Understanding the Evacuation of Gaza Strip: An In-Depth Discussion

[Curious6]

No? Abraham never fathered a child by a slave? Huh.. my mistake..

Yes, I didn't deny that. But is this child called a Palestinian? No, he was said to be the ancestor of all Arabs, which is clearly a more encompassing term than 'Palestinian'.

OK, and now about the UN Resolution 242. This resolution, post-1967 war, is often stated as proof of the 'illegality' of the settlements. However, even though it calls for 'withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict' it does not call from withdrawal of all territories, as everybody knew that it would pose that the pre-1967 boundaries posed a significant danger. It is not a surprise that it says 'territories' rather than 'all territories' as a request that the word 'all' be included was rejected. Anyways, by returning the Sinai to Egypt in 1982, which arguably was a tremendously valuable asset as it has copious oil supplies of its own, over 90% of the territories captured in the war were returned. Finally, the disengagement is 'returning' Gaza, so there you go. Anyways, the resolution does not oblige anyone to return anything until there is a just peace settlement. If you do not agree with my interpretation, look at this page:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_un_242.php

Also, isn't it funny that the Arabs themselves rejected this resolution and now bring it up? Seems an ingenious way to suit resolutions to your interests.

 

[Curious6]

Paleolithic is a period of time, not a race. It's more commonly know as the stone age, have you heard of it?

Edit: well, actually the stone age is more broad, the Paleolithic period is the largest period of the stone age.

LOL, is this a joke? I said 'Paleolithic hunter-gatheres' and if it is too much work to understand that what I referred to were 'hunter-gatheres from the Paleolithic' then please excuse me and I will lower the level of the discussion to a more elementary one.

 

[Smurf]

Yes, I didn't deny that. But is this child called a Palestinian? No, he was said to be the ancestor of all Arabs, which is clearly a more encompassing term than 'Palestinian'.

I suggest you scooch over then because that's even more people you have to share it with now.

 

[Curious6]

I suggest you scooch over then because that's even more people you have to share it with now.

Haha, sorry for not giving up the remaining 0.01% of the land of the Middle East. I guess it's asking too much to have one single, independent Jewish state in the world, comparable in size to New Jersey.

 

[Smurf]

LOL, is this a joke? I said 'Paleolithic hunter-gatheres' and if it is too much work to understand that what I referred to were 'hunter-gatheres from the Paleolithic' then please excuse me and I will lower the level of the discussion to a more elementary one.

Because France was the only place with Hunter Gatherer's in the Paleolithic period, everywhere else had booming cities and sustained agriculture. You're right, my bad.

 

[Smurf]

Haha, sorry for not giving up the remaining 0.01% of the land of the Middle East. I guess it's asking too much to have one single, independent Jewish state in the world, comparable in size to New Jersey.

Just pointing out the irrelevance of such a claim.

 

[Yonoz]

I don't know what to say. Your story is damn confusing. I've not read others replies because I think it even makes me more confused. So I try to ask you to clarify it step by step.

No worries, just keep in mind I'm a little short of time during the week.

First step: Let think you really bought those lands! It's still damn confusing for me. Suppose some of Arabs(or even some of Americans) go to the US and buy some lands and then they decide to have an independent state from US governmemnt and govern independently, now what do you think other Americans would do?

The situation you're describing is very different from the situation in Palestine.
Palestine, until 1917, was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Under its control, Palestine was divided between a few provinces and the Jerusalem sanjack - it was never viewed as a unique, definite territory, and was sparsely populated in different parts by Arabs of various origins and cultures. Lands were owned usually by wealthy landowners who lived away from the territory - usually in Alexandria and Damascus.
The British took control of the Middle East during World War I, and divided it with the French in accordance with the Sykes-Picot agreement. That is the first time modern borders were set in that region. The League of Nations granted the British a mandate to keep the area that is today known as Palestine and Transjordan. Transjordan, whose population today is 90% Palestinian, was given to the Hashemites as part of an agreement for their support in fighting the Ottoman Empire, leaving a territory that became known as Palestine in British hands. The British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, made a declaration that Britain will endeavour to create a national home for Jews in Palestine.
In the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, King Faisal I, head of the Arab delegation, signed the Faisal-Weizmann agreement, accepting the Balfour declaration and agreeing to cooperate in creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. That treaty was not accepted by the Arab leaders in Palestine and they started attacking Jewish settlements by force. In March 1920, they attacked a Jewish settlement in the Galilee called Tel-Hai, where they killed 8 defenders among them Joseph Trumpeldor who became a symbol for the Jewish defenders in those days. In April, during a religious festival they attacked the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. This event is known as The 1920 Riots. These riots were the main factor in the establishment of the Haganah, the largest Jewish defensive organisation. Its policy of restraint was too peaceful for a few individuals, who formed a renegade group called the Irgun, which was very small and was denounced by the Jewish Agency. In 1936 the Palestinian Arabs staged the Great Uprising. These attacks further strengthened the need for a strong Jewish defense and also helped the Irgun gain enough popularity to keep it from falling apart.
Following these riots, the British placed restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchases, forcing Zionist organisations to clandestinely bring immigrants from Nazi Europe to safe shores in Palestine. This immigration continued also after World War II ended.
In 1947 the UN general assembly approved a Partition Plan for Palestine calling for two separate states - a Jewish and an Arab one. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan while Palestinian leaders and the Arab nations rejected it, starting more riots. In 1948 the British mandate ended, Israel declared independence, and on the next day Arab armies, supported by some locals attacked it, and the War of Independence started.

 

[Art]

False. The only major-scale massacre that occurred pre-1948 was the Deir Yassin massacre that you rightfully mentioned. However, even if this does not justify the violence, I urge you to take a look at the context this occurred in. The attack was certainly not an unprovoked action of torture and horror as many would like to believe, but it was the retaliatory action after constant Arab attacks. Anyways, even before armed Jewish forces entered the city they warned via loudspeakers that women and children should leave the city, which clearly proves the attack's objective was the men who carried out the preceding attacks. Anyways, if you are genuinely interested, please take a look at the following page:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_diryassin.php

Interesting you say they called on the women and children to leave. Obviously tactics change with time because in the Sabra and Shatila massacre it was the other way around. They waited until the men had left as part of the terms of a ceasefire agreement and then massacred the women and children left behind.
BTW If you like I'll start sourcing my information from the likes of stormfront. They're at least as reliable as the drivel you quoted.

Yes, they were indeed very obliging. This is why they started the violence and were the perpetrators of numerous riots, such as those of 1920-21.

Funny that you should refer to the original inhabitants of the land as rioters? Rioting against whom? Wouldn't it have been the jews who were rioting given that they were the visitors to someone elses land?

This is interesting. The Jews did not come from Egypt, they were not native from there. Rather, they were enslaved, and were forced to work there.

The biblical claim they make on the land stems from Moses leading them from EGYPT to the promised land. It's as good a starting point as any unless you want to trace their antecedents back to prehistoric times.

They then migrated to Canaan and established themselves there.

Migrated being a euphemism for invaded :rofl:

Anyways, the figure you mention is unverifiable by history and I have read accounts that it is a grossly overstated figure.

Then what you have read is wrong because it is historically verifiable from the 400 Tel-El Amarna tablets.

Anyways, the majority of Canaanites were absorbed into the Hebrew population as they intermarried for centuries, effectively causing the gradual disappearance of their culture.

Please explain how 2 races intermix and the majority one disappears whilst the minority one remains pure. Sounds like an interesting new twist to genetics.

 

[jcsd]

Interesting you say they called on the women and children to leave. Obviously tactics change with time because in the Sabra and Shatila massacre it was the other way around. They waited until the men had left as part of the terms of a ceasefire agreement and then massacred the women and children left behind.

The claim that they called on women and children to leave is something claimed after the fact by the perptrators of the massacre and is not backed up by independet evidnece (including the evidence of members of other Jewish miltias) and must be regarded with great suspicon gievn that most of the victims of the Deir Yassin massacre were women and children.

 

[Lisa!]

A difference is that some Jews believe in a biblical "promised land." Can't claim the same for the British over the Americas.

Biblical promised land? Somehow it isn't acceptable. You know for believing their bible, everyone needs to be Jewish. but as we know there are lots of other religions and some of people
are aheist or they're not religious. So their bible couldn't give them any right to claim these lands, since others don't believe it.
Anyway if this land had belonged to Jews 2000 years ago and now they have claim on it, base on this, European and African American should leave America too, because we know America is belong to people who were living there before European came to America.

By the way, Yonoz say we
bought these lands, curious6 say they have the right to be in Palestine because these lands had belonged to them 2000 years ago.

 

[Lisa!]

No worries, just keep in mind I'm a little short of time during the week.
The situation you're describing is very different from the situation in Palestine.
Palestine, until 1917, was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Under its control, Palestine was divided between a few provinces and the Jerusalem sanjack - it was never viewed as a unique, definite territory, and was sparsely populated in different parts by Arabs of various origins and cultures. Lands were owned usually by wealthy landowners who lived away from the territory - usually in Alexandria and Damascus.
The British took control of the Middle East during World War I, and divided it with the French in accordance with the Sykes-Picot agreement. That is the first time modern borders were set in that region. The League of Nations granted the British a mandate to keep the area that is today known as Palestine and Transjordan. Transjordan, whose population today is 90% Palestinian, was given to the Hashemites as part of an agreement for their support in fighting the Ottoman Empire, leaving a territory that became known as Palestine in British hands. The British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, made a declaration that Britain will endeavour to create a national home for Jews in Palestine.
In the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, King Faisal I, head of the Arab delegation, signed the Faisal-Weizmann agreement, accepting the Balfour declaration and agreeing to cooperate in creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. That treaty was not accepted by the Arab leaders in Palestine and they started attacking Jewish settlements by force. In March 1920, they attacked a Jewish settlement in the Galilee called Tel-Hai, where they killed 8 defenders among them Joseph Trumpeldor who became a symbol for the Jewish defenders in those days. In April, during a religious festival they attacked the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. This event is known as The 1920 Riots. These riots were the main factor in the establishment of the Haganah, the largest Jewish defensive organisation. Its policy of restraint was too peaceful for a few individuals, who formed a renegade group called the Irgun, which was very small and was denounced by the Jewish Agency. In 1936 the Palestinian Arabs staged the Great Uprising. These attacks further strengthened the need for a strong Jewish defense and also helped the Irgun gain enough popularity to keep it from falling apart.
Following these riots, the British placed restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchases, forcing Zionist organisations to clandestinely bring immigrants from Nazi Europe to safe shores in Palestine. This immigration continued also after World War II ended.
In 1947 the UN general assembly approved a Partition Plan for Palestine calling for two separate states - a Jewish and an Arab one. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan while Palestinian leaders and the Arab nations rejected it, starting more riots. In 1948 the British mandate ended, Israel declared independence, and on the next day Arab armies, supported by some locals attacked it, and the War of Independence started.

You told us you bought the lands from Palestinians, so why are you leaving them now? And another question, sure enough Palestinians didn't sell Kods too. So what are you doing there? And you say we're in lands which we bought from Palestinians, I heard that you were going to stretch Israel. Even Egypt would be part of Israel. So are you going to buy all these lands even from Egypt?

 

[loseyourname]

Biblical promised land? Somehow it isn't acceptable. You know for believing their bible, everyone needs to be Jewish. but as we know there are lots of other religions and some of people
are aheist or they're not religious. So their bible couldn't give them any right to claim these lands, since others don't believe it.
Anyway if this land had belonged to Jews 2000 years ago and now they have claim on it, base on this, European and African American should leave America too, because we know America is belong to people who were living there before European came to America.

I never understood this whole 'ancestral claim' thing, either. I have a lot of Armenian friends and some of the more ultra-nationalist ones insist that Turkey should return all lands taken in 1915 and all Turkish people should be removed from these lands. I really have to wonder: How many of the people living on this land were even alive 90 years ago? I would feel a little odd myself going to North Carolina or Georgia and demanding that all people of European descent leave because I have an ancestral claim to the land. But hey, why not? If Jews deserve their own state, why not Native Americans? They've been far less successful at integrating into Euro-American culture and have suffered just as much displacement and killing.

By the way, Yonoz say we
bought these lands, curious6 say they have the right to be in Palestine because these lands had belonged to them 2000 years ago.

They aren't the same person, you know. They can give different reasons.

 

[Lisa!]

I never understood this whole 'ancestral claim' thing, either. I have a lot of Armenian friends and some of the more ultra-nationalist ones insist that Turkey should return all lands taken in 1915 and all Turkish people should be removed from these lands. I really have to wonder: How many of the people living on this land were even alive 90 years ago? I would feel a little odd myself going to North Carolina or Georgia and demanding that all people of European descent leave because I have an ancestral claim to the land. But hey, why not? If Jews deserve their own state, why not Native Americans? They've been far less successful at integrating into Euro-American culture and have suffered just as much displacement and killing.

And how are they sure that these Palestinians' ancestors didn't live in Palestine 2000 years ago? Perhaps their ancestors were jews too and then they decided to change their religion!

They aren't the same person, you know. They can give different reasons.

I don't think it was possible to give different reasons for this subject. There must be one valid reason here. If someone asks you why are you living in this home, you will show a valid document to tell them whether you buy this hom or you inherit it from your ancestors.(Of course if you've not rented it )

 

[The Smoking Man]

If you have no background knowledge in genetics, or the human journey out of Africa to populate the world, then please refrain from expressing these absurdities. Modern homo sapiens are descended from various waves that left Africa close to 60,000 years ago and slowly filled the world. The natives of each country are mainly the descendants of the people that first reached the land, with minor contributions from later additions. I know this topic fairly well, if you would like to have any further information I can explain it to you.

You don't have to any more ... you just gave us the answer: "Modern homo sapiens are descended from various waves that left Africa close to 60,000 years ago and slowly filled the world."

What that does is to prove my point.

If these 'waves' all originated in Africa, which I presented to YOU by the way (even though you are trying to sound superior), then based on your assumption that the genetics of the ANCESTORS of people who lived in certain areas implies a right to claim land at their point of origin then it follows that all homo sapiens have the right to claim land in Africa.

If you think that is absurd then I ask you to look at your own contention that an ANCESTOR from 2,000 years ago gives you the right to claim the land you call Israel.

I want South aftica for the Diamonds and Krugerands ... Smurf, what do you claim?

 

[loseyourname]

I'm taking the Congo, or Zaire, or whatever it's called this year. The biodiversity there will probably produce a biotech cornucopia at some point. Oh, and since I'm part Native American, I'm claiming Cambodia and giving it to my ex-wife; it was her favorite vacation spot.

 

[The Smoking Man]

That is untrue. French are largely descended from the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers that reached Europe close to 40,000 years ago with a subsequent addition during the Neolithic from the Middle East due to the spread of agriculture. Any addition from the Huns is likely to be very minor and therefore insiginificant.

I noticed the ommission of the Native Americans that I posted and that you honed in on the Homo Sapiens.

So 10,000 years ago, the people of Asia migrated to North America.

Are they entitled to land?

The ASEANS have studied language migration and genetics throughout SE Asia. Is it your contention that we must now throw out all our concepts of the ownership of land and immigration to satisfy the absurd notion that these characteristics are 'claims' to a mythical Jewish homeland?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Oh, and since I'm part Native American, I'm claiming Cambodia and giving it to my ex-wife; it was her favorite vacation spot.

Sorry Pol Pot is not in business any more so if you're looking to solve the alimony problem ...

 

[waht]

re

The jews believe the land of Israel was promised by God.

In my mind what kind of God chooses one group of people over another by promising the land? Why doesn't he promise it to all people including Christians, Muslims or Buddists. Thats not a fair god don't you think, especially where all other religions preach love and equality for all.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Haha, sorry for not giving up the remaining 0.01% of the land of the Middle East. I guess it's asking too much to have one single, independent Jewish state in the world, comparable in size to New Jersey.

Haha ... then I guess we are going to have to sqidge over here too because the worshipers of Gichigumi need a homeland too.

Now, go around the world and find all the religions and find their 'homelands'.

Even the pagans who worship Herne the Hunter in the UK will now have to be given something like Sussex.

Well, the Druids will have to take Stonehenge however, I think they have placed it at an earlier time than that.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The jews believe the land of Israel was promised by God.

In my mind what kind of God chooses one group of people over another by promising the land? Why doesn't he promise it to all people including Christians, Muslims or Buddists. Thats not a fair god don't you think, especially where all other religions preach love and equality for all.

Well YOU obviously didn't pray hard enough did you!

 

[Lisa!]

The jews believe the land of Israel was promised by God.

In my mind what kind of God chooses one group of people over another by promising the land? Why doesn't he promise it to all people including Christians, Muslims or Buddists. Thats not a fair god don't you think, especially where all other religions preach love and equality for all.

Who said God agree with other religions? THIS REMINDS ME OF A Joke.Am I allowed to share my joke here? :uhh:

 

[The Smoking Man]

Who said God agree with other religions? THIS REMINDS ME OF A Joke.Am I allowed to share my joke here? :uhh:

Please do ... It can't be any worse than a genetic claim to land in the ME :rofl:

 

[Lisa!]

Please do ... It can't be any worse than a genetic claim to land in the ME :rofl:

It's quite irrelevant but I share it.

Once a person claims he's God. Others tell him "Do you know what happened to the guy who claimed he was God's prophet? We killed him." He answers "Well, you did the right thing since he was a liar because I didn't send him yo you."

Now I think if we say to some of Jews that what you're saying, hasn't said in other Bibles, who knows perhaps they tell us that's because other bibles aren't from God.

 

[Smurf]

I want South aftica for the Diamonds and Krugerands ... Smurf, what do you claim?

I want everything from Morocco to Egypt, if I can't get it all right away I'll conquer it later, and then invade the Middle East with the ultimate goal of controlling all oil in Afri-Asia. Especially at this time when oil's running out but alternative fuel sources arn't advanced enough to replace it. I can hold the world hostage! :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Smurf]

Gaza "Withdrawal" a Smoke-Screen for Military Occupation

As the world's attention is turned toward the http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=8529 remains unclear , as Israel has refused to negotiate on these key issues, which will define if Gaza will remain a large, social and economically isolated prison.

Also in the context of withdrawal from Gaza, Israeli settlers have severally escalated their attacks against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. This past week three Palestinians were killed by an Israeli settler in the West Bank, who used weaponry belonging to the Israeli military. Throughout the West Bank, Israeli military occupation continues, settlement expansion continues and the construction of the internationally condemned Apartheid Wall is ongoing. The Palestinian struggle against occupation and for liberation also continues on a daily basis. Throughout the summer of 2005 demonstrations and direct actions against military occupation and the Apartheid Wall have taken place on a daily basis , as Palestinians struggle for basic survival.

All http://www.palestinemonitor.org/factsheet/israeli_settlements_on_occupied.htm scattered throughout the country.

For more information and background on the Gaza Withdrawal visit the Electronic Intifada

 

[Curious6]

Just pointing out the irrelevance of such a claim.

No, it's very relevant; it's a direct comparison in size so that you get an idea of how ridiculous their claim to the land actually is.

 

[Curious6]

Interesting you say they called on the women and children to leave. Obviously tactics change with time because in the Sabra and Shatila massacre it was the other way around. They waited until the men had left as part of the terms of a ceasefire agreement and then massacred the women and children left behind.

Isn't it amazing how you constantly have to refer to an act of massacre not even perpertrated by Israelis to make your point? The outrageous massacre was committed by Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia, as a vindictive act motivated by the assassination of their leader and because of the abuses they suffered during years of PLO occupation of Lebanon. The responsibility Sharon had was overlooking the dangers of revenge by the Phalangists, so he bears indirect responsibility at most, even though Sharon himself claims that he could not have known that they were about to commit such an atrocious massacre and believes the entire classified Kahan Commisssion documents should be released. Anyways, the difference is that this appaling occurrence was heavily critisiced by Israeli society, and a demonstration followed that included over 300,000 Israelis demanding the resignation of Sharon and a commission of inquiry. I sincerely doubt such a reaction would ensue from the Palestinians, as their custom is to glorify terrorist martyrs and to then reconstruct the scene of terrorist attacks as expositions in universities!

BTW If you like I'll start sourcing my information from the likes of stormfront. They're at least as reliable as the drivel you quoted.

If you are incapable of discerning between the reliability of these two sources then allow me to call into question your ability to find factual information. The site I mentioned has a pro-Israeli bias undoubtedly, but all that it says is based on rock-solid evidence and can be corroborated by numerous other documents.

Funny that you should refer to the original inhabitants of the land as rioters? Rioting against whom? Wouldn't it have been the jews who were rioting given that they were the visitors to someone elses land?

No, the rioters were the Arabs. Again, pick up a history book and read about it.

Then what you have read is wrong because it is historically verifiable from the 400 Tel-El Amarna tablets.

Please provide proof of this. It could be true, but I would like to see a page with this informtion explained.

Please explain how 2 races intermix and the majority one disappears whilst the minority one remains pure. Sounds like an interesting new twist to genetics.

Simple explanation. Does not require any sort of convenient twisting of genetic processes as you imply. The Hebrews simply mixed with the population living in Canaan at that time. The ratios of Hebrew to Canaanite are probably impossible to calculate, but the resulting population was to be dispersed from the land in 70 AD and then in 135 AD, and was the ancestral population of today's Jews (again, this is in terms of ethnicity).

 

[Curious6]

By the way, Yonoz say we
bought these lands, curious6 say they have the right to be in Palestine because these lands had belonged to them 2000 years ago.

Two reasons for the claim of the land which do not contradict each other, but rather reinforce our case.

 

[Curious6]

You don't have to any more ... you just gave us the answer: "Modern homo sapiens are descended from various waves that left Africa close to 60,000 years ago and slowly filled the world."

What that does is to prove my point.

No, it doesn't at all. If you looked carefully at my posts, the native populations of each country are mainly descended from the first peoples to reach the areas with minor contributions from successive waves of migrators. Anyways, the last final wave of migrations affecting Europe, N. Africa and the Middle East occurred close to 10,000 years ago, and the populations at about that time were very similar to the native populations of each country nowadays. (With native I am talking about the populations present before 1492, before the age of explorations, conquests and settlements.)

If these 'waves' all originated in Africa, which I presented to YOU by the way (even though you are trying to sound superior).

I am sorry to burst your bubble but genetics and anthropology is one of my interests, and am quite knowledgeable of it. I have read multiple books, papers, and articles regarding the evolution of hominids, the emergence of modern and archaic Homo sapiens, the Out-of-Africa versus the multiregional hypothesis, and the spread of hominids to populate the world. I suggest you pick up Cavalli-Sforza's 1994 masterpiece 'The History and Geography of Human Genes', or start with a book by Spencer Wells as a good introduction to the subject.

If then based on your assumption that the genetics of the ANCESTORS of people who lived in certain areas implies a right to claim land at their point of origin then it follows that all homo sapiens have the right to claim land in Africa.

If you think that is absurd then I ask you to look at your own contention that an ANCESTOR from 2,000 years ago gives you the right to claim the land you call Israel.

I want South aftica for the Diamonds and Krugerands ... Smurf, what do you claim?

No, it is in no sense absurd. What I am talking about is the native populations of the lands or regions in which they have lived for tens of thousands of years. You can keep mocking what I've said, but try to keep an open mind about the issue. As examples, you can look at Spaniards, Greeks, Nigerians or French, all descended majoritarily from the native populations of those countries that have resided their for tens of thousands of years.

 

[arildno]

The Jews had no reasonable claim on the ancient lands of Israel.
They asserted they descended from people living there 2000 years ago, but they didn't have any documentation like deeds to prove it so.
Therefore, whether or not the descendance assertion is true or not, Jews lost long ago any sort of right to claim the lands their ancestors reputedly held.

In particular, the Jews had no right to displace the ones already living there, and had the deeds to prove they own the lands.

.

 

[Smurf]

Simple explanation. Does not require any sort of convenient twisting of genetic processes as you imply. The Hebrews simply mixed with the population living in Canaan at that time. The ratios of Hebrew to Canaanite are probably impossible to calculate, but the resulting population was to be dispersed from the land in 70 AD and then in 135 AD, and was the ancestral population of today's Jews (again, this is in terms of ethnicity).

Wait wait wait.. if you're not the same ethnicity as the jews that were promised the land, what gives you any more right to it than someone else? Even if this were a valid reason you can't honestly say that modern judaism deserves it because they mingled with the original inhabitants (the ones they didn't kill) thousands of years ago.

 

[Lisa!]

Two reasons for the claim of the land which do not contradict each other, but rather reinforce our case.

Actually what you're saying, doesn't give any right To Jews to claim the lands. Perhaps it just says why Jews decided to come to Palestine.

 

[The Smoking Man]

No, it is in no sense absurd. What I am talking about is the native populations of the lands or regions in which they have lived for tens of thousands of years. You can keep mocking what I've said, but try to keep an open mind about the issue. As examples, you can look at Spaniards, Greeks, Nigerians or French, all descended majoritarily from the native populations of those countries that have resided their for tens of thousands of years.

Good then I am sure that the genetics involved in the black population of north America gives them the right to sue for slavery then.

All native populations of places like Mexico, the Philippines, North and South America, the Natives of Hawaii, New Zealand etc. who were all 'enslaved' post 1492 have the right to sue.

You see, your knowledge of genetics and hominid evolution although professed to be 'superior' don't mean sh!t.

This is a legal issue which concerns the ownership of land and holds about as much water as Intelligent Design.

You see, even though my birth certificate shows the name of the town and the hospital where I was born, it does not give me the right to move into the maternity ward as my home.

Oh, and where do you get this magic number of 1492? You contend the discovery of America was the turning point in history?

The Romans had fallen centuris before. The first crusade was 1095-1099. Marco Polo had hit China in the 1200's. The Vikings had discovered Iceland, Greenland and Sable Island off the coast of Canada well before that.

What you are attempting to do is provide a legal basis for land ownership based in Genetics. QUESTIONABLE genetics at that since the 'genes' only travel down the female side of the family as is contended by the religious laws of the race and is therefore dilluted by 2000 years if intermarriage.

It is also based on the flawed premise that it is a 'race' thing and not a 'religious' thing.

So ... for your theory to work, you will have to prove several things ...

• That only genetically pure people have been given land in Israel
• That no person from any intermarriage in history has been given that land
• That the Jewish law of genetics is the basis for the current understanding of genetics or supercedes the secular view of genetics (ie. if your mother is Jewish, YOU are 100% Jewish)
• That the rest of the world is not entitled to similar consideration based on their genetic build-up
• That Jewish law supercedes all other systems of laws on earth

If you contend that this is NOT anything to do with the religion, then people who have 'converted to Judaism' are not entitled to land because they are not genetically linked to the area and already HAVE a genetic homeland.

Also, if there has been intermarriage they ALSO have a genetic homeland.

Then, to make the circle complete, you must explain to Kudzu plants all over America that it's genetic make-up makes it illegal to live outside it's natural habitat and must pull up it's roots post haste and return home.

Yes, that is the absurdity of basing ownership and rights based on 'genetics'. It goes against all human rights definitions and the basis for legal systems of the modern world.

 

[Smurf]

... and if it IS about religion then you're no better than the Jihadi's or ancient crusaders.

 

[The Smoking Man]

No, it doesn't at all. If you looked carefully at my posts, the native populations of each country are mainly descended from the first peoples to reach the areas with minor contributions from successive waves of migrators. Anyways, the last final wave of migrations affecting Europe, N. Africa and the Middle East occurred close to 10,000 years ago, and the populations at about that time were very similar to the native populations of each country nowadays. (With native I am talking about the populations present before 1492, before the age of explorations, conquests and settlements.)




I am sorry to burst your bubble but genetics and anthropology is one of my interests, and am quite knowledgeable of it. I have read multiple books, papers, and articles regarding the evolution of hominids, the emergence of modern and archaic Homo sapiens, the Out-of-Africa versus the multiregional hypothesis, and the spread of hominids to populate the world. I suggest you pick up Cavalli-Sforza's 1994 masterpiece 'The History and Geography of Human Genes', or start with a book by Spencer Wells as a good introduction to the subject.

PS ... Did you notice my finger spinning madly in the air in a frantic 'whoopee' gesture?

Let's put it this way ... The people who came up with Intelligent Design were also very well versed in Darwin.

They too imposed their f'cked-up theories into scientific theory.

What you have just done is told me that you understand genetics and that it is genetics that now rules over morality and legality and that where genetics fails you, you will apply Jewish 'laws' of succession to make it fit.

Now I suggest you take all your superior attitude and muster up the courage to take away all your personal baggage and read all your books again and get a true understanding of the science.

You are mixing the law of man with natural law to prove your agenda.

You are using false science.

HINT: NEVER try to bluff about scientific theory on a board populated by scientists. We'll cut you to shreds.