News Is the Palestinian Right of Return a Path to Peace or Conflict?

[kyleb]

(i assume you meant to be funny! )

I do not see any comedy in denying the rights of millions of refugees, and I find it disturbing that you do.

Good question … Articles 10 to 17 (constituting the section "FUNCTIONS and POWERS"), in Chapter IV of the UN charter, at http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter4.shtml , sets out the powers of the General Assembly.

What you quoted doesn't even mention the status of the rights affermed by UN resolutions, let alone does it mention the distinction in status you claim.

UNGA Resolution 194, like all other General Assembly Resolutions, confers no legal rights.

It is my understanding that the UNGA resolution 181 partition plan established the legal right for Israel to exist. If I am to accept your claim of a distinction betwen rights, then I will be left with no knowledge of any legal basis for Israel's right to exist. So, while I'm still looking for you to substantiate your claim that the UN makes any such distinction of rights; I am also curious to know what, if anything, do you believe gives Israel any legal right to exist at all?

What do you mean "reaching"? A racist word was used, with no apparent reason other than racist insult. Are you seriously suggesting that one should remain silent in the face of racist insult?

And the word was deliberately mis-spelled to bring out the insult even more graphically … from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shyster …

First off, there is no racial connotation to the term. More directly, the majority of shysters in this world aren't Jews, and the majority of Jews in this world aren't shysters.

That said, you are reaching when you ascribe a racial connotation to a word which doesn't have one. You are reaching even further when you post a link that doesn't suggest any racial connotation to the word you claim has one. You are even more reaching when you allege a misspelling of that word is a deliberate attempt to amplify that nonexistent racial connotation. You may not have done any of this deliberately, but you have been making reaching attempts to play the racism-card here just the same.

I assume you're referring to the allegation that some people accuse any criticism of Israel as racist … my accusation (not against you) wasn't about any criticism of Israel, it was about a personal insult that had nothing to do with Israel.

wasn't it? ​

Sorry … what is the point you're making about UN Watch?

You haven't quoted, from the same page

I didn't quote what you did there because it has no bearing on my point. Again, the fact that the vast majority of the nations of the world's constant reaffirmation of the rights of Palestinians misleads some to believe world is racist against Jews. Since you have been perpetuating similar sophistry, I am curious to know how far you go with it, and presented that website as an example of the exteme to people who aren't aware of the this phenomena.

Regardless, I don't see how anything less than racism could have facilitated Israel's violent uprooting of masses of Palestinians, and the decades long and ongoing denial of the rights of those resulting refugees and Palestinians as a whole. How else could Israel have committed that original injustice against those refugees, and continue perpetrating that injustice and others against Palestinians in general to this day, other than though deeply ingrained bigoty against them? Is that why you found my previous question on the immorality of denying Palestinians refugee rights humorous?

China, Russia, and the United States (permanent members of the UN Security Council) are not very likely to ever order the return of Palestinians since it would set a very bad precedent for them. Canada wouldn't be very happy, either. (Generally, the larger a country's area, the more indigenous 'nations' that were displaced completely or placed under some other nation's rule).

The United States might support a monetary settlement, since that's how the US has generally handled dealing with its past (the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, for example).

There difference here is that Israel is has continued to maintain military occupation over Palestinian territory for decades, while colonizing across that territory with Israeli civilian settlements. This leaves millions of Palestinians stateless, including many refugees of what is now Israel, permanently denied civil rights by Israel martial law, as Israel kills off anyone who stands in the way of their ongoing conquest over what little of Palestine is left. Furthermore, all one has to do is check the documentation to see that, aside from the US, all the permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as Canada and the rest of the world, often demonstrate their respect for this difference with UNGA resolutions affirming the rights of Palestinian refugees, such as this one I posted previously:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49634ced2.html

That resolution was adopted with a vote of 173-1-6, as recounted here:

http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/...e=voting&ri=&index=.VM&term=A/RES/63/91#focus

If our US government had any real interest in supporting a monetary settlement, we could have done so decades ago rather than vetoing any Security Counsel resolutions directed at imposing such a just conclusion to this conflict. Unfortunately, in the US and Israel, we've been flooded with masses of propaganda to blame the victims of Israels conquest over Palestine. I doubt many of our leaders in both nations even realize they are misguiding themselves with such chicanery, and I am sure most of the population doesn't, but that is exactly what allows Israel to deny the rights of Palestinians, refugees and otherwise. Again, is Israel's conquest over Palestine nothing more than a manifestation of racism, or where anyone find any actual justice in continuing this?

 

[The Dagda]

I didn't misspell it, it can be used both ways actually, check out a dictionary, I did before I posted it because I was unsure how it was spelt. I think Scheister is the original Yiddish a corruption of the German word Sheisser, and Shyster is the US corruption not sure, either way it's a slang term like schmuck.

 

[tiny-tim]

I didn't misspell it, it can be used both ways actually, check out a dictionary, I did before I posted it because I was unsure how it was spelt.

oh really?

I was very surprised by the spelling (and somewhat shocked), and I looked it up too, before I made my original comment, just to check, and found it spelled only "shyster", at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shyster and at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shyster.

And I've just now looked up "scheister" on spell-check sites http://www.spellingcenter.com/scheister and http://www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_search.php

… spellingcenter.com has it as a known misspelling, and merriam-webster.com doesn't recognise it.

But it's a racist insult whichever way it's spelled.

So which dictionary do you claim you checked it on before you used it?​

 

[BobG]

This thread has reached the point where we're debating the correct spelling of insults? That has to be some kind of new record, isn't it?

 

[drizzle]

are you trying to warn someone to lock the thread? as long no one overcome the roles, it is ok to keep it ...and necessary too

 

[drizzle]

sorry if that sounds rude

 

[kyleb]

This thread has reached the point where we're debating the correct spelling of insults? That has to be some kind of new record, isn't it?

Any chance you care to get the thread back on track by responding to my question of if there is any actual justice in US veto power being exploited to prevent the resolution of the refugee issue which the world at large has supported consistently for decades? I love to feel like we are doing the right thing here, but I am at a loss to find a rational argument as to how blocking such resolution could be considered anything but wrong.

 

[turbo]

Any chance you care to get the thread back on track by responding to my question of if there is any actual justice in US veto power being exploited to prevent the resolution of the refugee issue which the world at large has supported consistently for decades? I love to feel like we are doing the right thing here, but I am at a loss to find a rational argument as to how blocking such resolution could be considered anything but wrong.

George Mitchell, son of Lebanese Christian emigrees to Maine, has just been appointed by Obama as Mid-East envoy. Let's see what happens.

 

[kyleb]

I agree that Obama's appointment of Mitchell looks promising, particularly considering his previous efforts on this conflict, and his work in Northern Ireland. However, there is massive wall of support for Israel's conquest over Palestine, as evidenced by the nearly unanimous devotion across Congress and the media. We have a society which has be conditioned to condemn terrorists for their deplorable tactics, while completely ignoring our deplorable and long standing denial of Palestinians rights which inspires such terrorism.

Put simply, I'd rather not just sit back and watch, as that is what our nation has been doing for decades now, since before I was born. Having studied this conflict thoroughly over the past decade, I have seen been many times of promise over the history, but all have fallen well short of their stated goal, and often only served to further exasperate discord. This has left us perpetuating the conquest over Palestine, as we seem destined to do until our society can rid itself of the illusions that there is some http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hff2p705cUI" to be found in any of this.

 

[The Dagda]

oh really?

I was very surprised by the spelling (and somewhat shocked), and I looked it up too, before I made my original comment, just to check, and found it spelled only "shyster", at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shyster and at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shyster.

And I've just now looked up "scheister" on spell-check sites http://www.spellingcenter.com/scheister and http://www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_search.php

… spellingcenter.com has it as a known misspelling, and merriam-webster.com doesn't recognise it.

But it's a racist insult whichever way it's spelled.

So which dictionary do you claim you checked it on before you used it?​

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scheister

http://www.fvrss.com/2008/07/attorneys-at-law-swindel-scheister.html

Like I say the word is Yiddish and slang. If The Jews are racist against themselves, it would be quite ironic don't you think? You are aware that Yiddish is a German/Hebrew language right? It wouldn't be racist if it was referring to an underhanded Jewish Lawyer, it was a joke, for God's sake let it lie already.

 

[tiny-tim]

So which dictionary do you claim you checked it on before you used it?​

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scheister

http://www.fvrss.com/2008/07/attorneys-at-law-swindel-scheister.html

(The second one isn't a dictionary … it's a video of two Jewish lawyers whose surnames are the two misspellings "Swindel & Scheister")​

Are you saying that the first dictionary you claim you checked it in was the little-known slang dictionary urbandictionary.com, which exists only on the internet, and not a website of one of the well-known regular paper dictionaries?

Why would you do that?

 

[The Dagda]

(The second one isn't a dictionary … it's a video of two Jewish lawyers whose surnames are the two misspellings "Swindel & Scheister")​

Are you saying that the first dictionary you claim you checked it in was the little-known slang dictionary urbandictionary.com, which exists only on the internet, and not a website of one of the well-known regular paper dictionaries?

Why would you do that?

It's slang ok why are you pressing this so hard, I looked it up in a slang dictionary because it's a slang term. What's up with that? There are a lot of words that don't appear in the dictionary but that are in widespread use; for example: feck, twonk, asshat, mong, rtard, schmuck, shlamiel, chutzpah, Moxie, minging and so on, they are not in the OED for example.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There are a lot of words that don't appear in the dictionary but that are in widespread use; for example: feck, twonk, asshat, mong, rtard, schmuck, shlamiel, chutzpah, Moxie, minging and so on, they are not in the OED for example.

In science it is important to check one's facts. I assert you did not. I have access to the online OED, and can assure you that 7 of those words are in the OED, and the 8th, shlemiel would have been in had you spelled it correctly.

 

[The Dagda]

In science it is important to check one's facts. I assert you did not. I have access to the online OED, and can assure you that 7 of those words are in the OED, and the 8th, shlemiel would have been in had you spelled it correctly.

Who cares? Really do you not think this thread has been derailed enough by pedantry? Or did you just think I know, I'll add to the derail for a laugh? The fact is Scheister is a slang term, it's used by people in the real world, now can we all just shut the **** up really, it's petty and we don't need it. This is what happens when someone's arguments fall apart, they detiriorate into petty point picking, it's sad, but there you go.

I can't spell shlemiel well that's my life over, the Jewish Womens Guild will never let me play their club again.

And for the record, I am not a racist either, thanks very much. *slaps head* Oy vey!

 

[BobG]

Any chance you care to get the thread back on track by responding to my question of if there is any actual justice in US veto power being exploited to prevent the resolution of the refugee issue which the world at large has supported consistently for decades? I love to feel like we are doing the right thing here, but I am at a loss to find a rational argument as to how blocking such resolution could be considered anything but wrong.

Regardless of UN resolutions or who is backing them, no nation is going to negotiate themselves out of existence, so the idea of Palestinians returning to their homeland through negotiation is out of the question. Forget justice. Explain how you plan on eliminating Israel's government and cultural infrastructure without sparking a nuclear war.

In other words, any of the Arab nations that feel it's time for regime change in Israel should just go ahead and do it. The US has already proved how much significance UN and world opinion have.

What's that saying about how a person should never let principle stand in the way of doing the right thing?

I think the Palestinians would be better off focusing on something that's realistically achievable.

 

[kyleb]

Regardless of UN resolutions or who is backing them, no nation is going to negotiate themselves out of existence, so the idea of Palestinians returning to their homeland through negotiation is out of the question.

How is convincing Palestinian refugees to cede their right of return in exchange for reasonable financial compensation out of the question?

Forget justice.

That is what we have been doing here for decades now, and I don't see any good coming out of it.

Explain how you plan on eliminating Israel's government and cultural infrastructure without sparking a nuclear war.

I never suggested eliminating Israel's government or cultural infrastructure, and would never do so even if Israel had no nuclear capabilities.

In other words, any of the Arab nations that feel it's time for regime change in Israel should just go ahead and do it.

The Arab nations have accepted Israel's existence, they just want this conflict resolved by peaceful means on the basis of international law, all they need is for us to stop vetoing the UN resolutions which would accomplish that goal.

The US has already proved how much significance UN and world opinion have.

Cutting South Africa off from the resources necessary to continue the practice of apartheid though sanctions and divestment shows how much significance the UN and world opinion can have here, if only US veto power woudn't block it.

What's that saying about how a person should never let principle stand in the way of doing the right thing?

What "right thing" are you after here specifically?

I think the Palestinians would be better off focusing on something that's realistically achievable.

What "something" would you recommend Palestinians focus on?

 

[BobG]

How is convincing Palestinian refugees to cede their right of return in exchange for reasonable financial compensation out of the question?

This is the best realistic option available.

And I can see where getting the world to acknowledge a right of return as being legitimate is a key to making it something that can be traded for financial compensation. The fact that returning isn't a realistic option lowers the value of 'reasonable financial compensation', but it doesn't eliminate it completely. The negotiation should be over the what the reasonable value is.

Rockets landing in Israel raise the reasonable value since part of the payment is just to get the rocket fire to stop. Wiping out the capability to fire rockets into Israel lowers the reasonable value considerably.

Edit: The 'principle' part is that the Palestinians really do have equal claim to the land in Israel. As bad as the original partitioning was, the Palestinians rejecting it while Jews accepted it wound up being a serious strategic error on the Palestinians part. The 'right' part is to accept that the situation has drastically changed and that they're really in a position of bargaining for the most they can get rather than what may seem fair.

 

[The Dagda]

I wouldn't say equal claim to be honest, but my views are by the by and they are there now. The only problem with financial compensation is some parties have said they wouldn't accept blood money. It could work though, certainly a right of return in a physical sense is not practical, unless it was pretty limited.

 

[turbo]

Under international law, the right of return is a guarantee to refugees that must be honored. Israel could likely end its conflict with the Palestinians by withdrawing from the west bank and ceding enough territory to allow the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state. By doing this, they would pull the teeth of the radicals in Palestine, and the Palestinians could have a viable reason to waive the right of return.

This will never happen as long as any single permanent member of the UN Security Council can veto the will of the General Assembly, as the US has consistently done in the case of resolutions seen as detrimental to Israel's interests.

 

[kyleb]

This is the best realistic option available.

And I can see where getting the world to acknowledge a right of return as being legitimate is a key to making it something that can be traded for financial compensation.

It is the solution the world acknowledges, but US veto power in the UN allows Israel to refuse that solution.

The fact that returning isn't a realistic option lowers the value of 'reasonable financial compensation', but it doesn't eliminate it completely.

How does Israel's refusal to accept Palestinians rights do anything to lower the value of them?

The 'principle' part is that the Palestinians really do have equal claim to the land in Israel.

I gathered that much.

As bad as the original partitioning was, the Palestinians rejecting it while Jews accepted it wound up being a serious strategic error on the Palestinians part.

Do you not understand the fact that Jews employed overwhelming military force to drive out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from throughout both sides of the partition in the months before declaring statehood?

Regardless, you are mistaken in believing those resulting refugees were ever provided the opportunity to accept the partition.

The 'right' part is to accept that the situation has drastically changed and that they're really in a position of bargaining for the most they can get rather than what may seem fair.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting we all forget justice in favor of embracing the power to perpetuate iniquity? Or rather, in simple terms; might makes right?

I wouldn't say equal claim to be honest, but my views are by the by and they are there now. The only problem with financial compensation is some parties have said they wouldn't accept blood money. It could work though, certainly a right of return in a physical sense is not practical, unless it was pretty limited.

Rightful claim would be Israel's alone if Palestinians were given reasonable compensation for their losses. Furthermore, considering even Quran condones accepting blood money to resolve a conflict, I am curious to know what parties are you suggesting would not agree to such a resolution?

 

[The Dagda]

Under international law, the right of return is a guarantee to refugees that must be honored. Israel could likely end its conflict with the Palestinians by withdrawing from the west bank and ceding enough territory to allow the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state. By doing this, they would pull the teeth of the radicals in Palestine, and the Palestinians could have a viable reason to waive the right of return.

This will never happen as long as any single permanent member of the UN Security Council can veto the will of the General Assembly, as the US has consistently done in the case of resolutions seen as detrimental to Israel's interests.

That's the point of compromise, both sides lose something to gain something amicable. Let's face it Israel will never agree to a full right to return so we have to be pragmatic. If they revert to pre 1967 borders and Palestine gives up a physical right of return for a limited one with monetary compensation, they may have something they can agree on.

 

[The Dagda]

Rightful claim would be Israel's alone if Palestinians were given reasonable compensation for their losses. Furthermore, considering even Quran condones accepting blood money to resolve a conflict, I am curious to know what parties are you suggesting would not agree to such a resolution?

Hamas, and all hard liners in Fatah, as well as presumably some of the people who lost land.

 

[kyleb]

Where have you found any Palestinians refusing the possibility of ceding their right of return in exchange for reasonable compensation? At least as much as I've looked into this conflict, I have yet to find anything standing in the way of resolving the refugee issue though such restitution other than Israel's lack of interest in arranging anything of the sort.

 

[Alfi]

Regardless of UN resolutions or who is backing them, no nation is going to negotiate themselves out of existence, so the idea of Palestinians returning to their homeland through negotiation is out of the question. Forget justice. .

Again, this 'out of existence' thing. This time it's not being wiped out, it's being negotiated out of existence. It's beginning to sound like an irrational fear.
Let's not forget justice. Ask for it, Demand it if you feel strong enough.

 

[The Dagda]

Where have you found any Palestinians refusing the possibility of ceding their right of return in exchange for reasonable compensation? At least as much as I've looked into this conflict, I have yet to find anything standing in the way of resolving the refugee issue though such restitution other than Israel's lack of interest in arranging anything of the sort.

I remember reading it somewhere. It's not important anyway.

 

[kyleb]

The reality of who lacks interest in a reasonable compromise is crucial to achieving a just solution to this conflict, while unsubstantiated beliefs of such only serve to compromise the integrity of our grasp on that reality.

 

[The Dagda]

Be fair though when England were being the worlds largest bastards everyone was doing it, we just did it better.

I tend to agree the partition plan was a disaster and an anachronism, but talking about just how bad an idea it was considering, seems somewhat academic.

 

[ThomasT]

The reality of who lacks interest in a reasonable compromise is crucial to achieving a just solution to this conflict, while unsubstantiated beliefs of such only serve to compromise the integrity of our grasp on that reality.

I agree with you and others who are arguing for a just solution to the Palestinians' plight. But the only way that it's going to happen is if the US government backs it. This will only happen if an overwhelming majority of US citizens back it in some form of civil action (supporting candidates who support the Palestinians, etc.).

This isn't going to happen. We just elected a President who has outspokenly aligned himself with Israeli interests. His election was heralded by most as a wonderful thing.

The truth is 'out there', but comfortable people tend to not want to know or admit truths that would obligate them to do things that would disturb their comfort. And uncomfortable people are generally too busy dealing with the daily circumstances of their lives to do what's necessary to learn the truth in the first place.

Anyway, the concept of justice, while beautiful and even utilitarian in some respects, will always be at odds with a deeper, natural truth which governs most of our actions.

 

[kyleb]

Poles show that over 70% of the public favors our government taking an even handed role in the conflict, most simply don't understand the conflict well enough to see that our government is doing anything but. Then we have a strong support for Israel by people with bigotry against Arabs, along with people who are diluted into believing that Israel's conquest over Palestine is some path to salvation. However, those people are only a minority, and we simply need to bring society over the tipping point of outnumbering that minority and understanding will spread from there. South African apartheid is an excellent example of how the same challenges have been overcome before.

What "natural truth" do you suggest stands in the way here?

 

[The Dagda]

I agree with you and others who are arguing for a just solution to the Palestinians' plight. But the only way that it's going to happen is if the US government backs it. This will only happen if an overwhelming majority of US citizens back it in some form of civil action (supporting candidates who support the Palestinians, etc.).

This isn't going to happen. We just elected a President who has outspokenly aligned himself with Israeli interests. His election was heralded by most as a wonderful thing.

The truth is 'out there', but comfortable people tend to not want to know or admit truths that would obligate them to do things that would disturb their comfort. And uncomfortable people are generally too busy dealing with the daily circumstances of their lives to do what's necessary to learn the truth in the first place.

Anyway, the concept of justice, while beautiful and even utilitarian in some respects, will always be at odds with a deeper, natural truth which governs most of our actions.

By being on only one side the US has merely exacerbated the situation, add that to it vetoing everything that is not as it sees it "in Israel's interest" and you have a disparity of concerns that seems insoluble. The US thinks that it is the cause of Israel's existence as Truman decided on the partition plans two state option (after heavy lobbying from Zionist groups in the US), and so it has always been in it's corner; sadly as well the populous seem fed with propaganda accordingly by their TV media. To come to a conclusion the West needs to be in no ones corner, but, the corner of a resolution by means acceptable to both. The US in this respect sadly is often merely a third wheel.

Obama has to say that he is in Israel's corner, because most of the US are so it's a vote winner, let's hope he's more competent about his methods than the former incumbent.

 

[ThomasT]

Poles show that over 70% of the public favors our government taking an even handed role in the conflict, most simply don't understand the conflict well enough to see that our government is doing anything but. Then we have a strong support for Israel by people with bigotry against Arabs, along with people who are diluted into believing that Israel's conquest over Palestine is some path to salvation. However, those people are only a minority, and we simply need to bring society over the tipping point of outnumbering that minority and understanding will spread from there. South African apartheid is an excellent example of how the same challenges have been overcome before.

The Palestinian problem is different than the South African one. Most notably, the US government has obligated itself to supporting Israeli violence against Palestinians. The information sources that most of us get all our 'news' and commentary from have effectively marginalized the interests of the victims, and villified and discredited those who support them. It would take a massive display of US public opinion in the form of demonstrations, letters and phone calls, financial and voting support for pro-Palestinian candidates, etc., to force the US government, and hence Israel, into doing justice by the Palestinians.

Almost no one that I know even wants to discuss things of this sort, much less actually do anything about them -- no matter how little individual effort it would take {via voting, contributions, etc.).

What "natural truth" do you suggest stands in the way here?

The 'inertia' of selfishness and greed?

 

[kyleb]

Greed is certainly the drive behind the leaders this conquest over Palestine, but the same was true for the conquest of whites over blacks in South Africa. Apartheid in South Africa went on for decades with tactile support of governments in the US and elsewhere. However, as public awareness of the wickedness committed in our names spread, and our self-indulgent leaders were eventually forced to conform to the standards of justice which are sacrosanct to the greater population. I see the same build toward a tipping point happening here, and am at a loss as to find any tangible basis for your pessimism to the contrary.

 

[ALYAZAN]

peace upon u all

i don't know why r u complicating the issue .. it's very simple .. and i guess that we (physicists) tend to simlpize cases

if i was living in a place .. no one have the right to get me out of it (exept my government) and if i was forced or terrorized by a guy to get out of my home land .. then simply i have the right to return back home and get that guy out of my land and it's not my job where would he go to !

so Palestinian have the right to go back to their home land .. as simple as this

but if we supposed that israeli people have the right to occupy Palestine coz jews lived there before Palestinians then what about Greek who lived there for centuries ?? what about Christians who lived there for nearly 200 years ?? what about Muslims who lived there and still living since more than 1400 years ?? what about Egyptian who occupied that land for centuries ?? even barbarian Mongol tribes occupied that land for few months .. lol .. it doesn’t make sense at all to say that israel have the right to occupy Palestine coz jews lived there once upon the time ! Palestinian were living there and they were a mixtures of many nationalities (Muslims, Christians, nonbelievers, Arabs, Greek, Anglicans, Asian even there were a lot of people from Morocco !) before the occupation .. they were living in peace and love together .. after that Hagana troops started killing Palestinian town after town and village after village .. terrifying people in order to force them to run away .. what makes it unfair to let them return back to their own homes ?? what makes it fair to forgive Zionist troops for all the crimes they did and in addition to that to give them the right to defend what they occupied !??

in addition to that .. i guess that jews indeed know the truth about why were they out of Palestine ! and they also know surely that arabian people was living there before
as Torah (Jews holy book) they came with prophet Moses after they could escape from the pharaoh "sorry I've forgotten his name" crossing the sea (13th century BC ) .. they were ordered to fight arab people (Kana'ani tribes they are sons of prophet Ishmael son of prophet Abraham "may blessing and peace be upon them" ) and get them out of the land but they refused and told prophet Moses to fight with his God alone .. so they were cursed by God .. and they were prohibited to live in Jerusalem .. but the book says that they'll be back to Palestine.. killing it's people, destroying the land, burning and damaging as much as they can but in the end they'll be all killed coz they are were cursed and not allowed to go to Palestine ..

i can't remember the whole story of (jews and Palestine) but believe that every body must have idea about it .. coz it proves that the very first people who lived there were Arabs .. exactly (Kana'ani tribes) who were described as "powerful and strong people" in every holy book .. and it predicts that they'll get back to Palestine 2 times (one had been done and we are living in the second time era) and the second time will be the end of them all .. that's not what i say that's what holy books say .. i have no problem with other opinions and unbeliever views aND I DO RESPEVT EVERY POINT OF VIEW AND EVERYBODY .. but we must have enough knowledge about the religious roots of the issue .. coz we all know that israel depends on religious thoughts to manage their state ! you can search for what was said in the speech of 1948 when David Ben Gurion (1886-1973), established state of Israel ..


i can't prove this thing coz there are no single and ensured book of Torah now .. a lot of copies with a lot of changes maid inside each one had appeared since few years after prophet Moses (may blessing and peace be upon him) up till now ... but this what makes sense with other holy books ..

pardon me every body .. i know that a lot of people have problem with what i said but i never mean any insult or bad feeling .. my respect to every body and every religion

I know exactly that truth is very clear .. and the solution is very easy .. israeli out back where they were living .. and Palestinian back to their homes

best wishes

 

[tiny-tim]

Canaan and Ishmael

as Torah (Jews holy book) .. they were ordered to fight arab people (Kana'ani tribes they are sons of prophet Ishmael son of prophet Abraham "may blessing and peace be upon them" ) ..

No, the Torah says that the Canaanites were descended from Canaan, who was one of the sons of Ham (and so were the Egytians and the Philisitines, btw).

And I assume the Koran says the same.

It would be impossible to be less related to the Israelites or Ishmaelites than that!

The Israelites and Ishmaelites of course were cousins (and Shemites, not Hamites), and the Arabs claim descent from the Ishmaelites.

i can't remember the whole story of (jews and Palestine) but believe that every body must have idea about it .. coz it proves that the very first people who lived there were Arabs .. exactly (Kana'ani tribes)

According to the Torah, and I assume the Koran also, both Egypt and Palestine were populated by Hamites (Canaanites and Philistines) before the Israelites arrived, not Ishmaelites.

 

[mazin1985]

guys:
to be rationl in replying , and at the same time to be neutral(i believe with the right of return) i will say , what the syrian politician (faroq alsharia) said in madrid conferance of peace at 1991 , if we confess that the israelian people have the right to be at palestine right now, in regarding of their claim that it is their land whiche they lived in from thousand of years , we have to confess that it is the right of palastinian to come back to their homeland ,which they enforced to leave it from 60 years , this is the rational solution , the claim of jewish that they were living in palestin from thousands of years , and palestinians lived their from 60 years and they still have the keys of their homes until now.
simply : now according to the origin of arabs nobody can claim that the arabs not samatism .

 

[kyleb]

I know exactly that truth is very clear .. and the solution is very easy .. israeli out back where they were living .. and Palestinian back to their homes

It it not that simple.

First off, the religious claim isn't even what drove the Zionist movement in the beginning, but rather it was started by secular but ethnic Jews who rejected millenia of religious understanding that any attempt to forcefully establish any Jewish state is strictly forbidden. The theological arguments to support such a conquest only came later, and only started gaining popular support as the conditions in Europe grew worse for Jews under the rise of Nazism. Also note there is still is some religious Jews around the world who still reject the state as an affront to God. Furthermore, the majority of Jews in Israel and elsewhere today don't consider themselves religious, but rather only ethnically-Jewish, and many don't approve of Israel's conquest over Palestine either.

Second, The vast majority of Israelis now had nothing to do with running Palestinians out of their homes. Uprooting the millions of Israeli who were born and raised in Israel would be a catastrophe much as was the uprooting of Palestinians before them. Put simply, adding one wrong on top of another won't set anything right.

Also, the theological linage claims you guys are discussing have no place in a science forum. Research shows that those we now call Palestinians are are descended from the Semitic peoples and others who have inhabited the region since pre-Biblical times. Of course Jews, even the ones of Europe who started this conquest, also share such ancestry. However, any such ancient linage arguments are no justification for driving anyone out of their homeland.

There are only two just solutions here:

1) Israel discards their ethnic nationalist nature and gives Palestinians equal rights, allowing refugees to return and incorporating Gaza and the West Bank into a truly democratic state.

2) Israel arranges fair compensation for the refugees they displaced, and allows a fully independent state of Palestine to exist thoughout Gaza and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as it's capital.

#1 is the ideal solution, but #2 is far more realistically achievable as it doesn't require overcoming the ethnic nationalist mindset ingrained into the majority of Israelis, but only the lust for colonizing the West Bank shared by a small minority of zealots.

On that note, here is recent episode of 60 Minutes which details the obstacles of reaching a just resolution to this conflict, and the urgency in ending the colonization which is working to make such a solution impossible:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/60minutes/main4749723.shtml

 

[ALYAZAN]

No, the Torah says that the Canaanites were descended from Canaan, who was one of the sons of Ham (and so were the Egytians and the Philisitines, btw).

And I assume the Koran says the same.

It would be impossible to be less related to the Israelites or Ishmaelites than that!

The Israelites and Ishmaelites of course were cousins (and Shemites, not Hamites), and the Arabs claim descent from the Ishmaelites.


According to the Torah, and I assume the Koran also, both Egypt and Palestine were populated by Hamites (Canaanites and Philistines) before the Israelites arrived, not Ishmaelites.

i read a lot of books on this issue exactly ... kana'an is one of prophet Ismael (may blessing and peace be upon him) sons .. and so r arabs ... trully arabs are Shemites .. and by the way .. all copies of Torah (regardless to their differences) say that the last prophet would be descent from the Ishmaelites .. and when the marks of That prophet apeared he was arabian exactly "Adnani" ! that means that arabs are Shemites ... even the old books of Torah -which are almost not available now adays- says that arabs and jews are both Shemites but arab are Ishmaelites and jews are Israelites (may blessing and peace be upon the both propherts Israel and Ishmael) ..

and i want to ask u a simple question ... which Torah exactly r u depending on ??
Quran do not talk about who is Hamites,who is Shemites, who is Ishmaelites and who is what so ever .. Islam in general do never sort people according to their blood and who r their fathers ! Prophet Mahammad (may blessing and peace be upon him) says "No arabian would have merit or better than non arabian but with his good work "wells" " and it's very bad to judge people by who r their fathers ! what a logic ! what would make us -Shemites- better than Indians or Chinese if we were Shemites and they were non ??

why do we discuss such a things and neglect the main subject (right to return)

According to the Torah, and I assume the Koran also, both Egypt and Palestine were populated by Hamites (Canaanites and Philistines) before the Israelites arrived, not Ishmaelites

now adays there are a lot of Torah .. and about Quran Egyption people were not netioned as arabs or not nor as Shemites or Hamites .. Islam says : "You all human are sons of Adam; and Adam is of mud and no arabian would have merit or better than non arabian but with his good work "wells" "

and Quran say : "Land is for Allah (God) inherits it to his good worshipers" Quran didn't say who is the owner (Hamites or Shemites) but said that Land is for God and people who are good will be the truly owners who are approved by God



in the end of this point ..

i know that u will never get convinced by what i say nor i ..

coz my proves are not the same as yours and i believe in my proves and so u do .. so it's it's meaningless discussing who is Hamites or Shemites .. it's really silly to judge people according to who r their fathers ..

try to focus on the intrinsic value ..
by the way .. I'm from Bosra in Syria but people in my country say that my familty is jewish i mean that we r descent from prophet Israel "Jacub" may blessing and peace be upon him and others say that we r arabs descent from Kalbi tribes .. any way .. i don't care .. I'm my self not my ancestors no matter who are they .. it don't matter wether if they were arabs or israeli and even if my family was indeed descent from israeli roots that does not mean that i'll defend israeli occupation and crimes .. i'll be the first one who would reject all of them ..


the main thing to say ..

it's just as simple as this .. palestinian have the right to go back to their home ...
i can't imagine what makes it wrong to get back to your home !

 

[ThomasT]

Greed is certainly the drive behind the leaders this conquest over Palestine, but the same was true for the conquest of whites over blacks in South Africa. Apartheid in South Africa went on for decades with tactile support of governments in the US and elsewhere. However, as public awareness of the wickedness committed in our names spread, and our self-indulgent leaders were eventually forced to conform to the standards of justice which are sacrosanct to the greater population. I see the same build toward a tipping point happening here, and am at a loss as to find any tangible basis for your pessimism to the contrary.

Long time de facto apartheid in South Africa became state-sanctioned via laws enacted around the time that the state of Israel was being formed. It wasn't very long before South Africa's separatism was denounced by the international community. Right from the beginning, there was massive popular opinion against official South African apartheid. Only three decades passed before countries were imposing economic sanctions on South Africa to pressure it into changing its separatist policies. The South African struggle to end apartheid coincided with the struggle to end separatism in the US. I remember massive riots in this country over the civil rights of blacks. It was politically disadvantageous, in most areas, and especially nationally, for any US politician to support either apartheid in South Africa or separatism in the US.

Ironically, it was, and remains, politically disadvantageous for any US politician to oppose Israeli apartheid and support Palestinians' right to return or reparations from Israel. By contrast, the Jewish-Israel demand for reparations from West Germany was fully supported by the US et al, and the economic power of world Jewry more or less ensured that a relatively quick, and satisfactory, reparation agreement was reached.

It's that economic power, the mass media power that shapes public opinion, the US historical alignment with Israel, and Israel's geographic location in a big oil producing region, that pressures politicians to place Israeli interests over Palestinian interests.

IMHO, for the status quo to change, there would have to emerge in the US a 'Palestinian civil rights movement' approximating the historical 'US civil rights movement'. The Palestinians will not have freedom and justice, they will not have their own state or any sort of reparations, unless the US (land of the free and home of the brave, purveyor of democracy, enemy of apartheid) forcefully helps them -- but that doesn't seem likely to happen.

The situation is thick with irony and hypocrisy.

Is it even possible that Palestinian salvation could come from within Israel itself? This isn't a rhetorical question. Statements by the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, seem encouraging -- or is it just political posturing?

 

[turbo]

Is it even possible that Palestinian salvation could come from within Israel itself? This isn't a rhetorical question. Statements by the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, seem encouraging -- or is it just political posturing?

It is political posturing, in my opinion. "Good cop - bad cop" play in which she says that settlements are a hindrance to peace and is flatly slapped down a day later with a statement "from above" that more Jewish settlers should be allowed to occupy the West Bank.

 

[tiny-tim]

i read a lot of books on this issue exactly ... kana'an is one of prophet Ismael (may blessing and peace be upon him) sons .. and so r arabs ... trully arabs are Shemites

I don't think you're right …

From Genesis 25:13-15 in the Torah (or see http://www.guidedbiblestudies.com/topics/twelve_tribes_of_ishmael.htm), the 12 sons of Ishmael were named …

Nebajoth; Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadar, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah

And from Genesis 9:18 …

And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.

Of course, the Koran may give different names … but so far as I know the Koran doesn't give any names at all.

So far as both the Torah and the Koran are concerned, the Arabs are Shemites, descended from Ishmael (who was descended from Shem the son of Noah), and the Canaanites (who inhabited Palestine before Moses) were descended from Canaan, the son of Ham the son of Noah.​

(Palestine, incidentally, is named after another pre-Moses tribe inhabiting Palestine, the Philistines, who are stated in Genesis 10:14 as descending from Mizraim, another son of Ham)

Do you have any reference (from one of the books you have read, or from the internet, or from the Koran) which supports your statement that there is a connection between the Arabs and the Kana'ani tribes, or that the Arabs have a pre-Moses connection with Palestine? …

as Torah (Jews holy book) .. arab people (Kana'ani tribes they are sons of prophet Ishmael son of prophet Abraham "may blessing and peace be upon them" ) ..

why do we discuss such a things …

erm … you mentioned it!

 

[The Dagda]

There's very good reasons why the Zionist movement was a secular one.

1) Israel had no real biblical claim to the lands there because they had not fulfilled their prophecies, thus technically speaking they were acting against The Bible in returning to Zion.

2) They wanted to make it clear that Israel was a legal state not a religious one, for obvious reasons.

Essentially though Israel has no more right to Palestine than the Celts do to England. Simple as that.

 

[ALYAZAN]

peace upon u all

I don't think you're right …

From Genesis 25:13-15 in the Torah (or see http://www.guidedbiblestudies.com/topics/twelve_tribes_of_ishmael.htm), the 12 sons of Ishmael were named …


And from Genesis 9:18 …


Of course, the Koran may give different names … but so far as I know the Koran doesn't give any names at all.

no it gave many names of prophets (25 of them) , good worshipers and one of prophet Mohammad's (blesing and peace be upon him) men his name is "Zaid ben Harethah"

i want to comment that if u read Torah u will easily find the differences between it's copies.. and u wil find that there are a lot of modified copies of Torah .. not just Torah .. jews had modified several times and in many aspects and chapters other holy books like "Zabor" holy book ... so as i told u that regarding to this we can't say what version - I'm sorry if the word is not suitable i just mean that they are not all the same not any thing else - of Torah is the right one .. but we can just respect it as a holy book ...

So far as both the Torah and the Koran are concerned, the Arabs are Shemites, descended from Ishmael (who was descended from Shem the son of Noah), and the Canaanites (who inhabited Palestine before Moses) were descended from Canaan, the son of Ham the son of Noah.​

(Palestine, incidentally, is named after another pre-Moses tribe inhabiting Palestine, the Philistines, who are stated in Genesis 10:14 as descending from Mizraim, another son of Ham)

Do you have any reference (from one of the books you have read, or from the internet, or from the Koran) which supports your statement that there is a connection between the Arabs and the Kana'ani tribes, or that the Arabs have a pre-Moses connection with Palestine? …




erm … you mentioned it!

and i'll bring u as soon as possible the book .. although it's in arabic but i'll try to translate some papers from it ... and i guess that there are othetr references in it's appendix .. and almost all books that teach Quran and Explain it say that Kana'ani tribes are arabian i can't .. i'll try to help u find an english book
any way this have no relation at all to the right of return .. and i think that discussing such a religious disagreements do never pay .. it just strengthen hate ..

and i wonder if u really read in Torah how couldn't u see that jews are not allowed by God to go palestaine .. and before the end of time they'll go there and they'll be punished and they'll be killed by Jesus .. i don't need ur confirmation coz u can find a copy of Torah that disagrees with this while there are copies that agree

and by the way .. u did mention it first .. re-read the posts in order

Kylep

First off, the religious claim isn't even what drove the Zionist movement in the beginning, but rather it was started by secular but ethnic Jews who rejected millenia of religious understanding that any attempt to forcefully establish any Jewish state is strictly forbidden. The theological arguments to support such a conquest only came later, and only started gaining popular support as the conditions in Europe grew worse for Jews under the rise of Nazism. Also note there is still is some religious Jews around the world who still reject the state as an affront to God. Furthermore, the majority of Jews in Israel and elsewhere today don't consider themselves religious, but rather only ethnically-Jewish, and many don't approve of Israel's conquest over Palestine either.

i agree with what u said (in green) and i know some of them one of them was my camp mate in a camp.. but i disagree with what in red ..

1) Israel discards their ethnic nationalist nature and gives Palestinians equal rights, allowing refugees to return and incorporating Gaza and the West Bank into a truly democratic state.

2) Israel arranges fair compensation for the refugees they displaced, and allows a fully independent state of Palestine to exist thoughout Gaza and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as it's capital.

#1 is the ideal solution, but #2 is far more realistically achievable as it doesn't require overcoming the ethnic nationalist mindset ingrained into the majority of Israelis, but only the lust for colonizing the West Bank shared by a small minority of zealots

it's not fair at all to give people right to live in a land they stolen it .. suppose a thief who beaten a person and stolen his money for example u shall we give him the right to spend it and give it to his friends and family and once the victim asks for his rights we say that we must not make wrong over wrong !

 

[tiny-tim]

peace upon u 2, kylep

no it gave many names of prophets (25 of them) , good worshipers and one of prophet Mohammad's (blesing and peace be upon him) men his name is "Zaid ben Harethah"

sorry, I didn't mean i thought there were no names in the Koran, i only meant no names of the sons of Ishmael or of Noah.

(what is the relevance of Zaid ben Harethah?)

and i'll bring u as soon as possible the book .. almost all books that teach Quran and Explain it say that Kana'ani tribes are arabian …
any way this have no relation at all to the right of return .. and i think that discussing such a religious disagreements do never pay .. it just strengthen hate ..

i look forward to seeing this reference to the Kana'ani tribes …

i wouldn't say the differences between religious books should cause disagreement between people … for example, the Torah tells that Abraham (Ibrahim) was told to sacrifice Isaac, while the Koran says that he was told to sacrifice Ishmael … but both religions draw the same conclusion from the story … the disagreement in that story does not cause any modern disagreement.

knowledge, and understanding (not the same thing!), of each other's holy books, both of the similarities and the differences, is always a good thing.

and i wonder if u really read in Torah how couldn't u see that jews are not allowed by God to go palestaine …

The Torah (which contains the commandments of God) is only the first 5 books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), and ends with the death of Moses (Musa). The rule you refer to is classified not as a commandment of God but as a commandment of the rabbis (a rabbinic commandment), and so is of lesser authority and is subject to much disagreement, and it derives from (but is not explicitly stated in) references to the Messiah (Moshiach, Christ) in Isaiah (later in the Bible).

 

[kyleb]

i want to comment that if u read Torah u will easily find the differences between it's copies.. !

There are many differences between various translations of Torah, just there are many differences between translations of Quran. However, the translations of Torah (and Tanakh as a whole) which are used by Jews and most Christians all come from the same ancient Hebrew Masoretic Text which was settled on around a millennium ago. Only some Christian Bibles are based on earlier Aramaic and Greek translations.

The rule you refer to is classified not as a commandment of God but as a commandment of the rabbis (a rabbinic commandment)...

The statement that the Israelites right to the Holy Land is conditional is straight out of out of Torah (Leviticus 18:28), and the loss of that right as well as the instructions for living in exile until that right is redeemed is detailed throughout Tanakh (notably Song of Songs 2:7, 3:5, 8:4). Even speaking strictly in a secular sense, the violation of those instructions is what brought the destruction of the Second Temple, revolting against Roman rule rather than maintaining limited autonomy under it.

This is also why the Rabbinical consensus until recently opposed any suggestion of building a Jewish state, and religious arguments for the Zionist movement only gained popular support as conditions in Europe grew exceedingly worse for Jews. For example sake, note that the First Zionist Congress of 1897 was originally to be held in Munich, but was moved to Basel under protest from the large Jewish communities in Germany.

As for the ancient ancestral claims, here is a report on a DNA study from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem:

As fighting continues in the Middle East, a new genetic study shows that many Arabs and Jews are closely related. More than 70% of Jewish men and half of the Arab men whose DNA was studied inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region within the last few thousand years.


The results match historical accounts that Moslem Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel and the Sinai. They were descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times.
...

http://bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/00_10now/001030a.html

So, again, the theological linages you two are discussing hold no weight in either side's claim to the land over the other.

 

[tiny-tim]

and i wonder if u really read in Torah how couldn't u see that jews are not allowed by God to go palestaine …

The rule you refer to is classified not as a commandment of God but as a commandment of the rabbis (a rabbinic commandment)...

The statement that the Israelites right to the Holy Land is conditional is straight out of out of Torah (Leviticus 18:29)

uhh? Leviticus 18:29 says nothing of the sort …
From http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0318.htm …

29 For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people.
כט כִּי כָּל-אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה, מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה--וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשֹׂת, מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּם.

(… and the earlier verses limit those "abominations" to incest and other sexual practices.)

Did you mean some other passage from the Torah?

This is also why the Rabbinical consensus until recently opposed any suggestion of building a Jewish state …

Yes, rabbinical (and only until recently, for most rabbis).​

 

[Phrak]

bleh ​

are you trying to spell "help" so that it can be seen from the air? ​

haha


From the air it spells don't get involved arguing with someone where every other sentence contains implicite falsehoods. It's a very long word.

The quote in your OP is such a statement, with invented history, and what else. No offense to you intended. (So who can keep up on all of it?) It permeates that mideast. Do this folks believe the friday rants like children and TV commercials? probably.

Usually this persistent activity gets shut down by some enraged mentor, doesn't it? Where do I purchase a mentoring degree so I can slash with vengence?

 

[tiny-tim]

just Prak!

Originally Posted by Prak

Now what are you trying to spell so that it can be seen from the air?

better out than in! ​

 

[The Dagda]

<snip>

So, again, the theological linages you two are discussing hold no weight in either side's claim to the land over the other.

Third time lucky, let's see if we can put this baby to rest, they might get the idea that Biblical claims are worthless even if they are followed to the letter. Let's face it even if it said in 1948 you will be given Israel back, that would be an amazing revelation, but still worthless.

No rebuilt temple, no right of return, get it.

It might be a little hard to rebuild it considering the Dome of the Rock is built over the site of the temple too.

 

[kyleb]

uhh? Leviticus 18:29 says nothing of the sort …

My bad, I meant the verse just prior, Leviticus 18:28:

that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.

I go back and edit my previous post now.

 

[tiny-tim]

Leviticus 18 … "abominations"

The statement that the Israelites right to the Holy Land is conditional is straight out of out of Torah (Leviticus 18:28)

erm … http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0318.htm" says nothing of the sort, either …

like verse 29 (obviously ), the earlier verses limit it to commission of "abominations" (תּוֹעֵבֹת), which they specify as incest and other sexual practices.

Oh … maybe you're relying on Israel's promotion of gay rights, and its giving asylum to gay Palestinan refugees, as forbidden in Leviticus 18:22? ​

The "statement" you refer to is not from the Torah, but rabbinical.

(The Torah, of course, is only the first 5 books of the Bible … Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.)