Originally Posted by Del Boy

The article presents a constructive view. The above quote is the great lie. Palestine does not belong solely to those who claim it from Israel.

The Israeli claim to Israel is by FAR stronger than that of , for instance, USA or Australia on their continents. Not that I object to those claims, just pointing to them as a comparison.

The principle lies in support of peace and not in support of belligerency.

It is only a constructive argument if you believe the "Israeli" claim to the land they have taken, if however you have lived in an area for 1500+ years and one day some disaffected Europeans came sailing up to you to claim it was now their land but you can live on the bits they don't want until such times as they want that as well I am not so sure you would share the viewpoint.

As I have said before while I cant understand Palestinian methods I can understand their argument.

Yeah it's just more complicated now because most modern day Israelis have been born in Israel (as far as I know) and it's the only country they really know and there is no other Jewish state to take them.

Originally Posted by MontyB

It is only a constructive argument if you believe the "Israeli" claim to the land they have taken, if however you have lived in an area for 1500+ years and one day some disaffected Europeans came sailing up to you to claim it was now their land but you can live on the bits they don't want until such times as they want that as well I am not so sure you would share the viewpoint.

As I have said before while I cant understand Palestinian methods I can understand their argument.

Yes Monty, but I did not say that the Palestinians have no case.

I simply put forward my own case for Israel's legitimate claim to their homeland; the common misconception is that it is based upon only biblical grounds.
In fact it is a very strong factual historical one, covering thousands of years, and especially strong over the last 2000 years. Whatever the arguments which have to be faced, they have every right to be there, and acceptance of that point would go well along the way to achieving a peaceful and prosperous outcome for all.

I would be happy to make my case if required.

@ Monty and DelBoy: You two contributors are the showcase on why things are so f... up down there, and what with rational solutions...

Rattler

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Yes Monty, but I did not say that the Palestinians have no case.

I simply put forward my own case for Israel's legitimate claim to their homeland; the common misconception is that it is based upon only biblical grounds.
In fact it is a very strong factual historical one, covering thousands of years, and especially strong over the last 2000 years. Whatever the arguments which have to be faced, they have every right to be there, and acceptance of that point would go well along the way to achieving a peaceful and prosperous outcome for all.

I would be happy to make my case if required.

By all means make your case but understand that the minute you cross over into the fantasy of biblical legitimacy I will pretty much disregard the case on the spot.

I have no doubt that there are some that have legitimate claim to some areas because there was coexistence in the area for the last 2000-ish years but the vast majority are nothing more than European refugees that have no claim to anything outside a quarter acre somewhere in Europe.

Originally Posted by MontyB

By all means make your case but the understand that the minute you cross over into the fantasy of biblical legitimacy I will pretty much disregard the case on the spot.

I have no doubt that there are some that have legitimate claim to some areas because there was coexistence in the area for the last 2000-ish years but the vast majority are nothing more than European refugees that have no claim to anything outside a quarter acre somewhere in Europe.

It's all been said before Monty, but regardless of the obvious truth of the matter, religious and racial zealotry will over rule logic for some. THAT"S why the situation is as it is, at the moment.

Logic cannot defeat personal prejudices. Your time would be better spent trying to explain to a three year old that there is no Santa Claus.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Logic cannot defeat personal prejudices. Your time would be better spent trying to explaining to a three year old that there is no Santa Claus.

Trust me I have that down to a fine art...

All of which disregards chronological factual history covering 1000s of years; proof of establishment over all of that time and actual DNA proof of the existence of that. That is the Israeli case.


Whereas the other side of the argument consists of the claims of Arabs, exactly as all the other incumbants of Arabia ,who have massed in the area mostly in the 20th century, attracted by the success of the Jewish develop and economic success, and have no such proven history of early establishment. Perhaps a chronological of their case from 4000 years ago would be interesting to see. I have not yet seen one.

There are at least 2 sides to every argument.

See this is what happens when you buy lock stock and barrel into one side of an argument while ignoring everything else.

Here is my "guess" but I would be prepared to put money on it, 4000 years ago Jews in the area were just a religious sub-sect of who ever was ruling the land at the time (most likely Canaanites), Palestinians (which is what they choose to call themselves now) are just an ethinic sub-set of who ever was ruling the at the time (most likely Canaanites).

Neither of the "local" groups have any more claim to the land than the other and this is why they lived in relative harmony for the last 3800 years (timeline not to scale just rough) now starting roughly a couple of hundred years ago Europeans started moving to the area but not enough to really cause friction until after WW1 when the British in their infinite desire to meddle decided to play both side off against the other.

Now this caused some friction but after WW2 while the Allies were playing at revenge and getting over the guilt of the holocaust (which interestingly enough was German thing not an Allied one) a ton of Europeans with no claim to anything but a ruined 1/4 acre somewhere in Europe decided to jump a boat and pretend they had a god given right to what was then called Palestine.

So I am prepared to bet that where this argument is stuck is your theory that all Jews= Middle Eastern where mine is that only Middle Eastern Jews are Middle Eastern and the rest since 1945 are pretty much invaders.

MontyB I have already posted the particular section of Ariella Opperman's (A noted Jewish geneticist) DNA research showing that you are most likely correct, with almost all persons of the Jewish persuasion showing that they share common ancestry with the the Bedouins and present day Palestinians.

"The most-frequent haplotypes in all three Jewish groups (the CMH [haplotype 159 in the Appendix]) segregated on a Eu 10 background, together with the three modal haplotypes in Palestinians and Bedouin (haplotypes 144, 151, and 166).

The Zionist's are somewhat less than pleased about this, but the evidence is reputed to have less than 2.4 -34 chance of error.

So much for "chronological and factual" history, eh?

This information was published in last June's issue of "The Jewish Genealogist", the quarterly magazine of the Australian Jewish Genealogical Society.