Palestinians: Aggressors, Not Victims - Page 2




 
--
Palestinians: Aggressors, Not Victims
 
May 14th, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
Palestinians: Aggressors, Not Victims
I'm pleased to see that the stupid argument about the Israelis being victims has been quickly and easily proven to be a typical Israeli lie and we've now been able to diverge onto other non related lies.
May 14th, 2013  
D.J
 
Advanced genetic testing, including Y-DNA and mtDNA haplotyping, of modern Jewish communities around the world, has helped to determine which of the communities are likely to descend from the Israelites and which are not, as well as to establish the degrees of separation between the groups. Important studies include the University College London study of 2002, Ariella Oppenheim's study of 2001, Ariella Oppenheim's study of 2000, Michael Hammer's study of 2000, Doron Behar's study of 2008, Steven Bray's study of 2010, and others.

The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J and E.

Eastern European Jews have significant Eastern Mediterranean elements which manifest themselves in close relationships with Kurdish, Armenian, Lebanese, Syrian, and Anatolian Turkish peoples. This is why the Y-DNA haplogroups J and E, which are typical of the Middle East, are so common among them.

At the same time, there are traces of European (including Northern Italian and Western Slavic or Eastern Slavic) and Khazar ancestry among European Jews. Many Greek and Roman women married Jewish men before conversion to Judaism was outlawed by the Roman Empire, and many of the Southern European ancestral lines in Ashkenazic families come from these marriages. Ethiopian Jews mostly descend from Ethiopian Africans who converted to Judaism, but may also be related to a lesser extent to Yemenite Jews. Yemenite Jews descend from Arabs and Israelites. North African Jewish and Kurdish Jewish paternal lineages come from Israelites. Jewish Y-DNA tends to come from the Middle East, and that studies that take into account mtDNA show that many Jewish populations are related to neighboring non-Jewish groups maternally.

Some historians and scientists recognized the need for specifically testing the Khazar theory. Unfortunately, Y-DNA doesn't usually last more than 100 years in the remains of a dead person, so direct testing of Khazar bones may be impossible.
May 14th, 2013  
D.J
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
I'm pleased to see that the stupid argument about the Israelis being victims has been quickly and easily proven to be a typical Israeli lie and we've now been able to diverge onto other non related lies.
You have proved nothing
But since you are obviously an expert, tell me where is the proof that the so-called "Palestinians" are the original inhabitants and what right they have to take it back?
--
Palestinians: Aggressors, Not Victims
May 14th, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
You didn't even read what was said did you?

I'm sure that the researchers at Johns Hopkins are far better acquainted with the problems of DNA analysis than you are, and after years of research they have stated that their findings indicate that European Jews are mainly Khazar.

Of course we realise that real scientific research means nothing in Israel unless the findings fit your rather peculiar version of history gleaned almost exclusively from Jewish "scholars"

Quote:
Originally Posted by D.J
You have proved nothing
But since you are obviously an expert, tell me where is the proof that the so-called "Palestinians" are the original inhabitants and what right they have to take it back?
I showed that you cannot be the aggressor and the victim, The Zionists came to Palestine and occupied the land using the Palestinian resistance against this illegal occupation as an excuse to start a war in which the Zionists drove the majority of the occupants into adjoining countries, refusing to allow them to return. (Another War Crime). Therefore as the aggressors you cannot claim to be the victims.

Armed resistance to illegal occupation is not a crime (except perhaps in the eyes of the aggressor) but aggression and retribution is,.... a la Lidice, Maillé and Oradour sur Glane.

The Palestinians don't have to "take it back", it is already theirs, they were living there when the European Jews illegally entered and occupied Palestine.
May 14th, 2013  
D.J
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
They don't have to "take it back", it is already theirs. they were living there when the European Jews illegally entered and occupied Palestine.
Really!
Maybe we should give the U.S. back to the original inhabitants, since they lived there before the Europeans came.
May 14th, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.J
Really!
Maybe we should give the U.S. back to the original inhabitants, since they lived there before the Europeans came.
You forget that all this has been dealt with on this forum many times before and we know the answers to all of your Zionazi bullsh!t. The US was colonised in a time when it was not against the law in fact every major world power was doing it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The International Law of Colonialism: A Comparative Analysis
Quote:

Robert J. Miller
Lewis & Clark Law School
August 30, 2011

Lewis & Clark Law Review, Forthcoming
Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-23

Abstract:
The majority of the non-European world was colonized under an international law that is known as the Doctrine of Discovery. Under this legal principle, European countries claimed superior rights over Indigenous nations. When European explorers planted flags and crosses in the lands of native peoples, they were making legal claims of ownership and domination over the lands, assets, and peoples they had "discovered." These claims were justified by racial, ethnocentric, and religious ideas of the alleged superiority of European Christians. This Article examines the application of Discovery by Spain, Portugal, and England in the settler societies of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, and the United States. The comparative law analysis used in this Article demonstrates that these three colonizing countries applied the elements of the Doctrine in nearly identical ways against Indigenous peoples. Furthermore, the six settler societies analyzed here continue to apply this law today to restrict the human, property, and sovereign rights of Indigenous nations and peoples. This Article concludes that basic fairness and a restoration of the self-determination rights of Indigenous peoples mandates that these countries work to remove the vestiges of the Doctrine of Discovery from their modern day laws and policies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is clearly not the case with Israel as Palestine had been "discovered" 2000 years previously.

My ancestors came from London, Amsterdam and probably Germany and Poland. If I were to attempt to use this as an excuse to just roll up, and throw the present owners off their land killing those who resist, I would be killed or at very least thrown into a lunatic asylum. Where one's ancestors may or may not have been resident 1300 years ago gives them no right of return and definitely no right to steal the land and murder those who resist. It's a fact of life.

Finally none of this has any connection showing Israel to be a victim, in fact it clearly shows the reverse.
May 14th, 2013  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
But here is the fly in your ointment Canaanites were not Semites were they and if Jews are Semites what does that tell you?
Hell if we are being blunt Israelite's were just unwanted Egyptians.

Your problem is that you are trying to juggle multiple historical timelines none of which really support your argument so you muddying them all to create a history that never really existed and anyone that is prepared to look at the archeology will tell you that.

Seriously while I honestly wish I had studied archeology I didn't but I enjoy it and one thing that is becoming ever more apparent is that the history Israel is hiding behind while a great fairy story in religious texts does not stand up to archeological reality.

But by all means keep repeating it as I am sure you know what they say about a lie told often enough.
Let us compare the two societies, Jewish and Palestinian.

The Jews speak Hebrew, like they did from the 10th century BCE in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Same place.

The Palestinians speak Arab. Like they did in eastern Saudi Arabia, from the 8th century BCE. Other place.

The religion of the Jews, Judaism . About 3000 years old. Judaism is considered one of the oldest monotheistic religions. Same place. Holiest place Jerusalem.

The religion of the Palestinians is Islam. 1400 years old. Saudia Arabia. Holiest place Mecca.

The literature of the Jews is from the classic era, (as is latin and Greek). Same place.

Palestinian literature is Arabic, which is from the Medieval era. Saudi Arabia.


No matter how you twist and turn, Jews were their before the Palestinians and never left. No one was able to expell all of them. Arabs, Americans, Australians and your folks (as well as some others) reside in a country where they've had no connection whatsoever in histroy and rule it and you are refusing to accept Jews who do have a historical connection to the land of Israel to come back and rule it????

You better start learning archeology because your knowledge is very limited.

Linguistically, the Canaanite languages form a group within the Northwest Semitic languages; its best-known member today is the Hebrew language.

You insist that there used to be a Palestinian society in history. Then tell me, mister know it all, what was its' name because there never was a Palestinian state until the Jews give it to them. What was the name of the ruler(s) and where did they reside? Why did they change the name into Palestine?

@ Seno:

Your Cunningham guy (High Commissioner of Palestine from 1945 - 1948) was just playing lip service to the Arabs. The British never intended to give the Jews what was promised by the International community. During his command he kept the contingents of the Arab Legion, brought to Palestine for police duty, in Palestine and to attack Jewish communities, although they should have left on December 11, 1947, as said by Foreign Minister Bevin.

He also did not interfere with the infiltration of Arab irregulars into Palestine. The British government reported to the Palestine Commission only six incursions involving small numbers. Although they knew from a secret report entitled "Intelligence Summary No. 68" by the Sixth Airborne Division, a detailed record of the Arab invasion on March 5 1948.
"The infiltration of Arab bands from the neighbouring Arab States is continuing and an Arab source thought reliable has estimated the strength of the Arab Liberation Army in Samaria as being approximately 5,000, organised into four detachments"

The British knew where they were, who they were and what their intentions were and didn't do anything about it. They didn't even border to tell the Palestinian Commission.

About Deir Yassin. Cunningham was not a witness and as a pro-arab he was happy to believe the Arab side of the story. Jews who actually participated in the battle (yes Seno, a battle, not a massacre) were not believed. But before I'll go on first this:
"The presence of Germans and Nazis in the Arab ranks in Haifa was revealed by the Haganah in the truce terms which it laid down. These truce terms asked for the deportation of all foreign Arab fighters from Haifa and the handing over to the British military authorities of all Germans and Nazis in Arab ranks. Five Nazis were handed over."

The presence in Haifa of well-armed foreign invaders, as far back as March 5, was verified in Intelligence Summary No. 68 of the Sixth Airborne Division.

The most extreme and bizarre version of Deir Yassin is that of Eliahu Amikam, a journalist on the staff of the tabloid Yediot Aharonot, who published on 19/08/1960: " In Deir-Yassin there were soldiers of regular foreign armies, including Nazis with swastika emblems. Among the corpses there were Iraqis, Syrians and Yugoslavs lying in their military uniform. Swastika ribbons were torn off their sleeves".

I found that hard to believe, not anymore. The British Intelligence knew about it.
"The intelligence documents cited below show that before the 15 May invasion, British intelligence knew that the Arabs terrorizing the future Israel were being led in part by Nazi advisers. These included Bosnian Islamist Nazis from the infamous Handzar Division of the Waffen SS. According to a French intelligence document published by The Nation seven months later, the British sent thousands of Nazi prisoners of war, including top war criminals, to assist the Arab attack. This was after the Arab invasion."


The British Record on Partition as revealed by British Intelligence and other Official Sources.
A Memorandum Submitted to the Special Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations - April 1948
Read it.
May 14th, 2013  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Let us compare the two societies, Jewish and Palestinian.

The Jews speak Hebrew, like they did from the 10th century BCE in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Same place.
Ah yes you will notice though that once you remove biblical texts from the process there is literally next to nothing that proves these "great" kingdoms ever existed for example the great David that is mentioned absolutely no where in historical text and only once on a fragment of stone but then that guy may have just been talking about his local florist as there is nothing descriptive on the tablet to say other wise basically there is as much to prove King Arthur and Robin Hood existed as there is David.

However since logic will not sway you lets play bible games where reality can be overlooked because all you need is faith aka an imagination.

Who were Shem, Ham, and Japheth?
Which had a son named Canaan?
Which of those three are the Semites named after?

Quote:
The Palestinians speak Arab. Like they did in eastern Saudi Arabia, from the 8th century BCE. Other place.
Tell me why don't the French speak Gaelic as they did 2000 years ago give or take a few years?

Would you argue that the French are not locals to France because they do not speak the original language of the land and as the Irish and Scots speak a closer version of Gaelic they have more right to France than the French (bloody hell maybe the French are invented, oh the humanity where was Arafat in 843AD)?

I would start on English being basically a derivative of North Sea Germanic, French and Latin and that almost no one spoke English until what the 11th century and even then it was old English as it wasn't until the 15th century that modern English started to develop but I am sure you understand my point.

Now there is another issue I would like to address and that is the failure to link source material as in my endeavors to provide accurate material I stumbled across this...

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/read...px?ARTID=28955

which looks awfully similar.

Basically it is common internet etiquette to link your sources where possible and in some cases a legal requirement so can we at least follow that process before we do something silly and give Redleg more problems than we already do?
May 15th, 2013  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Ah yes you will notice though that once you remove biblical texts from the process there is literally next to nothing that proves these "great" kingdoms ever existed for example the great David that is mentioned absolutely no where in historical text and only once on a fragment of stone but then that guy may have just been talking about his local florist as there is nothing descriptive on the tablet to say other wise basically there is as much to prove King Arthur and Robin Hood existed as there is David.

However since logic will not sway you lets play bible games where reality can be overlooked because all you need is faith aka an imagination.

Who were Shem, Ham, and Japheth?
Which had a son named Canaan?
Which of those three are the Semites named after?
Wether the biblical texts are right or wrong, certain is that at that time there weren't any Arab Palestinians but possible Israelis. King Shalmaneser III of Assyria fought a battle at Qarqar in 853 BC. He claimed victory and erected the Kurkh Monolith which give an account of the battle. Listed is :King Ahab of Israel sent 2,000 chariots and 10,000 soldiers

Quote:
Tell me why don't the French speak Gaelic as they did 2000 years ago give or take a few years?
Because they were invaded and conquered by two main groups. The first were the Romans and in the 3rd century the Franks, who came from Germany. The original French (Gauls) had to intigrate twice.

Quote:
Would you argue that the French are not locals to France because they do not speak the original language of the land and as the Irish and Scots speak a closer version of Gaelic they have more right to France than the French (bloody hell maybe the French are invented, oh the humanity where was Arafat in 843AD)?
We are departing from what we talked about: societies. The original "French" society, the ones who lived there before the Romans and later the Franks doesn't exist anymore. Language gone, religion gone. The Scots or Irish never lived in "France", not before nor after the Romans invaded. The French society is much closer the the Franks'. The name "France" comes from the Latin Francia, which means "country of the Franks". The Jewish society goes a long way back and certainly dates before the Arab speaking and Islam believing Palestinians. In ancient times people were chased away over and over again. Most didn't want to go back to were they were born, simply because they were afraid to do so. My country (Belgium) has been occupied by almost every state in Europe. French, Romans, Dutch, Spanish, Austria and Germans and raided by the Vikings but we stayed. The Jews stayed too. The Arabs were the invaders.
Ah, the treaty of Verdun! The partition of Charlemagnes (we call him Karel de Grote) empire. But involving Arafat is good. What do you think would have happend when one of the sons of Charlemagne refused his part of the empire? He would lose it forever. So, are you saying that by refusing their part of the Palestine Partition plan the Arabs lost their claim to the land? And if Arafat would have lived at that time do you think they would have given it to a foreigner? (Arafat is born in Egypt).

The French had to adapt twice. The region of Palestine was conquered by the Arabs and had to adapt. A lot did but not the Jews, they kept living as they did before the Arabs came. A lot of Arabs immigrated into "Palestine" just as a lot of Romans and Franks immigrated into what is now called France. The Franks were on the run from tribes comming from the east, invaded the Roman Empire and toghether with the Romans chased them away.

Quote:
I would start on English being basically a derivative of North Sea Germanic, French and Latin and that almost no one spoke English until what the 11th century and even then it was old English as it wasn't until the 15th century that modern English started to develop but I am sure you understand my point.
Sure, they are not pure anymore. Imagine this. England is invaded by a foreign power with another language, culture and religion. They expell all the British exept for a small group who tries to survive and keep their language , culture and religion alive. Their holiest place is a temple in London which gets destroyed by the invaders and on the ruins they place a temple of their own religion. Some British tries to fight back from time to time to no avail. The British living in other countries keep their language, culture and religion and believe that some day they will go back to England and get their country back. Then a war erupts and the original invaders are pushed back. Then the British want to came back but get a hostile welcome. Even the ones who didn't flee are being attacked. But they manage to get their country back and are immediately attacked by the original invaders who claim that the British must all be killed because it is not their country! Who would you support, the British or the invaders?

Quote:
Now there is another issue I would like to address and that is the failure to link source material as in my endeavors to provide accurate material I stumbled across this...

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/read...px?ARTID=28955

which looks awfully similar.
Maybe the poster and the writer of the article are one and the same or he forgot to list the link.
Remember "der Alte"? A lot of his posting were also copy and paste from articles without giving the link, yet he stood in high esteem. And to me he still does by the way.

Quote:
Basically it is common internet etiquette to link your sources where possible and in some cases a legal requirement so can we at least follow that process before we do something silly and give Redleg more problems than we already do?
Have you read this link? The British Record on Partition as revealed in British Military Intelligence and other Official Sources
A Memorandum Submitted to the Special Session of The General Assembly of the United Nations
April 1948


or this one : With the Judaens in the Palestine Campaign.

both are pdf files. The latter is written in 1922.
May 16th, 2013  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.J
Really!
Maybe we should give the U.S. back to the original inhabitants, since they lived there before the Europeans came.
We probably would these days, the problem is the land we stole (and we did steal it, trail of tears and all that) started to happen 400 years ago. Its a bit late to give it back. The Damage is already done.

Nonetheless, our treatment of the Native Americans remains one of the darker moments in our history and its not something we Americans are especially proud of.

I don't a single American who would justify our treatment of the native Americans (except the bigots and the crazies) and its certainly not behavior Israel should emulate or find justification for in its own deplorable treatment of its neighbors.
 


Similar Topics
Don't fault Israel for Palestinians' intransigence
Palestinians appeal for release of Western activists kidnapp
Palestinians complain about Israeli withdrawal
Putin offers assistance Palestinians
Gandhi film plays to Palestinians