and the other two important topics, the right of return for palestinians to Israel proper and the water-ressources were completely left out.

Originally Posted by bstone 

Indeed, all of east Jerusalem AND the Old City (sans the Jewish Quarter) INCLUDING the Temple Mount would also be part of the PA State.

You conveniently neglected to mention that.

Indeed Barak needs to be credited for being the first israeli official that has put Jerusalem on the negotiation-table. For that "faux-pas", he lost in the elections to Ariel Sharon, who promised that all of Jerusalem would be forever in israeli hand.

The idea of Barak which was a good one in principle was to make Jerusalem into a twin-capital, with one part called Jerusalem, and the other Al-Quds. The problem is though that Barak only offered the old town, and some arabic outside-Jerusalem-parts to become Al-Quds, while reserving all the rest, including the area of the Al-Quds-mosque to remain under israeli souvereignity.

That's why the offer of Camp-David was unacceptable for the palestinians.

What many people don't know though is that eventhough Arafat rejected that offer, peace-talks continued at Taba in Egypt, and there the palestinians and israelis came close to an agreement: The palestinians and israelis agreed that 94% of the Westbank (minus East-Jerusalem) and 100% of Gaza would be formed into a palestinian state, Israel would give up its settlements in the Jordan-valley, although it insisted on controlling the area for security-reasons. For the 6% of the Westbank (minus East-Jerusalem) that Israel wanted to annex, the palestinians were to be granted half of it in form of israeli territory.

The palestinians agreed there to that formula, with only three open questions left: Right of return for palestinians to Israel, water-ressources and Jerusalem.

94% of the westbank + the amount of 3% of Westbankterritory in the form of israeli territory is comparable to about 97% of the Westbank.

97% of the Westbank + 100% of Gaza - East-Jerusalem + old city - security-stretch in the Jordan-Valley - a few israeli-controlled roads/bridges/tunnels inside the supposed palestinian state is comparable to about 90% of the occupied territories.

That was the best deal that Israel offered and it was offered in Egypt's Taba, and the palestinians accepted it in principle, but Barak rescinded the offer citing israeli elections and the palestinians' second intifada as reasons.

Interesting is though, that Clinton could only get Arafat to participate in the Camp-David-peace-negotiations on the condition that he would not be blamed for a possible failure of the talks, and yet exactly that happened.

Originally Posted by bstone 

Then you don't believe in negotiation and peaceful settlement. Rather you believe in terrorism as a means to achieve the goal. Sad. Very sad.

What is sad, is how you make such adventurous jumps in logic: Rejecting a rediculous offer means to believe in terrorism?

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

So they can take over the gov and make Jews 2nd class citizens? And eventually run them out of Israel like they have with most other Jews and Christians in the ME?

It's not them living there that bothers the Israelis. It's knowing what would happen if they did.

HAMMAS has said that was their plan. So why deny it?

Indeed, that's why there can and should not be a full right of return of palestinian refuggees to the area that is now Israel, but instead to the palestinian state in the Westbank and Gaza, while Israel pays them a certain amount of compensation.

There should only be a symbolic right of return for palestinian refuggees to Israel, strictly maxing it to about 100,000 refuggees.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Since I've eviscerated your arguments, you're just being a d**k. You lost the argument.

I beg to differ, I may be biased, but from my point of view, OAW won the argument with you, although I find the discussion pretty much useless, because Israel is a reality and should remain one, no matter what the european jews were or were not.

What I want is that Israel withdraws to the pre67-borders and dismantles its settler-movement, and the palestinians should eventually and likewise dismantle its islamistic militant movements, and form a souvereign palestinian state in all of the Westbank, Gaza with East-Jerusalem as its capital and sign a lasting peace-deal with Israel.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by placebo1969 

I read through the 2 pages and have a naive question:

Why all the fuss? Israel is a tiny sliver of a (Jewish) country in the midst of many of several (Muslim) nations. Leave it (Israel) alone. Unfortunately, we're argumenting about who was there 5000 years ago.

The discussion is not or should not be about Israel, but about the occupied territories. Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories, so that the palestinians can have their freedom, and form a souvereign palestinian state in all of the Westbank and Gaza with East-Jerusalem as its capital. Israel needs to comply with international law and UN-security-council-resolutions and dismantle its illegal settler-movement in the occupied territories, just like the palestinians must eventually dismantle their islamistic militant movements.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Except that Israel doesn't use F-16s or 500 pound bombs for one terrorist...

Really?
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Deaths mount in attacks on Gaza

Taliesin

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Really?
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Deaths mount in attacks on Gaza

Taliesin

Thank you. That's the one I was referring to. But here's another. It was purportedly carried out with a missile as Vmarks said ... but nevertheless, the end result was about the same:

Tens of thousands of angry Palestinians demanding revenge filled the streets of Gaza City today after an Israeli air strike killed a top Hamas leader and 14 others, including nine children.

Mourners carried the body of a two-month-old baby wrapped in a Palestinian flag, face and black hair visible between the folds.

The Israeli raid, which obliterated a three-storey apartment block and destroyed or badly damaged several adjacent ones during the middle of the night, also drew sharp international criticism for the high civilian death toll.

In a rare US criticism of Israel, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "this heavy-handed action does not contribute to peace".

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...332391585.html

OAW

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Thank you. That's the one I was referring to. But here's another. It was purportedly carried out with a missile as Vmarks said ... but nevertheless, the end result was about the same:



Palestinian fury after air raid - theage.com.au

OAW

No, that's not another one, it's the same incident, a F16-jet dropped a 500 pound-bomb in a highly populated residential area in order to kill a militant Hamas-leader.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

There should only be a symbolic right of return for palestinian refuggees to Israel, strictly maxing it to about 100,000 refuggees.

Not that this is relevent taliesin. This is what YOU want to happen. This isn't what those that wish and do harmful things to Israel wants.

So your plan wont solve anything. These people want Israel gone.

So what is your solution?

Again I am NOT asking for what YOU think should happen. It's not realistic.

I keep requesting people not to answer me with such "solutions" that wont work either.

I want to know what we should do now that HAMAS has made it clear that it's not going to give up till all the Jews in Israel or 2nd class citizens, or they all leave. No "here is what I think they should do to split Israel" or whatever is going to solve that.

I want to know REALISTICALLY what should be done with HAMAS's agenda.

[Sky Captain]

Not live next to a Hamas terrorist for starters...

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What I've learned from this thread;

Some Jews are white people and the white Jews are imperialist and evil and as such, have no right to live in Israel. The tan ones we must separate and run comprehensive DNA on them to make sure there wasn't any "race-mixing" like back in the days of slavery due to some politicians that found black women attractive. Jews have broken laws. So... they should be rounded up and shipped out. Wait a minute, maybe it's possible no friggin' point has been made here at all! Shocked as always.

In order to save this ever-ailing thread, I will wrap this up neatly.

Stop fighting over a plot of land the size of New Jersey to bolster a well-documented, bogus religious claim from the 60's when your brethren literally flank the region 360 degrees. It's really quite simple.

Don't like that idea? Okay, but war is hell. It's hell on white Jews and it's hell on dark Jews and it's hell on dark Arabs and mixed Arabs. It will eventually be everyone's hell until we recognize that life is full of loss and gain. Land was taken from Jews and Jews have taken it back. They want to worship as they please somewhere peacefully in the Middle East and I can't personally think of a smaller plot of land to give them this freedom. They have it now and a metric butt-ton of weaponry to ensure they keep it. Yeah, life's unfair. It's unfair to the Cherokee who had their land ripped away by the evil white man and it was unfair to the Wichita who had it ripped away from the evil Cherokee.

You don't have to like it so long as you like war less. Period. End of story.

So, I take it, you are also a proponent of the two-state-peace-solution, in which Israel withdraws to its internationally accepted pre-67-borders, ie. Israel minus Westbank, Gaza, Golan and East-Jerusalem, and the palestinians form their souvereign state in Gaza, Westbank with East-Jerusalem as its capital, and sign a real peace-deal with Israel, a deal that details that the right of return for the palestinian refuggees to Israel is granted only symbolically and maxed at 100,000 refuggees, while the rest goes to the new palestinian state, that details that all water-ressources be divided 50/50 between Israel and Palestine, that details that the area with the Al-Quds-mosque, haram-al-sharif or temple-mountain, be administered and controlled by the UN, securing the rights of all abrahamitic religions to free worship on the mountain...

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

So, I take it, you are also a proponent of the two-state-peace-solution, in which Israel withdraws to its internationally accepted pre-67-borders, ie. Israel minus Westbank, Gaza, Golan and East-Jerusalem, and the palestinians form their souvereign state in Gaza, Westbank with East-Jerusalem as its capital, and sign a real peace-deal with Israel,

The ONLY group of people that matters is HAMAS when it comes to supporting such things. They are NOT in support of such deal. So it's irrelevent to even bring it up. It's not gonna solve anything. It's a pipe dream. They don't want a two state deal. They want to be in charge, and wants the Jews to be 2nd class citizens. OR THEY VIOLENCE WILL CONTINUE.

What solution do we have?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Not that this is relevent taliesin. This is what YOU want to happen. This isn't what those that wish and do harmful things to Israel wants.

So your plan wont solve anything. These people want Israel gone.

So what is your solution?

Again I am NOT asking for what YOU think should happen. It's not realistic.

I keep requesting people not to answer me with such "solutions" that wont work either.

I want to know what we should do now that HAMAS has made it clear that it's not going to give up till all the Jews in Israel or 2nd class citizens, or they all leave. No "here is what I think they should do to split Israel" or whatever is going to solve that.

I want to know REALISTICALLY what should be done with HAMAS's agenda.

Hamas' ideological goal is maximalistic, ie. liberating all of Palestine, including Israel, and founding an islamic state, jews could live under islamic rule.

But that is not the line the palestinians in the majority are thinking. The trick that must be done is to get Hamas to soften its stance enough to make a good compromise possible.

And I think that's what will eventually happen.

Personally I think it would be better if Hamas would lose its political power, eventhough I don't think that Fatah is much better, but more realistic is that Fatah and Hamas will form a national unity-government, allowing Hamas to save face and leave outside-relations to the Fatah-politicians. That is if they can prevent sliding into civilwar.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The ONLY group of people that matters is HAMAS when it comes to supporting such things. They are NOT in support of such deal. So it's irrelevent to even bring it up. It's not gonna solve anything. It's a pipe dream. They don't want a two state deal. They want to be in charge, and wants the Jews to be 2nd class citizens. OR THEY VIOLENCE WILL CONTINUE.

What solution do we have?

You are way to pessimistic, Hamas is not the be all, end all, things are changing, what is more important is what the majority of palestinians want and to leverage that knowledge to pave the way for a compromise-peace.

Hamas is the equivalence to the israeli settlermovement, both are maximalistic and a threat towards peace in the region, and both need eventually to be dismantled or be incorporated in a moderate policy that can contain their destructive energies.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Hamas' ideological goal is maximalistic, ie. liberating all of Palestine, including Israel, and founding an islamic state

And HAMAS is the one that is causing all the problems.

jews could live under islamic rule.

As second class citizens. Which would eventually be run out of the land like they have before.

But that is not the line the palestinians in the majority are thinking.

The majority of them supported and voted for HAMAS which made it's goal clear. You have no basis on your statement that that isnt what the majority want.

The trick that must be done is to get Hamas to soften its stance enough to make a good compromise possible.

Again, pipe dream. Not gonna happen.

We know what HAMAS's goal is. They have stated it. They aren't gonna back down.

What is our plan?

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

You are way to pessimistic

No, I am realistic.

Hamas is not the be all, end all, things are changing,

No, no things are not changing. Esp when the people elected HAMAS knowing what their plan for Israel was.

what is more important is what the majority of palestinians want and to leverage that knowledge to pave the way for a compromise-peace.

That is why they voted for a group that announced they wanted to destroy Israel.

Hamas is the equivalence to the israeli settlermovement, both are maximalistic and a threat towards peace in the region, and both need eventually to be dismantled or be incorporated in a moderate policy that can contain their destructive energies.

HAMAS is the people of "Palistine" elected gov. The people elected that group in knowing their intentions.

The MAJORITY of the Palistinians support the reasons terrorists do what they do. a TAD less support the terrorism that goes along with it.

Don't come on here telling me the majority wants a peaceful existance with the Jewish people and expect me to take it seriously.

I know better.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

The discussion is not or should not be about Israel, but about the occupied territories. Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories, so that the palestinians can have their freedom, and form a souvereign palestinian state in all of the Westbank and Gaza with East-Jerusalem as its capital. Israel needs to comply with international law and UN-security-council-resolutions and dismantle its illegal settler-movement in the occupied territories, just like the palestinians must eventually dismantle their islamistic militant movements.

You can forget "all of the 'West Bank'" as being one of your goals because that simply never could happen. The so-called "West Bank" is land core to Israel. The city of Hebron, for example, is of greater religious significance to the Jewish people than Tel Aviv. And Israel could never afford to give up all of the valuable towns and real estate in the north and south of the country. Besides, there's no way the pre '67 borders are at all viable. They weren't viable when the Arabs were preparing to destroy Israel in 1967, and they certainly wouldn't be viable now. Anyone who thinks Israel could ever afford to give away "all of that land" that is obviously a part of Israel is dreaming. If you don't see why it's core to Israel, just take a look at a map of Israel. Btw, every time you and everyone else calls it the "West Bank," you are simply legitimizing Jordan's theft. For those who weren't aware, Jordan was the country doing the illegal grabbing of territory when it went west of the Jordan and took land it had no right to take. The very term, "West Bank" was recognition by Jordan that they were unlawfully seizing land. They were to be the country EAST of the Jordan River, and suddenly they were taking land WEST of the Jordan. The true name of the land is Judea and Samara. It is Israel's land.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You are narrow-minded to believe there was no natural racial diversity in the ancient nation of Israel. We know from the Torah account that there was, in fact, racial diversity in Israel and that, for example, Moses' wife may have been of dark skin - darker than Moses obviously. But once again, the question I pose to you is, what in the hell does skin color have to do with one's rights? I tell you that it has nothing to do with it. You keep dodging the question, and I think it's because you're a racist.

Well considering how Moses' wife was said to be Ethiopian I would expect she would have dark skin. As for Moses himself, I again ask you to utilize a bit of common sense. Let's not even get into whether or not the Biblical account of the Exodus is historically accurate. For the sake of discussion let's just roll with it. Moses is said to be raised in Egypt as the son of the Pharoah's daughter. He is said to be "learned in all the ways of the Egyptians". His name is Egyptian. Some accounts even say that he was an Egyptian priest. And let's not forget that Egypt was itself a fundamentally African society. It incorporated other elements over time as the result of foreign invasion (e.g. the Hyksos, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs) but culturally, such as in the areas of totemism, circumcision, kingship, social organization, cosmogony, matriarchy, and linguistic affiliations, it was always essentially African. But consider this .... in order for Pharaoh's daughter to pass off Moses as her son from the time he was an infant he would need to "blend in" n'est pas?. But in case common sense continues to elude you, let's bring a little more evidence into the picture shall we?

When Moses defended the daughters of Reuel as noted in Exodus 2:19 it was written ....

"And they said, an Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds."

Now how does Herodotus, the Greek historian who was contemporaneous and an eye-witness with the ancient Egyptians describe them in The Histories, Book 2: 104:?

It is in fact manifest that the Colchidians are Egyptian by race ... several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchidians were descended from soldiers of Sesostris. I had conjectured as much myself from two pointers, firstly because they have black skins and kinky hair (to tell the truth this proves nothing for other peoples have them too) and secondly, and more reliably for the reason that alone among mankind the Egyptians and the Ethiopians have practiced circumcision since time immemorial.

Aristotle says in Physiognomonica that ....

... the Egyptians and Ethiopians are very black.

Diodorus Siculus had this to say in The Library of History, Books II.35 - IV.58:

The Aithiopians [Ethiopians] say that the Egyptians are settlers from among themselves and that Osiris was the leader of the settlement. The customs of the Egyptians, they say, are for the most part Aithiopian, the settlers having preserved their old traditions. For to consider the kings gods, to pay great attention to funeral rites, and many other things, are Aithiopian practices, and also the style of their statues and the form of their writing are Aithiopian. Also the way the priestly colleges are organized is said to be the same in both nations. For all who have to do with the cult of the gods, they maintain, are [ritually] pure: the priests are shaved in the same way, they have the same robes and the type of scepter shaped like a plough, which also the kings have, who use tall pointed felt hats ending in a knob, with the snakes that they call the asp (aspis) coiled round them.

There are also numerous other Aithiopian tribes [i.e. besides those centered at Meroe]; some live along both sides of the river Nile and on the islands in the river, others dwell in the regions that border on Arabia [i.e. to the east], others again have settled in the interior of Libya [i.e. to the west]. The majority of these tribes, in particular those who live along the river, have black skin, snub-nosed faces, and curly hair.

I could go on, but the point ought to be clear that your "darker than Moses obviously" comment is perhaps uh, "misguided". I'll just leave it alone with this from Exodus 4:6-7:

6 Then the LORD said, "Put your hand inside your cloak." So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was leprous, like snow.

7 "Now put it back into your cloak," he said. So Moses put his hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was restored, like the rest of his flesh.

So again, the Hebrews were a Semitic people. A people of color to one degree or another like I said before ... but non-white nevertheless. They lived among Africans in Egypt for centuries. We can quibble as to the degree in which they intermarried, but clearly Moses himself had an Egyptian appearance per the Biblical record. I'll just say that when Jacob showed up with his extended family and 400 years later the Hebrew left with 600,000 men (2 - 3 million counting women and children) it is not inconceivable to conclude that some intermingling must have occurred. After all, Moses himself married outside the tribe so to speak. But still, a Charlton Heston look-a-like he was not.

So the question arises, if the Ashkenazi are descendants of the ancient Hebrews, just how did they manage to become white if there was no intermingling with the host European population as you so adamantly deny? Either you are wrong on that issue, or the Ashkenazi are descended from European converts to Judaism (which makes them no less Jews) to a degree far greater than they would like to admit. Take your pick.

Regardless, the issue isn't skin color per se. And this is getting really OT. The issue is who has a stronger claim to the land. My point is that the Palestinians who live there now, have lived there for centuries, and who actually look like Semites who are indigenous to the region have more of a claim than a group of Europeans who did not live there, hadn't lived there for millennia, and certainly looked nothing like the native population.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yes, genocide. Learn a bit about the Diaspora. Jews went across the globe, with large concentrations in Central Europe, Spain and Arabia. Why did they go to Europe? Would you expect them to go to the wilderness? They went to major population centers. It's not hard to comprehend.

So I suppose Europe and Arabia were the only "major population centers" of the day in your view huh? Everything else was just "the wilderness". Nice.

As for the Diaspora, I would suggest you not make assumptions about what I need to learn. The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia. The Ashanti in Ghana. The Ibo in Nigera. The Bnai Ephraim in Nigeria. The Lemba in South Africa. Communities in the ancient kingdoms of Mali and Songhai and the great city of Timbuktu. The Pashtun. The Kashmiri.

But again ... this is getting waaaaaaay OT. How about we just get back to the subject at hand?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

So, I take it, you are also a proponent of the two-state-peace-solution, in which Israel withdraws to its internationally accepted pre-67-borders, ie. Israel minus Westbank, Gaza, Golan and East-Jerusalem, and the palestinians form their souvereign state in Gaza, Westbank with East-Jerusalem as its capital, and sign a real peace-deal with Israel, a deal that details that the right of return for the palestinian refuggees to Israel is granted only symbolically and maxed at 100,000 refuggees, while the rest goes to the new palestinian state, that details that all water-ressources be divided 50/50 between Israel and Palestine, that details that the area with the Al-Quds-mosque, haram-al-sharif or temple-mountain, be administered and controlled by the UN, securing the rights of all abrahamitic religions to free worship on the mountain...

Taliesin

This would be a viable solution. But unfortunately I don't think it will happen anytime soon because it's too much like right for Israel's tastes. Instead they will continue to dominate the land because they have the bigger guns. They will continue to operate the world's largest prison in Gaza and the West Bank. And they will continue to offer peanuts to the Palestinians ... if that. And when the Palestinians refuse, they will continue to do what they are doing now ... which is to actively encourage a civil war among the Palestinians in order to take the heat off of them. Classic divide and conquer strategy. Just like all the other European colonizers.

OAW

[Kevin]

No it wont work because HAMAS just wants the Jews gone. It has nothing to do with Israel.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No it wont work because HAMAS just wants the Jews gone. It has nothing to do with Israel.

And there are some among the Jewish population that wants the Palestinians gone. Big Mac being a prime example.

OAW

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And there are some among the Jewish population that wants the Palestinians gone. Big Mac being a prime example.

OAW

No, they want the Palestinians to leave them alone. If they would leave Israel wouldn't care if there were there or not. Wouldn't matte

The Palestinians however don't want anyone non-muslim running that land. They want to run the Jews into the sea.

HUGE difference.

Attempting to compare them as if they were moral equals is dishonest.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No, they want the Palestinians to leave them alone. If they would leave Israel wouldn't care if there were there or not. Wouldn't matte

The Palestinians however don't want anyone non-muslim running that land. They want to run the Jews into the sea.

HUGE difference.

Attempting to compare them as if they were moral equals is dishonest.

Leave them alone and just accept the treatment they are meted out by the Israelis in the Occupied Territories. Yeah ... you are right about that. It reminds me of the following words of wisdom that I came across years ago ....

White folks don't want peace; they want quiet.

The price you pay for peace is justice.

Until there is justice, there will be no peace and quiet.

Will there ever be justice in Israel/Palestine? Or will "might makes right" continue to be the order of the day?

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

So, I take it, you are also a proponent of the two-state-peace-solution, in which Israel withdraws to its internationally accepted pre-67-borders, ie. Israel minus Westbank, Gaza, Golan and East-Jerusalem, and the palestinians form their souvereign state in Gaza, Westbank with East-Jerusalem as its capital, and sign a real peace-deal with Israel, a deal that details that the right of return for the palestinian refuggees to Israel is granted only symbolically and maxed at 100,000 refuggees, while the rest goes to the new palestinian state, that details that all water-ressources be divided 50/50 between Israel and Palestine, that details that the area with the Al-Quds-mosque, haram-al-sharif or temple-mountain, be administered and controlled by the UN, securing the rights of all abrahamitic religions to free worship on the mountain...

Taliesin

Nope, not a proponent of it at all. Palestinians cannot live in peace with the Israeli under pre 67' mandate. Which I thought was illegal by the way. What do we argue for when the rockets are flying throughout the remainder of the "halved" Israel?

A. Once pre 67' borders are re-established, a geographical wedge will be created essentially splitting Israel in two. This simply will not work. It didn't work pre 67' for reasons we'll never agree on and it won't work again.

B. they will be entirely flanked (as they are now) by Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, coupled with being split in two. This move will be viewed as weakness and with a geographically more vulnerable Israel, a four-front war will occur again.

C. The UN can't secure their own underwear. Who will be the first to offer troops for this blood bath? They were in no hurry to secure Lebanon, they'll be even slower with supplying troops to Jerusalem. The absolute most idiotic thing the Israelis could do is split their tiny plot of land the size of New Jersey into two. It would be absolutely moronic and frankly there would be no way to defend this suicidal degree of stupidity. I would officially say; "you're on your own now".

D. Using your words; Hamas' ideological goal is maximalistic, ie. liberating all of Palestine, including Israel, and founding an islamic state, jews could live under islamic rule. You already knew this would be impossible because of the ideological conundrum, but then say it'd be possible if Hamas would soften its stance. Based on what knowledge is this possible?

The trick that must be done is to get Hamas to soften its stance enough to make a good compromise possible which is historically impossible. Hamas will not lose its political power and Fatah is no better in this regard. They will not form a national unity government because the minute one softens one's stance they become an "Uncle Tom, Zionist sympathizer" and cannot enter any stable accord.

The "Uncle Tom" part was for our cracker-hating, resident racist.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Will there ever be justice in Israel/Palestine? Or will "might makes right" continue to be the order of the day? OAW

Might has always made... "rights". From the first woman in Africa who taught the evil white man how to enslave neighboring tribes enjoying the spoils of battle, selling enslaved children for salt, to the Crow, Pueblo, Arikara, Lakota, Kansa, Pawnee, Navaho, Apache, Ute, and Wichita who all lost territory to the Comanche who lost territory to the white man to the last wildcat fighting over the gazelle-laden plains. It is the way of things. It's not right, but it is so.

There will never be peace in Israel.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There will never be peace in Israel.

I respectfully disagree with you there, ebuddy. Peace is possible in Israel, and according to Jewish belief it will be achieved eventually. It cannot be achieved given the conditions there currently. It cannot be achieved in the way the international community thinks it must - and certainly not through a "two state solution" (unless the second state is Jordan). But that does not mean peace is impossible. Despite all of the hatred, ignorance and injustice in the world, I remain an optimist.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And HAMAS is the one that is causing all the problems.

Hamas is causing all the problems? All? How so? Since when is Hamas responsible for Israel's policy of supporting the settler-movement in the occupied territories?

Hamas is cenrtainly responsible for some of the problems, but surely not more than half of them. Hamas is responsible for the kidnapping of the israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, as well as for the rocket-firing from Gaza, and probably even for the latest suicide-bombing in Israel, as well as for its uncompromising stance, ie. not wanting to leave the card of violence behind, to recognize the state of Israel in principle and to respect previous agreements between the palestinians and Israel, which led to the international embargo and sanctions against the palestinians.
That's surely a great deal for which they are responsible, but imho, the other parts of the problems are being caused by Israel, with its continued support for the illegal settlermovement in the occupied territories, divertion of ressources, and all the other aspects of occupation.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

As second class citizens. Which would eventually be run out of the land like they have before.

Like they have before? There have been three major times in history, when jews were run out of the land, during the time of the roman empire before it was politically christian, during the time of the reconquista in Spain by and through christians, and during the time of ww2 by and through christians.

In all these three cases, jews came and found new homes in arabic countries, in the first case also in Europe and Russia.

Shortly after Israel got founded in 1948, and during the fifties, jews left arabic countries and settled down in Israel, because a) they were driven off by some arabic regimes, b) they wanted to become part of Israel voluntarily following the call of zionistic propagandists promising them a great future and issuing financial and real-estate incentives, and c) a violent campaign by radicals to punish the homegrown jews for the acts of Israel, making life dangerous for jews in some parts of the arabic world.

I think it was 50/30/20 between these three reasons.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The majority of them supported and voted for HAMAS which made it's goal clear. You have no basis on your statement that that isnt what the majority want.

The palestinians viewed the Fatah as completely corrupt, and at the same time experiencing the reality of continuing occupation and what was more damaging, an expanding settler-movement by Israel in the occupied territories, expropriating more and more land and ressources from the palestinians.

Hamas cleverly used the opportunity to present themselves as the clean new guys in the block, free of corruption, ready to make everything better than Fatah. Their election-campaign was stripped off the radical notions, that are in their charter, there was no talk of an islamic theocracy nor of destryoing Israel, but instead they focused their campaign on promoting to help the palestinians achieve their freedom, to end the occupation, and espescially to improve their economic, educational and other practical day-to-day-needs and situation.

Hamas presented itself as moderate, incorruptable, competent... with fresh candidates from all the way of lifes, while Fatah looked broken, corrupt, with old faces strung up in a net of lies and incompetence.

Hamas wanted to get the vote of the middle in order to strenghten its share in the parliament, but it didn't want to actually win the elections. The victory in the elections was a big shock for Hamas. Now they would have to bear responsibility, and actually prove that they are better than Fatah, that they can improve the situation for the palestinians.

The situation though got worse for the palestinians, and eventhough Hamas has proven to be incorruptable, their incompetence even overshadowed Fatah's one, and now the palestinians are in a deep financial crisis due to international embargoes and sanctions, and under heavy military pressure by Israel, and on the brink of sliding into civil-war.

If tommorow there would be elections, Hamas would lose decisively.

Abbas' Fatah wants to hold reelections as soon as possible, while Hamas wants to prevent that knowing that they would lose.

So, what remains, is either going into civilwar, or Hamas gives in and enters a national-unity-government with Fatah, or reelection and Hamas would lose everything.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Again, pipe dream. Not gonna happen.

We know what HAMAS's goal is. They have stated it. They aren't gonna back down.

What is our plan?

Hamas' goal is as uncompromising as the goal of Israel's settlermovement and its various political representations and influence.

The plan is either to dismantle Hamas and Israel's settler-movement or to contain them in moderate alliances, that could keep them in check.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The MAJORITY of the Palistinians support the reasons terrorists do what they do. a TAD less support the terrorism that goes along with it.

Don't come on here telling me the majority wants a peaceful existance with the Jewish people and expect me to take it seriously.

I know better.

It's not a surprise that the palestinians sympathise and support their militants, since militancy was the only thing that brought them the possibility of getting free from the occupation. They don't even view suicide-bombings in Israel as terrorism, but as legitimate resistance against an occupation, against which they have only crude options of revenge and guerillia-tactics.

But that doesn't mean that the palestinians wouldn't want to recognize Israel within the 67 borders once occupation ends. Here is a survey from 2003 that surveys bothe palestinians and israelis regarding their willingness to accept the state of Israel for the jews and the state of Palestine for the palestinians:
Survey Research Unit

And here is a survey from March-2006, dealing with the question of what the palestinians want Hamas to do and about the peace-process:
Survey Research Unit

And here is the latest joint-israeli-palestinian-survey from December 2006, with all crucial topics, two-state-solution, peace, Jerusalem, refuggees:
Survey Research Unit

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Nope, not a proponent of it at all. Palestinians cannot live in peace with the Israeli under pre 67' mandate. Which I thought was illegal by the way. What do we argue for when the rockets are flying throughout the remainder of the "halved" Israel?

A. Once pre 67' borders are re-established, a geographical wedge will be created essentially splitting Israel in two. This simply will not work. It didn't work pre 67' for reasons we'll never agree on and it won't work again.

B. they will be entirely flanked (as they are now) by Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, coupled with being split in two. This move will be viewed as weakness and with a geographically more vulnerable Israel, a four-front war will occur again.

C. The UN can't secure their own underwear. Who will be the first to offer troops for this blood bath? They were in no hurry to secure Lebanon, they'll be even slower with supplying troops to Jerusalem. The absolute most idiotic thing the Israelis could do is split their tiny plot of land the size of New Jersey into two. It would be absolutely moronic and frankly there would be no way to defend this suicidal degree of stupidity. I would officially say; "you're on your own now".

D. Using your words; Hamas' ideological goal is maximalistic, ie. liberating all of Palestine, including Israel, and founding an islamic state, jews could live under islamic rule. You already knew this would be impossible because of the ideological conundrum, but then say it'd be possible if Hamas would soften its stance. Based on what knowledge is this possible?

The trick that must be done is to get Hamas to soften its stance enough to make a good compromise possible which is historically impossible. Hamas will not lose its political power and Fatah is no better in this regard. They will not form a national unity government because the minute one softens one's stance they become an "Uncle Tom, Zionist sympathizer" and cannot enter any stable accord.

The "Uncle Tom" part was for our cracker-hating, resident racist.

So then you are proponent of Israel annexing the occupied territories and giving the palestinians full israeli citizenship or you are a proponent of indefenitively continued occupation, or a proponent of ethnic cleansing, or a proponent of Israel genociding the palestinians in the occupied territories, so what is it?

Taliesin

[Big Mac]

Before I let the debate with OAW go, I'd like to offer this additional information. In a follow-up to the year 2000 study by Hammer et al. on Jewish genetics, the group of researchers noted the following in 2003:

. . . in paternal ancestry Ashkenazi and Sephardi Levites are genetically dissimilar, unlike Ashkenazi and Sephardi Cohanim (fig. 1). The Ashkenazi and Sephardi Israelites are also relatively similar to each other, which is consistent with the previous reports of shared overall paternal Near Eastern ancestries for these populations (Hammer et al. 2000; Nebel et al. 2000)

(Emphasis mine) So, while the data indicates that substantial European introgression into the Ashkenazi Levite gene pool occurred around the time of the population's settlement in Europe (although a less likely explanation rejects non-Jewish introgression), the general population of Jews (non-Levite and non-Kohen, referred to as Israelites) are "relatively similar to each other," with "shared overall paternal Near Eastern ancestries." That's a scientific finding that confirms the shared origin of Ashkenazim and Sephardim that obviously predates the Exile. As I said, it makes very little difference to me as long as a person is legitimately Jewish, but I'm wondering how OAW wishes to deny such a finding. Come on, OAW, try to explain it away.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Why was the land essentially barren until the 20th Century?

How about this for a starter: It was neither barren nor devoid. This is a myth long ago before Israel's foundation, propagated by zionists to convince outside jews to travel to Palestine and to settle there. The mantra was that it were a land without people for people without a land.

That's of course total bs. The land has been worked upon and inhabitated for centuries during the absence of most of the jews from there, and even right before the first european jewish zionists arrived, Palestine was inhabited by hundreds of thousands of arabs.

Eventually the zionists realized that they couldn't uphold that myth anymore and so they changed their tune to say: "Yes, there may have been hundreds of thousands of arabs living in Palestine before we came there to found modern Israel, but they were incompetent savages letting the land get barren and unworked, bedouins, nomads... but not farmers"

That has been equally debunked as bs. although with, in contrast to the previous myth, at least a bit of truth mixed in: Indeed during the late period of the ottoman-empire, Palestine got neglected and because of political and financial problems, the security could not be upheld anymore in Palestine, and Bedouins took control of and raided in the plains, while the arabs resorted to the hills, that could be better protected from.

But: a) For centuries before that phase the area was blossoming and the arabs there farmed both in the hills and the plains extensively and effectively, and b) during the mid 19th-century, when Egypt took control of Palestine, security was reestablished, the bedouins got restrained, and the arabs farmed again in the plains just like they did in the last few centuries and quite effectively, and when the ottoman empire retook control of Palestine, it uphold the security and overtook the reforms Egypt brought, and the area started to blossom again.

So, the most one can say is that there was a short phase during which the plains got barren due to lack of security, but it got reversed again before the zionistic settlers arrived.

Another and similarly veined myth is that most of the palestinians really came from outside of Palestine, after the jewish settlers cultivated the land that much that it drew the envy and awe of the neighbours.

Probably, you Bigmac, stick to these myths, eventhough they were already debunked, because you think that's what G-d according to your interpretation promised in the Torah, that supposedly after the expellation of the jews from the holy land, the land would remain devoid and barren until G-d relents his anger upon the jews, forgives them and leads them back to the holy land.

Unfortunately for you, that interpretation, is obviously wrong, the land was neither devoid nor barren, but cultivated and lived upon by numerous civilisations for centuries and centuries.

Taliesin

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Before I let the debate with OAW go, I'd like to offer this additional information. In a follow-up to the year 2000 study by Hammer et al. on Jewish genetics, the group of researchers noted the following in 2003:



(Emphasis mine) So, while the data indicates that substantial European introgression into the Ashkenazi Levite gene pool occurred around the time of the population's settlement in Europe (although a less likely explanation rejects non-Jewish introgression), the general population of Jews (non-Levite and non-Kohen, referred to as Israelites) are "relatively similar to each other," with "shared overall paternal Near Eastern ancestries." That's a scientific finding that confirms the shared origin of Ashkenazim and Sephardim that obviously predates the Exile. As I said, it makes very little difference to me as long as a person is legitimately Jewish, but I'm wondering how OAW wishes to deny such a finding. Come on, OAW, try to explain it away.

First of all, I've never denied any of the findings you posted. I just don't interpret the results exactly as you do. You keep posting DNA studies that speak of paternal ancestry. And that's fine. But you conveniently overlook the maternal side of things which is interesting because isn't that how "Jewishness" is supposed to be determined? Regardless, many studies have concluded that the Ashkenazi population is the result of Jewish men who took local European wives in the early stages of their immigration. Also, the "genetic similarity" that you cite is the result of a common paternal ancestor in the Near East which in no way refutes my contention of intermingling with the host European population.

Again ... I appeal to common sense. People of color don't lose their color in a few thousand years because of a colder climate. White people don't gain natural color in a few thousand years because of a hotter climate. Believe me it doesn't go down that way. There are studies that show that approximately 20% of "white" people in the US have African ancestry. A fact that would cause much consternation to some. Conservative estimates put the percentage of "black" people in the US with European ancestry at 75%, though that figure is more likely 85-90%. Whenever people migrate (willingly or unwillingly) to other parts of the globe they mix to one degree or another with the local population. It's a fact of life. Get over it.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

How about this for a starter: It was neither barren nor devoid. This is a myth long ago before Israel's foundation, propagated by zionists to convince outside jews to travel to Palestine and to settle there. The mantra was that it were a land without people for people without a land.

.....

I think most people recognize this as BS. But unfortunately, there are those that will continue to stick to it in order to "justify" the taking of land that does not belong to them. And like I said, it was a common refrain among European invaders. Africa, the Americas, Australia, Palestine. You know name it. Wherever they went and settled the land was either "uninhabited" or "barren", and when that lie could no longer be sustained the natives were just "savages" who didn't deserve it anyway. Most Europeans seem to have matured past such foolishness during the twentieth century and no longer ascribe to the blatant excesses of their ancestors. Unfortunately, it seems that in Israel/Palestine we still have some holdouts.

OAW

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OAW 

First of all, I've never denied any of the findings you posted. I just don't interpret the results exactly as you do.

Uh, no, you've denied most all of the findings I have posted. You claim you just don't interpret the results exactly as I do - what does that mean? What other meaning do you get from such findings? Please, be specific, don't wiggle. If you have another interpretation for the quotation I just posted, by all means share it. You previously claimed that Ashkenazi Jews are "Europeans with a different religion," did you not? Did you not imply that Ashkenazi Jews had no ancestral connection to the land of Israel? Now you're backtracking in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence, making more excuses for your deficient argument.

You keep posting DNA studies that speak of paternal ancestry. And that's fine. But you conveniently overlook the maternal side of things which is interesting because isn't that how "Jewishness" is supposed to be determined?

I now see that you are completely out of rational thought here. Thanks for giving me grounders to field. I'm not overlooking matrilineal descent at all. I am simply citing patrilineal studies because that's where the research concerning Kohen and Levite lineage has been done, for the obvious reason that in Judaism tribal descent is determined by the FATHER. Yes, the religion of the mother determines whether the child is Jewish or not, but tribal descent is completely dependent on the father. Genetic correspondence correlated with tribal affiliation will be found only on the Y chromosome. Now if researchers wanted to look at the question of whether Jewish populations are, in fact, genetically Jewish, I suppose matrilineal studies would be pursued. But the thing is, no one except for you is questioning the fact that nearly all Jews are born to natively born Jewish mothers.

Regardless, many studies have concluded that the Ashkenazi population is the result of Jewish men who took local European wives in the early stages of their immigration.

LOL, what a load of crap. Cite one of your "many studies" alleging such a thing, please. To the contrary, the studies I have already cited state that European introgression (to the extent it is claimed to have occurred) happened when Jewish women married Jewish converts, not the other way around. If what you claim were to be true, the data on the Ashkenazi Levites (the only sub-group that lends scientifically verifable credence to the European introgression theory) would be exactly the opposite: it would presumably show correspondence to the Y chromosome type found in Sephardim rather than the European Y chromosome type that is found. Give up, man, everyone can see you've been bested; further fabrication, denial and obfuscation won't help you.

Also, the "genetic similarity" that you cite is the result of a common paternal ancestor in the Near East which in no way refutes my contention of intermingling with the host European population.

No, I cited the finding that Ashkenazi and Sephardi Israelites are genetically "relatively similar to each other," with "shared overall paternal Near Eastern ancestries." That's very different from what you claimed I offered. Just think about those phrases: Relatively similar to each other with shared ancestries. Are you going to tell me that doesn't defeat outright your claim that Ashkenazim are just Europeans who happen to have a different religion? That's what you were claiming - it's there for everyone to see. Weren't you implying that Ashkenazim have no connection to the land of Israel and are therefore disqualified from having a rightful claim to it? I have given you the hard genetic proof, and now you're convienently moving the yardstick. You lose.

Ashkenazim are genetically connected to Sephardim and both major groups came from Israel. Are you going to try to deny it any further? People can see I have plainly rebuffed your original claims. And now I want you to offer scientific evidence to prove your lesser claim that the Ashkenazim in general must have a lot of European blood in the mix because of our light skin. Thus far, you've offered nothing scientifically valid to support even that. Show me scholarly evidence if you possess it, not your pitifully poor common sense, your conjecturing or your laughable racism.

Again ... I appeal to common sense. People of color don't lose their color in a few thousand years because of a colder climate. White people don't gain natural color in a few thousand years because of a hotter climate.

I never said anything about climate.

There are studies that show that approximately 20% of "white" people in the US have African ancestry. . . .

And even if I could take your word on all these mythical studies, what do any of the claims you just listed have to do with Jews?

Whenever people migrate (willingly or unwillingly) to other parts of the globe they mix to one degree or another with the local population.

"To one degree or another," yes. I never disputed that. But you'd have to take one hell of a logical leap to get to your contentions about Jewish intermarriage in Europe. As I said before, it was particularly rare for a variety of reasons. I don't have time to give you a laundry list of references in support of my view, but if you don't have the intellectual courage to look for yourself let me know and I'll get to it later. That's how nice of a guy I am.

It's a fact of life. Get over it.

Just because I dispute your baseless assertions about intermarriage doesn't mean I have anything to get over. As I have said, as long as we're talking legitimate Jews (birth by a Jewish mother or by conversion), race is essentially meaningless. You're the guy who was trying to marginalize Jews like me because of our skin color, so you're the one who has a lot to get over.

As for your post, Taliesin, I'll respond to you later. And kids, until I'm back always remember, there is no such thing as Palestine.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

So then you are proponent of Israel annexing the occupied territories and giving the palestinians full israeli citizenship or you are a proponent of indefenitively continued occupation, or a proponent of ethnic cleansing, or a proponent of Israel genociding the palestinians in the occupied territories, so what is it?

Taliesin

None of the above. I'm a proponent of choosing where you want to live and being a good steward of what you already have. If you don't appreciate living conditions in Israel, move to Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, etc... The "Palestinian" should no longer live as the political pawn of Israel's cultural opposition. You don't get to leave your home with the hope of gaining two more and when the deal falls through expect to get your home back. Especially when the deal involves driving your realtor into the sea.

I'm also opposed to the mutually-expressed desire to destroy Israel one step at a time by first dividing this region the size of New Jersey into two, straight through the middle. I believe once this is complete, the next step would already be in the offing. I believe those who support this move are either entirely naive or shrewd as a serpent. I'm opposed to the collection of resources from surrounding regions in order to bolster unrest, civilian targeting, and "genociding" (your word) Israelis using the territories they're occupying. With the 1,400,000 Arabs currently residing in Israel, the 12 representatives they have in the Israeli Parliament, numerous judges sitting on the Israeli courts and on the Israeli Supreme Court benches, and the Ph.D’s and tenured professors they have teaching throughout Israeli colleges and universities, they can make a difference in the long-term. I might argue that they are. After all, they enjoy more freedom, more education, and more economic opportunity than do any other Arab population throughout the Arab world. Or, we could count on the Israeli representatives in the Palestinian government, but somehow I don't think we'll be hearing from them.

Many Arabs have found happiness and peace in Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan. Why not this small sect of people occupying Israel? They feel it has been stolen from them? What hasn't been stolen from a sect of people throughout all of history? They'll have to take their place in line, but I'm afraid with regard to Jerusalem they would find themselves behind the "Zionist".

If you truly want peace, you can have it yesterday. You don't have to like it so long as you like war less.

I guess this is why you've called it the "never-ending story".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I respectfully disagree with you there, ebuddy. Peace is possible in Israel, and according to Jewish belief it will be achieved eventually. It cannot be achieved given the conditions there currently. It cannot be achieved in the way the international community thinks it must - and certainly not through a "two state solution" (unless the second state is Jordan). But that does not mean peace is impossible. Despite all of the hatred, ignorance and injustice in the world, I remain an optimist.

If we're talking about our mutually-worshipped deity (differing only on whether this is His first or second time around), I agree and most Christians believe likewise. I'm basically talking about the failed Institutions of mankind, as are you above it seems.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

None of the above. I'm a proponent of choosing where you want to live and being a good steward of what you already have. If you don't appreciate living conditions in Israel, move to Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, etc... The "Palestinian" should no longer live as the political pawn of Israel's cultural opposition. You don't get to leave your home with the hope of gaining two more and when the deal falls through expect to get your home back. Especially when the deal involves driving your realtor into the sea.

I'm also opposed to the mutually-expressed desire to destroy Israel one step at a time by first dividing this region the size of New Jersey into two, straight through the middle. I believe once this is complete, the next step would already be in the offing. I believe those who support this move are either entirely naive or shrewd as a serpent. I'm opposed to the collection of resources from surrounding regions in order to bolster unrest, civilian targeting, and "genociding" (your word) Israelis using the territories they're occupying. With the 1,400,000 Arabs currently residing in Israel, the 12 representatives they have in the Israeli Parliament, numerous judges sitting on the Israeli courts and on the Israeli Supreme Court benches, and the Ph.D’s and tenured professors they have teaching throughout Israeli colleges and universities, they can make a difference in the long-term. I might argue that they are. After all, they enjoy more freedom, more education, and more economic opportunity than do any other Arab population throughout the Arab world. Or, we could count on the Israeli representatives in the Palestinian government, but somehow I don't think we'll be hearing from them.

Many Arabs have found happiness and peace in Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan. Why not this small sect of people occupying Israel? They feel it has been stolen from them? What hasn't been stolen from a sect of people throughout all of history? They'll have to take their place in line, but I'm afraid with regard to Jerusalem they would find themselves behind the "Zionist".

If you truly want peace, you can have it yesterday. You don't have to like it so long as you like war less.

I guess this is why you've called it the "never-ending story".

So what exactly is it that you want the palestinians in the occupied territories to do? Create a state of their own in the occupied territories and leave Israel alone and give up on their hope of gaining right of return to Israel, ie. the two-state-solution, or do you want that they all leave the occupied territories so that Israel can annex them without having to include millions of new islamic citizens, ie. ethnic cleansing, or do you want the palestinians to give up their strive for an independent identity and accept Israel fully and become citizens of Israel, or do you want the palestinians in the occupied territories to die off, ie. genocide?

Please be more specific and say what you think the palestinians should do practically.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Oh, by the way, interesting discussion between Big Mac and OAW, and eventhough it looked like OAW has decisively won the argument, Bigmac has made some good points nearly evening the field again.

As interesting as the discussion though is, and I hope it continues, it is still not relevant to the situation at hand: Israel is a reality and should stay one, that is within the 67-borders, but the palestinians are equally a reality and must get their freedom and rights to a life in dignity and prosperity within all of the Westbank, Gaza and East-Jerusalem.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

So what exactly is it that you want the palestinians in the occupied territories to do?

I was actually as clear as one can be. You don't like the answer to your loaded questions so you've fashioned another set of loaded questions. Let me answer again for you;

I'm a proponent of choosing your place to live and being a good steward of what you already have. Palestinians have no independent identity other than "pawns of the Arab world". You don't get to gamble $50 on blackjack hoping to gain $100 and when the cards don't fall your way, ask for your $50 back. You'll have an even more difficult time appealing to the dealer's gratuity when you've promised to drive him into the sea. If the "Palestinian" is unhappy with their living conditions, they can be accepted into the fold of their Arabic brethren with no lacking identity, flanking the Israeli plot of land the size of New Jersey by 360 degrees.



If two "rights of return" are at ideological odds and conflict with one another, one must relent. If they do not, there will not be peace. Given the above map, Israel has relented all it can. We disagree. We will always disagree. The disagreement is irreconcilable. The problem is not my lacking specificity. The problem is you do not appreciate the answer. The good news is, you don't have to appreciate the answer so much as you appreciate war less. This is the reality today.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Oh, by the way, interesting discussion between Big Mac and OAW, and eventhough it looked like OAW has decisively won the argument, Bigmac has made some good points nearly evening the field again.

OAW is all over the place and has been absolutely lamb-basted by Big Mac.

Look at it this way, the Navajo Indian has been allotted 24,078.127 sq mi of independent statehood, called a reservation here in the US. Keep in mind this is 3 times larger than the state of Israel. What OAW has established is that by his reasoning, we should create a geographical wedge directly through the core of this reservation because we lack identity without this territory. In this example, it seems the evil, anglo-euro white male is at least 3 times more gratuitous than all of the Arab people combined. He won't be responding to this point as he has not responded to last three of mine. What he has established is that his arguments are indefensible.

Somehow I don't think this equates to OAW having won an argument, but you'll find a way to claim this anyway no doubt. It would not be a never-ending story without a little stubbornness now would it?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I was actually as clear as one can be. You don't like the answer to your loaded questions so you've fashioned another set of loaded questions. Let me answer again for you;

I'm a proponent of choosing your place to live and being a good steward of what you already have. Palestinians have no independent identity other than "pawns of the Arab world". You don't get to gamble $50 on blackjack hoping to gain $100 and when the cards don't fall your way, ask for your $50 back. You'll have an even more difficult time appealing to the dealer's gratuity when you've promised to drive him into the sea. If the "Palestinian" is unhappy with their living conditions, they can be accepted into the fold of their Arabic brethren with no lacking identity, flanking the Israeli plot of land the size of New Jersey by 360 degrees.



If two "rights of return" are at ideological odds and conflict with one another, one must relent. If they do not, there will not be peace. Given the above map, Israel has relented all it can. We disagree. We will always disagree. The disagreement is irreconcilable. The problem is not my lacking specificity. The problem is you do not appreciate the answer. The good news is, you don't have to appreciate the answer so much as you appreciate war less. This is the reality today.

So you are a proponent of the idea, that the palestinians in the occupied territories, leave the occupied territories, right? That means you are a proponent of the etnic cleansing-option, so why did you say above, that you were for none of the options I presented. You were and you are for one of these options I posted above, the option you prefer is the ethnic-cleansing-card.

You are right though, that I don't like the option of ethnic cleansing, neither regarding the israelis nor regarding the palestinians, and instead am for making a compromise possible between the two rights of return: The palestinians give up their right of return into Israel proper, except for a symbolic one of a max of 100,000 refuggees, while Israel withdraws to the 67-borders and enables the palestinians to create a state of their own in all of the Westbank and Gaza with East-Jerusalem as its capital. The waterressources in Israel and Palestine would have to be divided 50/50 between them, the islamistic militant-movement and the israeli settler-movement either be dismantled or contained in moderate alliances that can keep them in check, peace-agreements between Palestine and Israel would have to be signed, economic cooperation established...

I think you get the idea.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

So you are a proponent of the idea, that the palestinians in the occupied territories, leave the occupied territories, right?

If they are not happy with the territories they've been allowed to occupy, absolutely. They should leave.

BTW, I've actually not heard the term "ethnic cleansing" used with regard to a state that shares its land with over 1,400,000 of this ethnicity, its parliament with 12 representatives of this ethnicity, its courts and Supreme Court benches with this ethnicity, and its colleges and universities with this ethnicity's tenured professors and Ph.D's. You cannnot fault me for avoiding a choice of the loaded terms you've provided inaccurately.

That means you are a proponent of the ethnic cleansing-option, so why did you say above, that you were for none of the options I presented.

I find the Freudian slips here more than interesting. Above, you appear to be asking a question, but follow it with a period instead of a question mark. Are you asking me a question or are you disingenuously posing a statement in the form of one?

You were and you are for one of these options I posted above, the option you prefer is the ethnic-cleansing-card.

Your question was loaded and easily exposed for its dishonesty. We can continue this, but it's not helping your arguments.

I think you get the idea. Taliesin

I've gotten it all along and stated from the outset that I believe this angle is either wholly naive or shrewd as a serpent. Take your pick, so long as you realize we disagree. We always will on this issue.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If they are not happy with the territories they've been allowed to occupy, absolutely. They should leave.

The palestinians are not allowed to occupy anything, they are the indigenous population on the land they own, and that is occupied by Israel.

Since the palestinians in the occupied (occupied by Israel and owned by the palestinian people) territories will not leave voluntarily, Israel needs to think what to do with the palestinians in the occupied territories, either to kill them off, to drive them off, to grant them israeli citizenship, to eternally occupy them, or to let them create an independent state of their own.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

BTW, I've actually not heard the term "ethnic cleansing" used with regard to a state that shares its land with over 1,400,000 of this ethnicity, its parliament with 12 representatives of this ethnicity, its courts and Supreme Court benches with this ethnicity, and its colleges and universities with this ethnicity's tenured professors and Ph.D's. You cannnot fault me for avoiding a choice of the loaded terms you've provided inaccurately.

Actually it's the perfect term, yes, your porposal is nothing other but the card of ethnic cleansing, and it's not a new one. In Israel there are groups and ideologies, most of them among the settler-movement, favoring the option of ethnic cleansing, and those don't want to stop with the palestinians in the occupied territories, they also dream of ethnically cleansing Israel, so that Israel becomes a purely jewish nation.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I find the Freudian slips here more than interesting. Above, you appear to be asking a question, but follow it with a period instead of a question mark. Are you asking me a question or are you disingenuously posing a statement in the form of one?
Your question was loaded and easily exposed for its dishonesty. We can continue this, but it's not helping your arguments.

Hmm, I clearly asked you a very specific question with this:

So what exactly is it that you want the palestinians in the occupied territories to do? Create a state of their own in the occupied territories and leave Israel alone and give up on their hope of gaining right of return to Israel, ie. the two-state-solution, or do you want that they all leave the occupied territories so that Israel can annex them without having to include millions of new islamic citizens, ie. ethnic cleansing, or do you want the palestinians to give up their strive for an independent identity and accept Israel fully and become citizens of Israel, or do you want the palestinians in the occupied territories to die off, ie. genocide?

And you answered with: "None of the above", eventhough one post later you propose the ethnic cleansing-option.

That's more than strange.

I've gotten it all along and stated from the outset that I believe this angle is either wholly naive or shrewd as a serpent. Take your pick, so long as you realize we disagree. We always will on this issue.

Like Bigmac already said somewhere in this thread, those who support the palestinian cause "are either frightingly naive or thoroughly evil", right?


Is that some talking-point going through the rightwing-circles? Whatever it is, it is very entertaining.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

OAW is all over the place and has been absolutely lamb-basted by Big Mac.

Look at it this way, the Navajo Indian has been allotted 24,078.127 sq mi of independent statehood, called a reservation here in the US. Keep in mind this is 3 times larger than the state of Israel. What OAW has established is that by his reasoning, we should create a geographical wedge directly through the core of this reservation because we lack identity without this territory. In this example, it seems the evil, anglo-euro white male is at least 3 times more gratuitous than all of the Arab people combined. He won't be responding to this point as he has not responded to last three of mine. What he has established is that his arguments are indefensible.

Somehow I don't think this equates to OAW having won an argument, but you'll find a way to claim this anyway no doubt. It would not be a never-ending story without a little stubbornness now would it?

I somehow don't think that the example with the navajo-nation is helping your argument, quite to the contrary, but otherwise, you might be right, that Bigmac might have a slight advantage for now, until OAW replies to the latest postings of Bigmac.

I think the whole DNA-line of discussion is pretty irrelevant for this discussion, but it nonetheless brings up interesting facts (I for one did not know before that there was a paternal DNA-link between arabic jews and european jews), therefore I welcome it.

Taliesin