Arabs are not indigenous to Israel - now confirmed by Hamas

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 07, 2010 6:22 PM GMT
    Arab nationalists and anti-Israel propagandists like to claim that the Palestinian Arabs descend from Jews and early Christians. When, that is, they aren’t claiming to descend from Canaanites or Philistines. Let’s review the archeological, historical and scientific records. Samer (sxydrkhair) has spammed such claims in virtually every topic touching the Arab-Israeli conflict, and it is getting tedious to refute him over and again. (In the future, I will simply reference this topic.)

    Do the Palestinian Arabs descend from the Canaanites or Philistines?

    There is absolutely no evidence of this. The archeological footprint of the Canaanites disappears around the 9th century BCE – some 1500 years before the arrival of the Arabs. Propagandists like Samer (“sxydrkhair”) have claimed that Palestinian Arab dress and art resemble those of the Canaanites, but we’ve seen that comparison fail. The dress is distinctly different from contemporary depictions of Canaanites found in Egypt. Modern artistic representations are totally wrong, e.g. showing Anat as a loving mother (which is as wrong as depicting Kerberos as a cute puppy), evidencing lack of familiarity with the subject (by both the artists and the public).

    There is no historical evidence for Canaanites during these 1500 years. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans and Byzantines didn’t encounter them.

    The archeological and historical record shows that the early Israelites/Jews originated from the Canaanites, perhaps with the addition of some regional migratory tribes (e.g. the Shasu). My theory is that these tribes banded together to fight off a new foreign invader at that time, the sea people known as the Philistines. Over time, the other Canaanites assimilated into the now dominant Israelite/Judean culture. The Jews, not the Palestinian Arabs, are the descendents of the Canaanites.

    The Philistines met their end at the hands of the Babylonians in 604 BCE. There are no further interactions with Persians, Greeks, Romans or Byzantines. The Arabs invaded more than 1200 years later. Most of those who escaped Philistia fled to Judea… making not the Palestinian Arabs but the Jews the descendents of the Philistines.


    SCIENTIFIC GENETIC/DNA EVIDENCE:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11573163
    The Y chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East.

    Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors. The two haplogroups Eu 9 and Eu 10 constitute a major part of the Y chromosome pool in the analyzed sample. Our data suggest that Eu 9 originated in the northern part, and Eu 10 in the southern part of the Fertile Crescent.

    Genetic dating yielded estimates of the expansion of both haplogroups that cover the Neolithic period [circa 8000 BCE] in the region. Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin differed from the other Middle Eastern populations studied here, mainly in specific high-frequency Eu 10 haplotypes not found in the non-Arab groups. These chromosomes might have been introduced through migrations from the Arabian Peninsula during the last two millennia

    That Jews and Arabs are "cousins" going back some 10,000 years refutes that the Palestinian Arabs "descend" from the Jews.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC379148
    Genetic Evidence for the Expansion of Arabian Tribes into the Southern Levant and North Africa
    The American Society of Human Genetics


    the majority of Eu10 chromosomes in NW Africa are due to recent gene flow caused by the migration of Arabian tribes in the first millennium of the Common Era (ce).

    Migrations of southern Arabian tribes northwards have been recorded mainly since the 3d century ce. These tribes settled in various places in central and northern Arabia, as well as in the Fertile Crescent, including areas that are now part of Israel.

    These documented historical events, together with the finding of a particular Eu10 haplotype in Yemenis, Palestinians, and NW Africans, are suggestive of a recent common origin of these chromosomes.


    HISTORICAL EVIDENCE SINCE THE 7th CENTURY C.E.

    While Samer has claimed that the Palestinian Arabs originate from natives who were "Arabized", a lengthy process that would take centuries, his own source (Edward Said in "The Question of Palestine") states a sudden change over the course of a few decades:
    Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics - including its name in Arabic, Filastin - became known to the entire Islamic world

    Filastin at the time was a military district within the foreign Umayyad empire (the "Green Zone" isn't American, right?), not an independent or locally governed state.

    Note the transformation from "Palestina" to "Filastin". Arabic lacks the "P" consonant and the foreign Arab invaders couldn't properly pronounce the Roman/Latin name of the country they had conquered and colonized.

    And colonize they did: following the Arab conquest (638 CE) various Arab tribes (including the Amilah, Judham, Kinanah, Kindah and Lakhm) settled the region. Others joined later (e.g. Ramallah was established by people who came from Trans-Jordan). Many Egyptians came up with Muhammad Ali around 1840 (and remained). Through the 19th century, the Arabs of Palestine self-identified as either Qais (northern) or Yemeni (southern) Arabs, a division that ran so deep that it was a battle line. You can still tell the origin of many Palestinian Arab families by their names. The Barghoutis came from a village with the same name in Mesopotamia/Iraq. The Al Masris (literally meaning “the Egyptian”) came from Egypt. So many came from northern Africa that Jerusalem had a “Mugrabi Quarter”.

    Looking at the leading Palestinian Arab families:
    The Nusseibeh family claims its ancestors came with Umar[28]; the Husseini family claims to have come with Saladin[29]; the Nashashibi are though to have come with the Mamelukes[30]; Dajani are a peninsular Arabian family that were awarded estates in Jerusalem in the 15th century[31]. Among modern Palestinian Arab leaders, Izzedin al Qassam [the Hamas icon] was Syrian, for example, and Fawzi al Qauqji was Lebanese.

    Heck, Yasir Arafat was born in Cairo and spoke with an Egyptian accent – which is why he lied and invented a family connection to the Husseini’s in order to gain legitimacy as a leader!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 07, 2010 6:23 PM GMT
    Between the world wars, more Arabs flocked to Mandate Palestine – drawn by the improvement in conditions resulting from British and Jewish development (previously the Arab population had been in decline for centuries). The British initially encouraged immigration from Syria to Haifa (with its new port and industry). By the mid 1930s, 95% of illegal immigrants apprehended by the British were Arabs. By 1939, the British built a fence along the border with Lebanon to help keep out illegal immigrants. Until that year, they didn't even count as immigrants those Arabs who entered western Mandate Palestine from eastern Trans-Jordanian Mandate Palestine.
    Within western Mandate Palestine, the Arab population grew most in areas of Jewish development. Between the world wars, the Arab population of Haifa (new port & industry) grew 290%. In Jaffa (adjacent to Tel Aviv), 158%. In Jerusalem (where Jews pioneered development outside the old city walls), 131%. In contrast, in Nablus (today the largest city in the so-called "West Bank") the Arab population grew by "only" 42%. In Bethlehem, 39%. In Jenin (closer to Jewish areas, which is why it recently gained infamy as the departure point of suicide bombers), 78%.

    SDH and IanCT have especially pushed the myth that Palestinian Arab Christians descend from early native Christians. Here is a dose of reality:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem#Christian_population
    The majority of Bethlehem's Christian inhabitants claim ancestry from Arab Christian clans from the Arabian Peninsula, including the city's two largest: al-Farahiyya and an-Najajreh. The former claims to have descended from the Ghassanids who migrated from Yemen to the Wadi Musa area in present-day Jordan and an-Najajreh descend from the Arabs of Najran in the southern Hejaz. Another Bethlehem clan, al-Anantreh, also trace their ancestry to the Arabian Peninsula.[68]
    [68] Bethlehem, The Holy Land’s Collective Cultural National Identity: A Palestinian Arab Historical Perspective. Musallam, Adnan. Bethlehem University.
    Once again we see that even the “old” Arab families were originally immigrants – or “colonists” to use their soundbite/slogan. In recent centuries, including the 19th and 20th, many more followed.
  • shutoman

    Posts: 505

    Jun 09, 2010 12:34 PM GMT
    The archeological and historical record (1) shows that the early Israelites/Jews originated from the Canaanites, perhaps with the addition of some regional migratory tribes (e.g. the Shasu). My theory is that these tribes banded together to fight off a new foreign invader at that time, the sea people known as the Philistines (2). Over time, the other Canaanites assimilated into the now dominant Israelite/Judean culture (3). The Jews, not the Palestinian Arabs, are the descendents of the Canaanites.

    Your evidence for (1), (2) and (3) please? (my numeric insertions).

    And, frankly, does it matter? I uphold the legitimacy of Israel and recognise its right to exist derived from the right of Jews (including people identified and subject to persecution as Jews - I would restrict it to a purely rabbinical test, but that's just me) to be, and feel, safe from persecution. I don't see that as trumping the rights of other individuals 'Palestinian' or otherwise to feel safe in a homeland of their own. Nor can I say that Palestinians should simply become absorbed into other 'Arab states' either. Who in Syria should be deprived of his land so that someone ejected from Palestine may live there instead?

    This is why I'm a two-state solution guy.

    Has anyone lived in this area with what we would now call historical legitimacy (certainly not a recognised legitimacy BCE)? Even the acquisition of Canaan is attributed to conquest in the Torah. If you are a religious Jew, you consider this sufficient. If you don't accept the right set out in the Torah then its account of the conquest is problematic for establishing a right of settlement that is not conquest-based.

    So many people, so many individuals, and so many political entities have come and gone over what is now the State of Israel that an 'ab initio' claim is simply not possible (were there even the documentary evidence to support it). Nor, of course, is a simple right established by what are now called Arabs. But within recent history political decisions have been made. They had consequences. We must now deal with those consequences and not pretend that absolute collective rights of settlement exist here, or anywhere else for that matter. This is a matter of positive law informed by a sense of Justice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2010 1:55 PM GMT
    shutoman> the acquisition of Canaan is attributed to conquest in the Torah.

    If one believes in God, then this is sufficient.
    For those who don't, it's completely irrelevant and....

    The archeological and historical record (1) shows that the early Israelites/Jews originated from the Canaanites, perhaps with the addition of some regional migratory tribes (e.g. the Shasu). My theory is that these tribes banded together to fight off a new foreign invader at that time, the sea people known as the Philistines (2). Over time, the other Canaanites assimilated into the now dominant Israelite/Judean culture (3). The Jews, not the Palestinian Arabs, are the descendents of the Canaanites.

    shutoman> Your evidence for (1), (2) and (3) please? (my numeric insertions).

    There are historical Egyptian accounts of tribes (e.g. Asher) that are later part of the Israelite confederacy. Additionally, the archeololgical record is one of gradual change (e.g. the disappearance of pork from fire-pits) and Canaanite origin (architecture, pottery). The Canaanites that didn't join the confederation leave an archeological trail that peters out around the 9th century BCE. There is no record of a cataclysm, it's gradual assimilation into the now mature nation states. I'd love to go into this in further detail, but it is beyond the scope of this topic.


    shutoman> Nor can I say that Palestinians should simply become absorbed into other 'Arab states' either. Who in Syria should be deprived of his land so that someone ejected from Palestine may live there instead?

    Two falsehoods rolled into one: no one spoke of "ejecting" anyone from "Palestine", and the arrival of someone from "Palestine" into Syria doesn't require the displacement of someone already in Syria - as if population is a zero sum game. Again this has nothing to do with the topic.


    shutoman> I'm a two-state solution guy.

    Good, that's discussed here:
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/354843


    shutoman> So many people, so many individuals, and so many political entities have come and gone over what is now the State of Israel that an 'ab initio' claim is simply not possible (were there even the documentary evidence to support it).

    And, for at least 3300 years, the indigenous Jews were present to see all of these "political entities" - each of them foreign empires - "come and go".

    Jews remain the only nation to ever locally and independently self-govern themselves on this land in a nation state.


    shutoman> within recent history political decisions have been made. They had consequences

    Which is discussed in various other topics, such as these:
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/960691
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/973888


    Did you want to comment on the subject of this topic?!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2010 3:10 PM GMT
    Who cares who was there first? Many Jews today are largely genetically European, and thus have little historical claim on the land either.

    A two-state solution (or an n-state-solution) was tried in apartheid South Africa and did not work. Why should a Palestinian homeland or "bantustan" be any more successful? It is identical to apartheid, called by another name.

    The only possible lasting solution is, as in South Africa, a unity Israeli-Palestinian government of a united Israel-Palestine. However, sadly, as opposed to South Africa, there is no equivalent pair of visionary leaders like De Klerk and Mandela, who could make it work. Until there is, Israel's and the Palestinians' problems will just continue to get worse. It is largely their own fault. On both sides, most of the people deserve the horrible leaders they have.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 10, 2010 8:52 AM GMT
    viveutvivas> Many Jews today are largely genetically European, and thus have little historical claim on the land either.

    What an odd sentence. By "either" you admit that the Arabs aren't indigenous, but is your claim about "Many Jews" correct?
    No.

    For starters, the majority of Israeli Jews did not return from Europe.

    More importantly, modern genetic DNA testing shows that even "European Jews" are of middle-eastern origin. See this topic:
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/494893


    viveutvivas> A two-state solution (or an n-state-solution) was tried in apartheid South Africa and did not work. Why should a Palestinian homeland or "bantustan" be any more successful? It is identical to apartheid, called by another name.

    South African bantustans amounted to 14% of the territory, were not contiguous and lacked sovereignty and international recognition.

    By your logic, having Mexico as a separate country from the USA (or the Czech Republic distinct from Slovakia) "is identical to apartheid" (a meaningless use of a soundbite/slogan in lieu of a real argument).

  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Jun 11, 2010 8:47 AM GMT
    Caesarea4
    viveutvivas saidA two-state solution (or an n-state-solution) was tried in apartheid South Africa and did not work. Why should a Palestinian homeland or "bantustan" be any more successful? It is identical to apartheid, called by another name.

    South African bantustans amounted to 14% of the territory, were not contiguous and lacked sovereignty and international recognition.


    What the Palestinians were offered at Camp David was less the 22% of British Mandate Palestine, comprising a non-contiguous series of Bantustans lacking such elements of sovereignty as control over borders, control over airspace, control over water resources, control over foreign policy (unless that policy subordinates itself to Israel's foreign policy at all times), control over self-defense (no army would be permitted), ... , etc., etc.

    Basically, Palestinians could have their own postage stamps and they could pick up their own trash.

    c4> By your logic, having Mexico as a separate country from the USA (or the Czech Republic distinct from Slovakia) "is identical to apartheid" (a meaningless use of a soundbite/slogan in lieu of a real argument).

    By your logic, up is down and black is white.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 2:23 PM GMT
    C4> South African bantustans amounted to 14% of the territory, were not contiguous and lacked sovereignty and international recognition. ...[Is] having Mexico as a separate country from the USA (or the Czech Republic distinct from Slovakia) "identical to apartheid"? (a meaningless use of a soundbite/slogan in lieu of a real argument).

    tokugawa> What the Palestinians were offered at Camp David was less the 22% of British Mandate Palestine, comprising a non-contiguous series of Bantustans

    It should be noted that all of Western (cis-Jordanian) Palestine amounts to 22% of "British Mandate Palestine" (with another 77% being Eastern (Trans-Jordanian) Palestine - today known simply as Jordan). And that the Palestinian Arabs were offered 100% of Gaza and a CONTIGUOUS 97% of Judea and Samaria (formerly Trans/Jordan's so-called "West Bank"). Unlike the Bantustans (which were discontiguous and only on 14% of the land), there would have been a sovereign, independent and internationally recognized state. The use of the word "Bantustan" is yet another mindless soundbite/slogan.

    Discussion of Camp David and Taba is here:
    In search of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict: UNSCR 242, Oslo and Camp David/Taba
    (Or: I support the Clinton COMPROMISE parameters. Do you?!)

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/354843


    Does anyone wish to address the topic?
  • BarettaB80

    Posts: 141

    Jun 11, 2010 2:41 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidDoes anyone wish to address the topic?


    so_bored.jpg

    I'm so bored.

    What does this have to do with "Dating, Sex, & Relationships" again?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 3:14 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidviveutvivas>
    More importantly, modern genetic DNA testing shows that even "European Jews" are of middle-eastern origin.


    If you base land rights on these kinds of arguments, then do you propose kicking out the (black) Ethiopian Jews from Israel? For that matter, why should you (and all of us who are not native American local to our state) not be kicked out of the U.S.?

    No wonder the middle east is in such deep shit, given these types of arguments made for land rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 3:19 PM GMT
    Don´t you get it? We really really DON¨T CARE.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 3:22 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidDon´t you get it? We really really DON¨T CARE.


    Well, who cares what you care about or not? Put up or shut up, won't you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 3:26 PM GMT
    viveutvivas said
    Lostboy saidDon´t you get it? We really really DON¨T CARE.


    Well, who cares what you care about or not? Put up or shut up, won't you?


    1245110714pinkcunt.gif

    These endless threads about Israel are dull.


    /though maybe I´m biased: two chapters of my PhD were on attitudes towards the land of Israel amoung Diaspora Jews of the Second Temple Period/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 3:28 PM GMT
    Lostboy said

    These endless threads about Israel are dull.


    No-one is forcing you to read them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 3:32 PM GMT
    viveutvivas> do you propose kicking out....

    I haven't proposed forcing out anyone anywhere.
    It is the Helen Thomases and her ilk (including a few like-minded RealJockers) who call for the Jews to be "sent" elsewhere or demand that they "get out".

    Had you followed the link I provided shutoman above to the peace topic, you'd have known that.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/354843

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 3:40 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidviveutvivas> do you propose kicking out....

    I haven't proposed forcing out anyone anywhere.
    It is the Helen Thomases and her ilk (including a few like-minded RealJockers) who call for the Jews to be "sent" elsewhere or demand that they "get out".

    Had you followed the link I provided shutoman above to the peace topic, you'd have known that.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/354843



    By answering that argument (Thomas's) the way you did, you actually seemed to agree that people should have historical rights to the lands where their ancestors originated. The logical conclusion of your argument is that some people don't have historical rights to the land (e.g., Ethiopian jews in Israel), and may be removed from the lands they occupy.

    In any case, weren't you arguing that the Palestinians did not have a historical right to the land of Israel? How are you different from Helen Thomas?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 3:45 PM GMT
    I have stated, correctly, that the Palestinian ethnogenesis took place in the mid-20th century, that there is no such thing as "historic Palestine" (other than as a Latin/European reference for the Land of Israel) and that Arabs are not indigenous natives here.

    At no point in time did I say they should be forced out.

    To the contrary, roughly 1/5th of Israel's population is Arab (full citizens, with equal protection under the law)..
    To the contrary, I support the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state on most of the disputed territories.

    The reason for this topic is explicitly stated in the OP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 3:54 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidI have stated, correctly, that the Palestinian ethnogenesis took place in the mid-20th century, that there is no such thing as "historic Palestine" (other than as a Latin/European reference for the Land of Israel) and that Arabs are not indigenous natives here.

    At no point in time did I say they should be forced out.

    To the contrary, roughly 1/5th of Israel's population is Arab (full citizens, with equal protection under the law)..
    To the contrary, I support the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state on most of the disputed territories.

    The reason for this topic is explicitly stated in the OP.


    Who cares? Before the establishment of Israel, those who are now called Palestinians were living in the whole of Israel, not just the 22% currently under discussion. They should all be given full citizenship rights in Israel. Separating them into a separate homeland on the basis of ethnicity is exactly what Apartheid was. Believe me, I know, I am South African.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 5:00 PM GMT
    viveutvivas> those who are now called Palestinians were living in the whole of Israel, not just the 22% currently under discussion.

    Let me remind you that 22% refers to all of Western Palestine.
    No Jews were allowed in the 77% of eastern/Trans-Jordanian Palestine.
    The Jewish population of Jordan (as it is known today) is 0.

    You are also overlooking that there are more than 1 million Arabs in Israel, with full citizenship and equal protection under the law.


    viveutvivas> Separating them into a separate homeland on the basis of ethnicity is exactly what Apartheid was

    Was splitting Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia also "Apartheid"?

    Should Lebanon be anschlussed with Syria (from which it was carved out - based on religion)?
    Same with India and Pakistan, right?

    Should Yugoslavia be reconstituted... otherwise it's "Apartheid"?

    I think you'll agree that he answer is "no" to all of the above. The lesson then is not to view every conflict through your own prism. They are different.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 5:26 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 said

    I think you'll agree that he answer is "no" to all of the above.


    No, I do not agree. For example, I think it is almost universally recognized that the arbitrary separation of India and Pakistan by the British was a terrible mistake causing millions of deaths. Nobody in their right mind would agree that the Yugoslavian separation, a decade long exercise in genocide and ethnic cleansing, was a good thing.

    The people today called Palestinians were largely displaced from their properties in the territories today forming Israel during the events of the last century. Palestinians are even today being displaced from their property (various terrible violations have been documented during the building of the wall just recently - ancestral houses, farms and orchards destroyed or split in two, neigbors or towns separated). If Israel were not an apartheid state, these people would have full citizenship rights in the territories administrated by Israel. They do not.

    I think the title of this thread "Arabs are not indigenous to Israel", is an exercise in ignorance and propaganda. It is used today to justify Israeli mistreatment and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The same sentence was used, by the way, by many nations, to justify mistreating, kicking out or murdering their Jews or other ethnicities. For example, replace Arabs by Jews and Israel by Germany, and you get the Nazis. Replace Arabs by Jews and Israel by Spain, and you get the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by Queen Isabella. Replace Arabs by Jews and Israel by Israel, and you get Helen Thomas. Replace Arabs by Zulus and Israel by the Cape Province, and you get the system of Apartheid homelands in South Africa.

    I lived through apartheid, by the way. I knows it when I sees it.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 6:53 PM GMT
    how is this thread about dating, sex and relationships IN ANY WAY?

    Answers please.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 7:01 PM GMT
    I think it's delusional to believe a two state "solution" would actually be a solution. Arabs hate jews and you know how extreme they are about their "rules". They will probably not be happy until Israel is wiped off the map completely.

    Imagine a gay country in the Middle East... same thing. They're not passive about the things they dislike.
  • BarettaB80

    Posts: 141

    Jun 11, 2010 7:23 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidhow is this thread about dating, sex and relationships IN ANY WAY?

    Answers please.


    circumfucksaked.jpg

    It's really quite simple. This thread is directly related. Everyone knows that Israeli men are uncut. Arab men are cut. This is a problem for the uncut Israeli men, who refuse to have inferior sex with their 'cut' Arab neighbors. Therefore, it is irrelevant who was where first, all the 'cut' men have to go!

    Now enter SouthBeach with a UN proposal to begin a foreskin rehabilitation program in the region to achieve a lasting Arab-Israeli peace in 5, 4, 3, 2......
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 7:46 PM GMT
    BarettaB80 said
    Lostboy saidhow is this thread about dating, sex and relationships IN ANY WAY?

    Answers please.


    circumfucksaked.jpg


    Translation, please! I can guess what the snakes mean, but what's the birdies and the footsies about. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2010 10:44 PM GMT
    viveutvivas> the arbitrary separation of India and Pakistan by the British was a terrible mistake causing millions of deaths

    Perhaps, but how many millions might have died otherwise?
    And is it an example of "apartheid"?


    viveutvivas> Nobody in their right mind would agree that the Yugoslavian separation, a decade long exercise in genocide and ethnic cleansing, was a good thing.

    Perhaps the mistake was in creating this artificial unified "Yugoslavian" state in the first place?

    Horrible as the violence (and ethnic cleansing) was upon its breakup, is it now "apartheid" if Yugoslavia isn't reconstituted?

    What was so bad about the (thankfully peaceful) break-up of Czechoslovakia?
    Does that have anything to do with apartheid?


    viveutvivas> If Israel were not an apartheid state, these people would have full citizenship rights in the territories administrated by Israel.

    So the US is an apartheid state because people in Iraq, living under US administration, don't have US citizenship?
    Consider further territories such as Puerto Rico and American Samoa.


    viveutvivas> I think the title of this thread "Arabs are not indigenous to Israel", is an exercise in ignorance and propaganda

    To the contrary, the thread (with an accurate subject) was posted to counter the endless propaganda of sxydrkhair and a few others, who constantly make the false claim that the Palestinian Arabs descend from Canaanites/Philistines/Jews/Christians (while claiming at times that Jews aren't really Jews but Europeans who aren't native to Israel).

    If they had not repeatedly spammed that nonsense, I would never have posted this topic.


    viveutvivas> It is used today to justify Israeli mistreatment and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

    Ethnic cleansing? You've got to be kidding.
    Their population growth is amongst the highest in the world.

    Have you forgotten that it was invading Arab armies which ethnically cleansed Gaza, Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem of all Jews in 1948?


    viveutvivas> The same sentence was used, by the way, by many nations, to justify mistreating, kicking out or murdering their Jews or other ethnicities.

    While what you say may follow such a statement, that is the wrong part, not the previous statement. Nowhere have I called on anyone to be mistreated, kicked out, or murdered. To the contrary, I take pride that Israel's Arab minority, roughly 20% of the population, are full citizens with equal protection under the law (enjoying more political freedoms and a higher quality of life than Arabs living in neighboring Arab countries).


    viveutvivas> I lived through apartheid, by the way. I knows it when I sees it.

    Then obviously you haven't been to Israel, because then you'd know when you don't see it.