Who and where do the Palestinians fall into Israel/Palestines History?

[GHook93]

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/...Xn-History.htm

Please read first. The Palestinian claim is that the Jews had no rights to the lands in the first place that it was there. Unless they Palestinians are Persians how do they come to such a claim (this is a question, not a statement)? That might be the reason Iran is so behind them.

Israel/Palestine Land Rule:
3600 - 3000 B.C. Jewish rule
3000 - 1000 B.C. Egypt rule --> but strong Jewish presence (remember slavery and parting of the red sea)
1030 - 930 B.C. Jewish Rule
922 - 539 B.C. - Babylonian Rule --> Jews Exciled
539 - 332 B.C. Persian Rule --> Jews return
332 - 164 B.C. Greek Rule --> Very strong Jewish presence
164 - 63 B.C. Jewish rule
63 B.C - 614 A.D. Roman Rule - Strong Jewish Presence. 2 major Jewish revolts. The Roman respond to the second revolt by renaming Israel as Palestine (hence the Roman's created the name Palestine, not the Muslims)
614 - 1060 A.D. Persian Invasion - Persian Rule (they expell the Christians and Jews, hence the reason the Jewish population deceased prior to the 1900s)
1060 - 1240 A.D. The Crusades (Rule shifted between the Muslims and Christians)
1300 - 1917 Ottoman Empire
1948 - Israel

Now someone with knowledge on the subject explain where the Palestines come in? Anyone but Ise thank you.

[RickSp]

What nonsense. Are you denying that Palestinians do not exist or merely that they have no right to exist? Palestinians lived for many generation in Palestine before 1948. Some families farmed their land for hundreds of years before being ejected by Israel. How do you justify their expulsion by primarily Europeans and Americans? If you have an argument to make, make it.

[Chaossaber314]

I believe he's talking about control. The US has had natives living on its soil since well before European colonization. Does it mean they're entitled to rule the entire country and kick all the foreigners out?

[lsbskins1]

Just the people who have been the indiginous occupiers of the land. The conquered natives. The aboriginies. A sub-group of the people who were promised independence in exchange for co-opperation with the winning side in WWI.

[GHook93]

Quote by: RickSp What nonsense. Are you denying that Palestinians do not exist or merely that they have no right to exist? Palestinians lived for many generation in Palestine before 1948. Some families farmed their land for hundreds of years before being ejected by Israel. How do you justify their expulsion by primarily Europeans and Americans? If you have an argument to make, make it.

I believe I was asking a question. Did you not see the question mark?

Unless they Palestinians are Persians how do they come to such a claim (this is a question, not a statement)?

[RickSp]

Quote by: GHook93 I believe I was asking a question. Did you not see the question mark?

Your question was - are Palestinians Persians. No, they are not. (You weren't serious in asking this were you?)

Palestinians are predominantly Arabs who lived in Palestine. On what basis do you justify their explusion? Why does a community who has lived for many generations in a land have no right to their homes and livelihoods?

[GHook93]

Quote by: RickSp Your question was - are Palestinians Persians. No, they are not. (You weren't serious in asking this were you?) Palestinians are predominantly Arabs who lived in Palestine. On what basis do you justify their explusion? Why does a community who has lived for many generations in a land have no right to their homes and livelihoods?

OK, I will admit it was a rhetorical question, but...

...Exactly they are not Persians, but Arabs. Yet they claim more rights to the lands than the Jews. They are not Persians. They are not descendants of the Ottoman Empire. Where is this superior claim coming from?

For the record: I am for a two state solution (unlike most of the pro-Palestinians on these boards).

[RickSp]

Quote by: GHook93 Exactly they are not Persians, but Arabs. Yet they claim more rights to the lands than the Jews. They are not Persians. They are not descendants of the Ottoman Empire. Where is this superior claim coming from? For the record: I am for a two state solution (unlike most of the pro-Palestinians on these boards).

What in hell are you talking about? Yah, Palestinains are not Persians. Pretty obvious. And so what? Are you claiming that Iran has rights to Israel? That would be bizarre. The Ottomans ruled most of Arabia for hundreds of years. The Palestinians owned these lands under Ottoman rule. Why don't they have right to their own land?

Your argument, such as it is, is incoherant.

[ibm]

are the indians, or "native americans", entitled more to the land in north america today?

[GHook93]

Quote by: RickSp What in hell are you talking about? Yah, Palestinains are not Persians. Pretty obvious. And so what? Are you claiming that Iran has rights to Israel? That would be bizarre. The Ottomans ruled most of Arabia for hundreds of years. The Palestinians owned these lands under Ottoman rule. Why don't they have right to their own land? Your argument, such as it is, is incoherant.

What I am stating is where was the Palestinian governmental rule of the land. Definitely not during that Persian rule or the Ottoman Empire rule. Was it the crusades period?

My point is this the Arab view is that Israel has no right to exist and the Jews have no claim to the lands and the Palestinians have vastly superior claims. Yet there doesn't seem to be a clear Palestinian control of the lands.

I am not disputing that the Palestinians do not have a claim to the land; however, it is a fallacy that they have a vastly superior claim to the land.

The Israeli/Palestinian territories passed through so many different ruling people how do you establish who maintains superior rights?

[GHook93]

Quote by: ibm are the indians, or "native americans", entitled more to the land in north america today?

Slippery slope question. It is hard not to sound like a Hypocrite in answering NO. I will leave it at that.

The Big Kahuna (PatHenry) will surely answer this as yes and so should his native Hawaiian people.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: GHook93 Slippery slope question. It is hard not to sound like a Hippocratic in answering NO. I will leave it at that. The Big Kahuna (PatHenry) will surely answer this as yes and so should his native Hawaiian people.

If you don't want to sound Hippocratic, you better not ever say this:

I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.

To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."



But, maybe what you want, is to not sound like a hypocrite.

Sorry. Couldn't help myself....

[RickSp]

Quote by: GHook93 What I am stating is where was the Palestinian governmental rule of the land. Definitely not during that Persian rule or the Ottoman Empire rule. Was it the crusades period? My point is this the Arab view is that Israel has no right to exist and the Jews have no claim to the lands and the Palestinians have vastly superior claims. Yet there doesn't seem to be a clear Palestinian control of the lands. I am not disputing that the Palestinians do not have a claim to the land; however, it is a fallacy that they have a vastly superior claim to the land. The Israeli/Palestinian territories passed through so many different ruling people how do you establish who maintains superior rights?

Ridiculous. Iraq was ruled by the Ottomans for hundreds of years. Are you also claiming that the Iraqis have no claims to their property? The Ottomans ruled most of the Middle East until the end of WWII.

Individual Palenstians lived on, worked and owned the land and villages of Palestine for hundreds of years. Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire and then was controlled by the British. This does nothing to deny the rights of the individual Palestinians who owned their farms and villages.

To claim that immigrants Jews from Europe had some sort of magical claim to the lands is just Zionist mysticism.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: GHook93 The Big Kahuna (Oh Henry) will surely answer this as yes and so should his native Hawaiian people.

What's with the veiled ad hominem?
I wasn't even gonna post in this thread, it seemed so ignorant, but I'll give you a short history lesson. (From the Bible, not sure how much has been archaeologically confirmed.)

Abraham's(1900BCE) family didn't rule the area now known as Palestine in 3600 to 3000 BCE. They were shepherds who eventually moved their entire family, consisting of about 70 individuals, to Egypt about 1800 BCE. After a few hundred years there, they had maintained ethnic identity and found their way out and to the "Promised Land" as a vast tribe of maybe 2 million. There they fought many wars and were ultimately successful after 400 years or so in establishing a powerful kingdom under David's military leadership. Solomon's kingdom was large and prosperous, but his successors saw tremendous shrinkage after 900BCE. The end of any Hebrew dominion for a period was when Babylon's Nebuchadrezzar 2 depopulated the area in 587 BCE.

The next era of Hebrew sovereignty was the Hasmonean Kingdom founded under Simon Maccabaeus from 140 BCE to 37 BCE. Ended by Roman rule forever and the population dispersed to the ends of the earth.

Got that? The actual Hebrew rulership of this area was limited to two periods of ancient history. One under David and Solomon, and their petty successors for approximately four hundred years. And one under the Hasmoneans for about one hundred years. Five hundred years total.

As to the Palestinians, they are local Arabs from the 'hood. Their families have likely lived in the area for hundreds of generations. Many of them have title deeds to property that they fled from during the Zionist Takeover War of the 1940s. The Geneva Convention says they may return to their property after hostilities cease. Israel says "No!" Reason? Jews are superior to all other people in the view of the Zionists, and they won't extend favor to those of other ethnicity. Most of the "Jews" in Israel are Europeans who self-identify as Jews ethnically and who have recently emigrated to that area after WW2, displacing those who resided there previously.

Do you have a problem with the concept of "self-determination?"

the right to self-determination holds the prestigious position of Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Politcal Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Its presence in the two covenants points to the right's complex nature and importance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_determination

[shrike]

.

Quote by: PH Got that? The actual Hebrew rulership of this area was limited to two periods of ancient history. One under David and Solomon, and their petty successors for approximately four hundred years. And one under the Hasmoneans for about one hundred years. Five hundred years total.

Are you claiming that between these two phases there was no Jewish presence in the Area?

As to the Palestinians, they are local Arabs from the 'hood. Their families have likely lived in the area for hundreds of generations.

Are you aware that there was a large influx of Arabs to the area as Jews started develop the area?

Many of them have title deeds to property that they fled from during the Zionist Takeover War of the 1940s. The Geneva Convention says they may return to their property after hostilities cease. Israel says "No!" Reason? Jews are superior to all other people in the view of the Zionists, and they won't extend favor to those of other ethnicity. Most of the "Jews" in Israel are Europeans who self-identify as Jews ethnically and who have recently emigrated to that area after WW2, displacing those who resided there previously.

But the hostilities are never ended. Anyway Geneva doesn't apply now because Oslo and other agreement.

[lsbskins1]

Patrick-

While I do not dispute the truth of your history lesson, I do take exception to the implicaton you seek to convey. The Jews have kept a constant pressence in Palestine through all of the relevant history. The reducing of either the Jews or the Palestinians to a state of villinany serves no useful purpose. They need to accept each other as equally human and equally deserving of peace. A negotiated settlement that recognizes the rights of each side is the only viable answer. It is only a matter of both sides determining that they are tired of killing each other in never ending cycles of violence.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Patrick- While I do not dispute the truth of your history lesson, I do take exception to the implicaton you seek to convey. The Jews have kept a constant pressence in Palestine through all of the relevant history. The reducing of either the Jews or the Palestinians to a state of villinany serves no useful purpose. They need to accept each other as equally human and equally deserving of peace. A negotiated settlement that recognizes the rights of each side is the only viable answer. It is only a matter of both sides determining that they are tired of killing each other in never ending cycles of violence.

I am on the same page with you, skins.

The Jews who never left Palestine had a long history of getting along with the local Arabs. There were incidents, but nothing like the deadly assaults by the Zionists. Please don't say I seek to convey any implication other than my OWN statements. I do not villainize Jews. It is Zionism where the problem lies. Zionists are supremacists. I despise ethnic supremacism. A renunciation of this philosophy will set the stage for peace between the Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. I am not holding my breath.

[Trotsky]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Patrick- While I do not dispute the truth of your history lesson, I do take exception to the implicaton you seek to convey. The Jews have kept a constant pressence in Palestine through all of the relevant history. The reducing of either the Jews or the Palestinians to a state of villinany serves no useful purpose. They need to accept each other as equally human and equally deserving of peace. A negotiated settlement that recognizes the rights of each side is the only viable answer. It is only a matter of both sides determining that they are tired of killing each other in never ending cycles of violence.

They'll neverget tired of killing each other, what might happen is they get tired of being killed.

[shrike]

Quote by: ph It is Zionism where the problem lies. Zionists are supremacists. I despise ethnic supremacism

How a Zionism is a supremacism?

[GHook93]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I am on the same page with you, skins. The Jews who never left Palestine had a long history of getting along with the local Arabs. There were incidents, but nothing like the deadly assaults by the Zionists. Please don't say I seek to convey any implication other than my OWN statements. I do not villainize Jews. It is Zionism where the problem lies. Zionists are supremacists. I despise ethnic supremacism. A renunciation of this philosophy will set the stage for peace between the Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. I am not holding my breath.

The Zionist moment for a claim over all the lands in Israel/Palestine is not one that I hold nor one the is acceptable. The 2 state solution is the best, and only, antidote. But many, especially on this board, argue that the Jews have no stake in the lands, since they no historical ties to it. This view is just as ignorant as stating the Palestinians have no valid claims to the land.