[Taliesin]

... a fascinating move to place full page adverts in three or four major israeli papers (in hebrew language, as well as in arabic in palestinian papers) to explain and promote the arab peace plan:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7739198.stm

How would Borat say? "I like a very much this".

It's such an unbelievably big shame what Israel does to Gaza and its citizens, though, and an even bigger shame that the international community remains silent.

Taliesin

[Big Mac]

It's a solid step in the right direction but very far from a workable peace. Hopefully the Arab world will come up with a more realistic plan before another 60 years go by. Giving away the Old City (part of Jerusalem), the Golan Heights and all of Judea and Samaria (requiring the ethnic cleansing of 300,000 Jews) is very much untenable. But at least the Arab world is finally moving to recognizing, at least in cheap words, the fact of Jewish sovereignty over (albeit a tiny part) the land of Israel.

Btw, welcome back, Taliesin.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's a solid step in the right direction but very far from a workable peace. Hopefully the Arab world will come up with a more realistic plan before another 60 years go by. Giving away the Old City (Jerusalem), the Golan Heights and all of Judea and Samaria (requiring the ethnic cleansing of 300,000 Jews) is very much untenable. But at least the Arab world is finally moving to recognizing, at least in cheap words, the fact of Jewish sovereignty over (albeit a tiny part) the land of Israel.

Btw, welcome back, Taliesin.

Thanks for the welcome-back-greeting, Big Mac, but I was never really away, every few days I read some threads. I'm just not posting/discussing that much anymore due to lack of time.

Taliesin

[Sayf-Allah]

I like how this is now a "good step forward" and so on and so forth....

This has been the basis of the Arab (and indeed most of the worlds) opinion on how to solve the problem in the Fertile Crescent. They've brought this up since 2002 IIRC. It has been categorically denied by most pro-Israeli posters here and most importantly by USAI (United States of America and Israel) since it was first brought up.

But now it's "solid step in the right direction".

It's definately a step away from the genocide and ethnic cleansing being performed by Israel in Gaza the last few weeks. A good depression can quickly take the focus of such tragedies. And Israel knows this.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

It's definately a step away from the genocide and ethnic cleansing being performed by Israel in Gaza the last few weeks. A good depression can quickly take the focus of such tragedies. And Israel knows this.

Point me to the "genocide" in that den of human scum and villainy known as Gaza, Sayf. I know of none.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Point me to the "genocide" in that den of human scum and villainy known as Gaza, Sayf. I know of none.

No matter what Israel would do to Palestinians (as long as it's hurting them in some way) you'd support it. So I won't argue with you about this and just mention what has been done.

1. No import of food into Gaza. Not even humanitarian assistance. Resulting in starvation in Gaza and the deaths that follow.
2. No oil/gas allowed into Gaza. Meaning blackouts. Even in hospitals. Resulting in deaths.

This is a low intensity genocide and ethnic cleansing that the West is turning a blind eye to because they worry too much about the risk of not being able to fill their SUV with gas twice a week and not being able to buy the latest and biggest widescreen LCD TV.

Don't waste your energy trying to argue with me. I won't answer you.

[Chuckit]

Isn't genocide kind of a high-intensity thing by definition? A low-intensity genocide sounds like a slight pregnancy.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Isn't genocide kind of a high-intensity thing by definition? A low-intensity genocide sounds like a slight pregnancy.

Genocide can be by lining every Palestinian (in Gaza) up and executing them. Israel knows this would create a problem with the West so they don't do this.

Instead

They starve the Gazan people, they prevent them from having electricity causing more death and diseases. Then end is the same, dead Palestinians (or a Palestinians diaspora). Only this way is "low-intensity" and the West can ignore it.

The definition of Genocide:

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

What Israel is doing, especially to the Gaza Palestinians, is nothing but the "deliberate and systematic extermination of a national group" of Palestinians (in Gaza).

Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Genocide can be by lining every Palestinian (in Gaza) up and executing them. Israel knows this would create a problem with the West so they don't do this.

...

What Israel is doing, especially to the Gaza Palestinians, is nothing but the "deliberate and systematic extermination of a national group" of Palestinians (in Gaza).

Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.

You're talking crap. Israel it trying to cut off the Fascist Palestinian Terrorist Authority from arming and funding itself so that the Palestianians overthrow the crooks who run them and support a genuine political choices who don't support such criminal ideas like armed children and teenage suicide bombings.

[Big Mac]

The most humane thing to do to Gaza would be to depopulate it. Egypt or Jordan can take their brethren very easily.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The most humane thing to do to Gaza would be to depopulate it. Egypt or Jordan can take their brethren very easily.

Ever heard of the term ethnic cleansing?

[Big Mac]

Yeah, it's what the Arab world proposes Israel do to the Jews of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem (and what Israel already did to the Jews of Gaza). It's also what the Arab world did to its Jewish citizens in 1948.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, it's what the Arab world proposes Israel do to the Jews of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. It's also what the Arab world did to its Jewish citizens in 1948.

So.......

1. They were/are well within their rights to do that?
2. Both are/were a serious human rights violation?
3. It's OK if Jews do it, but not if someone else does it?

[Big Mac]

We can trade moral outrage for moral outrage until the cows come home (though obviously I think my claims greatly outweigh yours), but the point is, two diametrically opposed groups of people cannot claim and live in the same space at the same time. The Muslim world has 52-57 countries (according to whichever count you look at), and 22 of those are ethnically Arab. There is only one Jewish country, and it exists on less than 1% of the Middle East. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the God you claim to believe in - gave the Jewish people the land of Israel as an eternal possession; the country Israel holds today but a fraction of that eternal land grant and is always poised to give away more of it for hollow promises of peace. So either the Arabs currently at war with Israel can continue their warfare forever, taking advantage of the weakness, stupidity and naivete of my political leaders, or they can go move to greener pastures in any of the aforementioned countries of their choosing. If Israel were smart it would promote peace by hastening the process, encouraging Arabs to leave and Arab countries to absorb their brethren. That's the true and only path to peace.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

We can trade moral outrage for moral outrage until the cows come home (though obviously I think my claims greatly outweigh yours), but the point is, two diametrically opposed groups of people cannot claim the same space at the same time. The Muslim world has 52-57 countries (according to whichever count you look at), and 22 of those are ethnically Arab. There is only one Jewish country, and it exists on less than 1% of the Middle East. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the God you claim to believe in - gave the Jewish people the land of Israel as an eternal possession; the country Israel holds today but a fraction of that eternal land grant and is always poised to give away more of it for hollow promises of peace. So either the Arabs currently at war with Israel can continue their warfare forever, taking advantage of the weakness, stupidity and naivete of my political leaders, or they can go move to greener pastures in any of the aforementioned countries of their choosing. If Israel were smart it would promote peace by hastening the process, encouraging Arabs to leave and Arab countries to absorb their brethren. That's the true and only path to peace.

In short:

You prefer the way of ethnic cleansing. Have you learned nothing from the history of your people?

[Big Mac]

You shorten my post in that fashion because you don't want to address the substance of what I wrote. But I'll tell you that if Hitler, YH"SH had only ethnically cleansed European Jewry by shipping them off to the Mandate, he would have been a hero of sorts. He committed actual genocide instead. (And we can all recall that early on he did indeed mull transferring the Jewish population to the Mandate but his ally, the Mufti, implored him not to do so.)

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You shorten my post in that fashion because you don't want to address the substance of what I wrote. But I'll tell you that if Hitler, YH"SH had only ethnically cleansed European Jewry by shipping them off to the Mandate, he would have been a hero of sorts. He committed actual genocide instead. (And we can all recall that early on he did indeed mull transferring the Jewish population to the Mandate but his ally, the Mufti, implored him not to do so.)

You can rant and rave all you want.

What you are proposing is still ethnic cleansing. Why can't you just admit that?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

In short:

You prefer the way of ethnic cleansing. Have you learned nothing from the history of your people?

It would seem he has — that Muslims are not willing to co-exist with them. He's proposing a peaceful parting of ways, which I guess is "ethnic cleansing" in the same way that climbing in through your own back window is "breaking and entering" — peacefully relocating people to a better locale would be the kindest ethnic cleansing in history. What do you think the better option is? The Jews all commit Japanese ritual suicide?

Israel has done some pretty despicable things, but the truth is, it doesn't seem like Israel has any real options. Every attempt to coexist with the Palestinians has been met with aggression. It seems to me that the ball is in the Palestinians' court to get a hold of their own people.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It would seem he has — that Muslims are not willing to co-exist with them. He's proposing a peaceful parting of ways, which I guess is "ethnic cleansing" in the same way that climbing in through your own back window is "breaking and entering" — peacefully relocating people to a better locale would be the kindest ethnic cleansing in history. What do you think the better option is? The Jews all commit Japanese ritual suicide?

Would you want to move away from your land that your family has lived on for generations? To create room for foreigners to live on that same land instead? Do you really think any selfrespecting human would accept such a resolution?

Israel has done some pretty despicable things, but the truth is, it doesn't seem like Israel has any real options. Every attempt to coexist with the Palestinians has been met with aggression. It seems to me that the ball is in the Palestinians' court to get a hold of their own people.

What attempts have there been to coexist? The settlements? The road barriers? The attacks on suspected terrorists in the midst of the civilian population? The destruction of centuries old olive tree farms to make way for lebensraum around the settlements? The annexation of Al Quds? The control exerted of imports and exports into Palestine?

Am I forgeting some of these attempts to co-exist or have I listed enough?

[red rocket]

Besides, considering that the majority of today’s ‘Jews’ have no relationship with biblical Jews, but are largely descended from Khazars, whereas the ‘Palestinians’ are actually the descendants of the original Jews, who have converted to Islam, there really isn’t much of an argument to be made for maintaining what is de facto a colonial occupation.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

... peacefully relocating people to a better locale would be the kindest ethnic cleansing in history. ...

Israel has done some pretty despicable things, but the truth is, it doesn't seem like Israel has any real options. Every attempt to coexist with the Palestinians has been met with aggression. It seems to me that the ball is in the Palestinians' court to get a hold of their own people.

There is no `clean ethnic cleansing,' the proposal is no more or less despicable than what has happened in former Yugoslavia (you don't think Palestinians would leave voluntarily). In fact, the same argument can be made for Israelis, that they are to be `ethnically cleansed' from the region since they can't live with their neighbors either. In fact, if they'd be gone, then the region could go back to their own feuds amongst themselves. What's wrong with this picture?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In fact, the same argument can be made for Israelis, that they are to be `ethnically cleansed' from the region since they can't live with their neighbors either.

And you're mod. Israel has bent over backward for the last 15 years in the name of peace and has gotten only increased, terrorism, warfare and hatred in return. But I suppose it's typical of a leftist not to be able to differentiate between the aggressor and the aggrieved.

Israel was far better off when peace with its Arab population was not its policy. At least then Israel had respect since the Arab world respects force and strength.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And you're mod. Israel has bent over backward for the last 15 years in the name of peace and has gotten only increased, terrorism, warfare and hatred in return. But I suppose it's typical of a leftist not to be able to differentiate between the aggressor and the aggrieved.

Israel was far better off when peace with its Arab population was not its policy. At least then Israel had respect since the Arab world respects force and strength.

So two things.

1. You are upset if someone points out that you could use the exact same argument you are using just against the Jewish population of Palestine/Israel. What's that called again?

2. So not only are you proposing ethnic cleansing you are also hoping to make the Arab citizens of Palestine/Israel 2nd class citizens. Am I understanding you correctly?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Besides, considering that the majority of today’s ‘Jews’ have no relationship with biblical Jews, but are largely descended from Khazars, whereas the ‘Palestinians’ are actually the descendants of the original Jews, who have converted to Islam, there really isn’t much of an argument to be made for maintaining what is de facto a colonial occupation.

The Khazar-theory has been largely disproven. Here is a wikipedia-entry on the topic:

Alleged Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim

The theory that all or most Ashkenazi ("European") Jews might be descended from Khazars (rather than Semitic groups in the Middle East) dates back to the racialism of late nineteenth century Europe, and was frequently cited to assert that most modern Jews aren't descended from Israelites and/or to refute Israeli claims to territory also sought by Palestinians. It was first publicly proposed in lecture given by Ernest Renan on January 27, 1883, titled "Judaism as a Race and as Religion."[31] It was repeated in articles in The Dearborn Independent in 1923 and 1925, and popularized by racial theorist Lothrop Stoddard in a 1926 article in the Forum titled "The Pedigree of Judah", where he argued that Ashkenazi Jews were a mix of people, of which the Khazars were a primary element.[16][32] Stoddard's views were "based on nineteenth and twentieth-century concepts of race, in which small variations on facial features as well as presumed accompanying character traits were deemed to pass from generation to generation, subject only to the corrupting effects of marriage with members of other groups, the result of which would lower the superior stock without raising the inferior partners."[33] This theory was adopted by British Israelites, who saw it as a means of invalidating the claims of Jews (rather than themselves) to be the true descendants of the ancient Israelites, and was supported by early anti-Zionists.[16][34]

In 1951 Southern Methodist University professor John O. Beaty published The Iron Curtain over America, a work which claimed that "Khazar Jews" were "responsible for all of America's — and the world's — ills beginning with World War I". The book repeated a number of familiar antisemitic claims, placing responsibility for U.S. involvement in World Wars I and II and the Bolshevik revolution on these Khazars, and insisting that Khazar Jews were attempting to subvert Western Christianity and establish communism throughout the world. The American millionaire J. Russell Maguire gave money towards its promotion, and it was met with enthusiasm by hate groups and the extreme right.[35][36] By the 1960s the Khazar theory had become a "firm article of faith" amongst Christian Identity groups.[16][37] In 1971 John Bagot Glubb (Glubb Pasha) also took up this theme, insisting that Palestinians were more closely related to the ancient Judeans than were Jews. According to Benny Morris:

Of course an anti-Zionist (as well as an anti-Semitic) point is being made here: The Palestinians have a greater political right to Palestine than the Jews do, as they, not the modern-day Jews, are the true descendants of the land's Jewish inhabitants/owners.[38]

The theory gained further support when the novelist Arthur Koestler devoted his popular book The Thirteenth Tribe (1976) to the topic. Koestler's historiography has been attacked as highly questionable by many historians; it has also been pointed out that his discussion of theories about Ashkenazi descent is largely unsupported; to the extent that Koestler referred to place-names and documentary evidence his analysis has been described as a mixture of flawed etymologies and misinterpreted primary sources.[39] Commentors have also noted that Koestler mischaracterized the sources he cited, particularly D.M. Dunlop's History of the Jewish Khazars (1954).[40]

Koestler himself was pro-Zionist based on secular considerations, and did not see alleged Khazar ancestry as diminishing the claim of Jews to Israel, which he felt was based on the United Nations mandate, and not on Biblical covenants or genetic inheritance. In his view, "The problem of the Khazar infusion a thousand years ago ... is irrelevant to modern Israel". In addition, he was apparently "either unaware of or oblivious to the use anti-Semites had made to the Khazar theory since its introduction at the turn of the century."[41]

Nevertheless, in the Arab world the Khazar theory still enjoys popularity among some anti-Zionists[21] and antisemites;[42]) Such proponents argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historical claim to Israel, nor would they be the subject of God's Biblical promise of Canaan to the Israelites, thus undermining the theological basis of both Jewish religious Zionists and Christian Zionists. In the 1970s and 80s the Khazar theory was also advanced by some Russian chauvinist antisemites, particularly the historian Lev Gumilyov, who portrayed "Judeo-Khazars" as having repeatedly sabotaged Russia's development since the 7th century.[43]

According to Bernard Lewis:

This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics.[21]

[edit] DNA Evidence

Modern DNA studies on the Y chromosome of Jews worldwide have largely disproven the Khazar origin theory for the vast majority of Jews, including the Ashkenazi.

A 1999 study by Hammer et al, published in the Proceedings of the United States National Academy of Sciences compared the Y chromosomes of Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian Jews with 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. It found that "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level... The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."[44] According to Nicholas Wade "The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism."[45]

A 2001 study by Nebel et al found Eu 19 chromosomes, which are very frequent in Eastern Europeans (54%-60%) at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews. The authors hypothesized that these chromosomes could reflect low-level gene flow from surrounding Eastern European populations, or, alternatively, that the Ashkenazi Jews with Eu 19 might be descendants of Khazars.[46]

A 2005 study by Nebel et al, based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their host populations in Europe. However, 11.5% of male Ashkenazim were found to belong to R-M17, the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow. The authors hypothesized that "R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars". They concluded "However, if the R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazi Jews do indeed represent the vestiges of the mysterious Khazars then, according to our data, this contribution was limited to either a single founder or a few closely related men, and does not exceed ~ 12% of the present-day Ashkenazim.[47]

In 2004 Dienekes Pontikos compared the frequency of haplogroups [[Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) |R1a]] and Q among Altaian Turkic speakers and Ashkenazi Jews. For Altaians, he found a ratio of about 2/7, while for Ashkenazim it was a ratio of about 2/4. Haplogroup Q is found in high frequencies in only a few regions of the world. Genetic analysis has allowed researchers to trace haplogroup Q to its probable ancestral homeland – the Altai Mountains of Southwest Siberia.

Dienekes concluded that it appears that some members of three very distinct populations—Scandinavian-Shetlanders, Native Americans and Ashkenazi Jews may share common ancestors originating from the Altai regions of southern Siberia. It seems reasonable that an overall 22% of Ashkenazi Jewish populations have some Proto-Khazar ancestry. That the Khazars of Khazaria may themselves have been somewhat mixed with Western Eurasian elements would decrease their frequency of haplogroup Q. The migration of R1a and Q groups into Scandinavia is presently unknown, though it is believed a group from Central Asia may have moved up into Scandinavia sometime around 400 CE. Only a few hundred years later, the Khazars of southern Russia make their first appearance in the historical record. And it is to the Khazars, who possessed a high frequency of this haplogroup, to which the Jews most likely owe their unique Q ancestry. Dienekes wrote that he found the continued silence of researchers about the presence of haplogroup Q among Ashkenazim "puzzling."[48]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars

So according to that only 22% of the ashkenazi jews have a khazari-origin.

But your other suggestion that palestinians have jewish ancestry:

Palestinians, however, differ from other Arabs in some ways. As the web site for Harper's Magazine reported, one study showed that Jews and Palestinians have common ancestry that is so recent that it is highly likely that at least some of the Palestinian blood actually descends from Jews. [3] Another study by New York University confirmed a remarkable similarity between Jewish and Palestinian genes. "Jews and Arabs are all really children of Abraham," said Dr. Harry Ostrer, director of the Human Genetics Program at New York University School of Medicine, who worked on the study. "And all have preserved their Middle Eastern genetic roots over 4,000 years. [4]

According to several other studies, Palestinians and Jews are genetically closer to each other than either is to the Arabs of Arabia or to Europeans [5]. A study of congenital deafness identified an allele limited to Palestinian and Jews of Ashkenazi origin (those who lived in Europe in recent centuries), suggesting a common origin. Furthermore, Y-chromosome polymorphism is very similar among Palestinians and Sephardic Jews. [6]. While current studies show a lot of similarities and genetic closeness may be used to confirm claims of both sides to Israel/Palesitne, but right now, results are incomplete and are subject to much interpretation. [7] The above statements are based on the currently available information, but may be questioned by future studies.

Source: http://www.globalpolitician.com/2851-palestinians

Taliesin

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And you're mod. Israel has bent over backward for the last 15 years in the name of peace and has gotten only increased, terrorism, warfare and hatred in return. But I suppose it's typical of a leftist not to be able to differentiate between the aggressor and the aggrieved.

It is clear from my post that I find the forced relocation of any people (read: ethnic cleansing) despicable, be it Jews, Arabs or other. Don't bend my post into something it is not.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It would seem he has — that Muslims are not willing to co-exist with them. He's proposing a peaceful parting of ways, which I guess is "ethnic cleansing" in the same way that climbing in through your own back window is "breaking and entering" — peacefully relocating people to a better locale would be the kindest ethnic cleansing in history. What do you think the better option is? The Jews all commit Japanese ritual suicide?

And, what do you think people would say if someone proposed "peacefully relocating" the Jews to a friendly state? Say ... the US?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the God you claim to believe in - gave the Jewish people the land of Israel as an eternal possession

So, if a group of people claim their god granted them North America as an eternal possession, are you going to hand it over to them?