Israel and Palestine Conflict Heats Up

[Fandis]

Err, no, I'm looking at a continuous habitation of the region.



"Palestine" derives directly from "Philistia", the name given by the Greeks to the land of the Philistines.

That dates to around 3200 years ago, predating Ancient Israel's existence as a nation.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine

Also, when King David conquered the region for the Israelites, it was the Philistines he was conquering.

https://www.livescience.com/55774-ancient-israel.html

You are right, but you are missing one small detail - the Philistines were of the Greek origin, i.e. had nothing to do with the current Palestinians who are Arabs. I'm afraid I don't remember the name of one of the PLO leaders to whom belonged the famous quote "that night i went to bed an Arab and woke up a Palestinian".

Palestinians weren't originally Muslim. I have no idea where you pulled that idea from, since you just tried to tie the name to pre-Christian Rome, centuries before Mohammed's birth, yourself. You aren't even internally consistent in your misrepresentations.



Again, Palestinians didn't "move there". They've lived there as long as anyone else.

You are right, Palestinians weren't originally Arabs. They were Jewish (unlike the Philistines, who in turn were Greek). And as I've mentioned the name Palestine has appeared millenia after the land was conquered by the Jews. Before the Romans have come up with the name, the land was Judea/israel, and even before than Canaan. Well I guess when the Canaanites come back, we can discuss giving the land back to them...

- - - Updated - - -

Not every country is led by a "president". Particularly as you go back through history.

However, currently, it's Mahmoud Abbas. How do you not know this? Before Abbas, it was Yasser Arafat. "President of Palestine" is a position that's existed since 1989, dude.

As you can imagine, I'm aware of that. We however had a discussion about presidents of a state of Palestine that apparently existed before the ebil Juice "stole" the land from them, i.e. pre 1948 (or hell pre 1967 if you so prefer).

[Cringefest]

usa wouldn't exist as it is now if the european powers didn't back the people up...

That is... a weird way of looking at it.

[Endus]

You are right, but you are missing one small detail - the Philistines were of the Greek origin, i.e. had nothing to do with the current Palestinians who are Arabs.

That's just incorrect. You're making shit up.

You are right, Palestinians weren't originally Arabs. They were Jewish (unlike the Philistines, who in turn were Greek).

Neither of those statements are true.

And as I've mentioned the name Palestine has appeared millenia after the land was conquered by the Jews.

This is also categorically false; the name emerged before Judaism existed as a religion or the Jews as a people distinct from Canaanites.

Before the Romans have come up with the name, the land was Judea/israel, and even before than Canaan. Well I guess when the Canaanites come back, we can discuss giving the land back to them...

Both Jews and Palestinians are descendents of Canaanites, ethnically, dude.

I have no idea where you're getting this propaganda, but it's not history.

[Cringefest]

You are right, but you are missing one small detail - the Philistines were of the Greek origin, i.e. had nothing to do with the current Palestinians who are Arabs. I'm afraid I don't remember the name of one of the PLO leaders to whom belonged the famous quote "that night i went to bed an Arab and woke up a Palestinian".





You are right, Palestinians weren't originally Arabs. They were Jewish (unlike the Philistines, who in turn were Greek). And as I've mentioned the name Palestine has appeared millenia after the land was conquered by the Jews. Before the Romans have come up with the name, the land was Judea/israel, and even before than Canaan. Well I guess when the Canaanites come back, we can discuss giving the land back to them...

- - - Updated - - -



As you can imagine, I'm aware of that. We however had a discussion about presidents of a state of Palestine that apparently existed before the ebil Juice "stole" the land from them, i.e. pre 1948 (or hell pre 1967 if you so prefer).

You are clearly confused about a variety of things.

[Yetanothernewbie]

What people did they even steal land from?

The Palestinians you doorknob.

[downnola]

Both Jews and Palestinians are descendents of Canaanites, ethnically, dude.

I have no idea where you're getting this propaganda, but it's not history.

Not only do both share a common ancestor, the shared genes from those ancestors make up more than half of both groups DNA.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/h...ern-arabs-jews


The researchers also compared the ancient DNA with that of modern populations and found that most Arab and Jewish groups in the region owe more than half of their DNA to Canaanites and other peoples who inhabited the ancient Near East—an area encompassing much of the modern Levant, Caucasus, and Iran.

Both Israeli and Palestinian politicians claim the region of Israel and the Palestinian territories is the ancestral home of their people, and maintain that the other group was a late arrival. “We are the Canaanites,” asserted Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last year. “This land is for its people…who were here 5,000 years ago.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, said recently that the ancestors of modern Palestinians “came from the Arabian peninsula to the Land of Israel thousands of years” after the Israelites.

The new study suggests that despite tumultuous changes in the area since the Bronze Age, “the present-day inhabitants of the region are, to a large extent, descended from its ancient residents,” concludes Schwartz—although Carmel adds that there are hints of later demographic shifts.

The narcissism of small differences is a hell of a drug.

[ati87]

Not only do both share a common ancestor, the shared genes from those ancestors make up more than half of both groups DNA.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/h...ern-arabs-jews


The researchers also compared the ancient DNA with that of modern populations and found that most Arab and Jewish groups in the region owe more than half of their DNA to Canaanites and other peoples who inhabited the ancient Near East—an area encompassing much of the modern Levant, Caucasus, and Iran.

Both Israeli and Palestinian politicians claim the region of Israel and the Palestinian territories is the ancestral home of their people, and maintain that the other group was a late arrival. “We are the Canaanites,” asserted Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last year. “This land is for its people…who were here 5,000 years ago.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, said recently that the ancestors of modern Palestinians “came from the Arabian peninsula to the Land of Israel thousands of years” after the Israelites.

The new study suggests that despite tumultuous changes in the area since the Bronze Age, “the present-day inhabitants of the region are, to a large extent, descended from its ancient residents,” concludes Schwartz—although Carmel adds that there are hints of later demographic shifts.

The narcissism of small differences is a hell of a drug.

Honestly this is a weird argument to begin with.
If for argument sake the current Arab/Palestinian people immigrated to that area of the ME in the last 1500 years would that make much difference?

The core of the problem lies with the fact that Israel kind of sees the Palestinians as guest regardless how long they lived there. Palestinians could have had the same home for 10.000 years and the Israeli position wouldn't really change by that much.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

Wrong. They were installed because of the EU, NATO, and the US. You should probably do a tiny bit of research before you prove how ignorant you are on the subject.

https://www.history.com/topics/middl...tory-of-israel

In 1947, there was no EU nor NATO. The creation of Israel was a UN resolution, in which the USSR was as instrumental as the US (Stalin betting on either it becoming a socialist state, or the Arabs falling into his arms afterwards).

[postman1782]

In 1947, there was no EU nor NATO. The creation of Israel was a UN resolution, in which the USSR was as instrumental as the US (Stalin betting on either it becoming a socialist state, or the Arabs falling into his arms afterwards).

Either way, Israel didn't exist at that time, so, point still stands.

[Cringefest]

The creation of Israel was obviously a mistake. One of those things that just happened and now we deal with the consequences. There are plenty of events like this throughout history.
Nothing we can do about it though, so the discussion is pretty useless most of the times. We could talk about what's happening now though.

"We urge the government of Israel to reverse its decision to advance the construction of 540 settlement units in the Har Homa E area of the occupied West Bank, and to cease its policy of settlement expansion across the Occupied Palestinian Territories," the European nations said.

"If implemented, the decision to advance settlements in Har Homa, between East Jerusalem and Bethlehem, will cause further damage to the prospects for a viable Palestinian State."
Back in May 6th.

Also, just to put it into context and actually give some numbers, I quote:
As of 30 January 2020, there are about 130 government-approved settlements, and 100 unofficial ones, which are home to around 400,000 Israelis in the West Bank, with an additional 200,000 Israelis residing in 12 neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.

400k settlers!

[tehdang]

Yes, Palestine, the geographical territory, NOT a country. Is New England a country? Is Siberia a country? Is Toscana a country? All of those can be found on a map, doesn't make them countries.
Just accept that Palestinians are just random Arabs that came to the area from different countries and never had one of their own, and only took the name Palestinians in 20th century to make a perfect underdog for the western leftist bleeding hearts. A brilliant move, gotta give them that.

More or less. The historical right to the land is bunkum. The time of Ottoman ownership was not special, and if they'd reformed and picked the right side in WW1, might have continued in the region as Turks ruling Arabs.

The irony is bleeding heart westerners help empower the bloody propaganda. Hamas wants just enough provocation beyond what may be ignored to prompt the counterattack (ie stones thrown at Israeli soldiers aren't enough). The counterattack causes minor civilian casualties. Then, the campaign begins that they're hapless Palestinians, forced to start fires and launch missiles because Israel refuses to surrender and dissolve.

The west has to deeply want to believe such foundationless rubbish for it to have any purchase at all.

[ati87]

You are right, but you are missing one small detail - the Philistines were of the Greek origin, i.e. had nothing to do with the current Palestinians who are Arabs. I'm afraid I don't remember the name of one of the PLO leaders to whom belonged the famous quote "that night i went to bed an Arab and woke up a Palestinian".





You are right, Palestinians weren't originally Arabs. They were Jewish (unlike the Philistines, who in turn were Greek). And as I've mentioned the name Palestine has appeared millenia after the land was conquered by the Jews. Before the Romans have come up with the name, the land was Judea/israel, and even before than Canaan. Well I guess when the Canaanites come back, we can discuss giving the land back to them...

- - - Updated - - -



As you can imagine, I'm aware of that. We however had a discussion about presidents of a state of Palestine that apparently existed before the ebil Juice "stole" the land from them, i.e. pre 1948 (or hell pre 1967 if you so prefer).

Your point being? The current people that calls themselves Palestinians could have immigrated thousand years ago after the Romes kicked out the Jewish citizens and that would still not justify what's happening.

Pre 48 you had people, contrariety to the argument your trying to make, living in what's today called Israel. No here or buts, it was not a empty desert.

[Cringefest]

Your point being? The current people that calls themselves Palestinians could have immigrated thousand years ago after the Romes kicked out the Jewish citizens and that would still not justify what's happening.

Pre 48 you had people, contrariety to the argument your trying to make, living in what's today called Israel. No here or buts, it was not a empty desert.

Nevermind the fact that he's making stuff up on the go like.

- - - Updated - - -

More or less. The historical right to the land is bunkum. The time of Ottoman ownership was not special, and if they'd reformed and picked the right side in WW1, might have continued in the region as Turks ruling Arabs.

The irony is bleeding heart westerners help empower the bloody propaganda. Hamas wants just enough provocation beyond what may be ignored to prompt the counterattack (ie stones thrown at Israeli soldiers aren't enough). The counterattack causes minor civilian casualties. Then, the campaign begins that they're hapless Palestinians, forced to start fires and launch missiles because Israel refuses to surrender and dissolve.

The west has to deeply want to believe such foundationless rubbish for it to have any purchase at all.

"minor civilian casualties"

[Fandis]

Your point being? The current people that calls themselves Palestinians could have immigrated thousand years ago after the Romes kicked out the Jewish citizens and that would still not justify what's happening.

Pre 48 you had people, contrariety to the argument your trying to make, living in what's today called Israel. No here or buts, it was not a empty desert.

I'm not disagreeing with this. Nobody really does except for some complete lunatics. And them living here was the reason they were offered a state of their own by the previous owners of the land, the British. But it wasn't good enough for them, as they tried to deny the Jews their own country. And such choices have consequences.
This argument we had wasn't however about who was here first, but rather about whether a country (underscored for some posters here, a country, not a territory) named "Palestine" has ever existed. it hasn't. That's why any sort of claims like "Jerusalem is the Palestinians' historical capital" are BS. They don't have a historical capital as they never had a country.
Can they get a country in the future however? Sure, why not. As long as they get rid of Hamas and other terrorist groups, completely stop violence, and maybe get a little bit less picky. They are not in a position to be picky. And no, they are not getting Jerusalem. end of story.

[ati87]

I'm not disagreeing with this. Nobody really does except for some complete lunatics. And them living here was the reason they were offered a state of their own by the previous owners of the land, the British. But it wasn't good enough for them, as they tried to deny the Jews their own country. And such choices have consequences.
This argument we had wasn't however about who was here first, but rather about whether a country (underscored for some posters here, a country, not a territory) named "Palestine" has ever existed. it hasn't. That's why any sort of claims like "Jerusalem is the Palestinians' historical capital" are BS. They don't have a historical capital as they never had a country.
Can they get a country in the future however? Sure, why not. As long as they get rid of Hamas and other terrorist groups, completely stop violence, and maybe get a little bit less picky. They are not in a position to be picky. And no, they are not getting Jerusalem. end of story.

First highlighted text is objectively wrong, the British never owned anything. Only reason why they did what they did is because of racisme considering those that where living no better than wild animals (google 200 years of history the Guardian).

Then the second point about consequences.
Uhm, what would the US do if a state with allot of latino's decided to leave the US and either join Mexico or become there own country? We kind of know the answer to this because of the civil war but still.
What would Netherlands or Germany do if the moslims in those two countries decided to split away and start there own country?

The reaction of the Arab nations at that time was no different then the reaction of any other country past and present and future.

[Draco-Onis]

Can they get a country in the future however? Sure, why not. As long as they get rid of Hamas and other terrorist groups, completely stop violence, and maybe get a little bit less picky. They are not in a position to be picky. And no, they are not getting Jerusalem. end of story.

Again the notion that if only the Palestinians played nice the Israeli government would stop the massacre is laughable. The current government has not shown even an inkling of peace they bomb journalist just to keep their atrocities quiet.

[Cringefest]

I'm not disagreeing with this. Nobody really does except for some complete lunatics. And them living here was the reason they were offered a state of their own by the previous owners of the land, the British. But it wasn't good enough for them, as they tried to deny the Jews their own country. And such choices have consequences.
This argument we had wasn't however about who was here first, but rather about whether a country (underscored for some posters here, a country, not a territory) named "Palestine" has ever existed. it hasn't. That's why any sort of claims like "Jerusalem is the Palestinians' historical capital" are BS. They don't have a historical capital as they never had a country.
Can they get a country in the future however? Sure, why not. As long as they get rid of Hamas and other terrorist groups, completely stop violence, and maybe get a little bit less picky. They are not in a position to be picky. And no, they are not getting Jerusalem. end of story.

Neither are the Israeli. Legally anyway.

[Fandis]

First highlighted text is objectively wrong, the British never owned anything. Only reason why they did what they did is because of racisme considering those that where living no better than wild animals (google 200 years of history the Guardian).

Then the second point about consequences.
Uhm, what would the US do if a state with allot of latino's decided to leave the US and either join Mexico or become there own country? We kind of know the answer to this because of the civil war but still.
What would Netherlands or Germany do if the moslims in those two countries decided to split away and start there own country?

The reaction of the Arab nations at that time was no different then the reaction of any other country past and present and future.

I really don't think the "what would any other country do" logic is gonna help your argument much here. What would any other country do if their neighbors tried invading them with a clear stated goal of destroying their country and driving the population into the sea, but then failing miserably, and then trying again and again? or let's go to the present, what would any country (well except for maybe France, they'd just surrender) do if a terrorist group across the border were to launch thousands of missiles into their territory?

[Cringefest]

I really don't think the "what would any other country do" logic is gonna help your argument much here. What would any other country do if their neighbors tried invading them with a clear stated goal of destroying their country and driving the population into the sea, but then failing miserably, and then trying again and again? or let's go to the present, what would any country (well except for maybe France, they'd just surrender) do if a terrorist group across the border were to launch thousands of missiles into their territory?

Most likely not what Israel is doing, if we're talking developed countries. If anything, for the political consequences from the international community. Something Israel, as a rogue state, ignores.

[Fandis]

Again the notion that if only the Palestinians played nice the Israeli government would stop the massacre is laughable. The current government has not shown even an inkling of peace they bomb journalist just to keep their atrocities quiet.

You are giving way too much importance to what current government Israel has. There would be barely any difference with a different government, except for maybe the rhetoric. A more right wing government will say they are opposed to a Palestinian State, while a left wing government will say they support one, knowing all too well it's just not gonna happen. You know what could make a difference? If Palestinians were to have a different government. Like say, getting rid of Hamas and having the leadership that cares more about the well being of their people than stuffing up their Swiss bank accounts.

And really stop the BS about massacre, if you wanna have a discussion, don't throw fancy words that have nothing to do with reality or you'll be as ignorable as some other posters here. You wanna talk about massacres? talk about what's going in multiple other countries in the region. You know, the Muslims kill Muslims business as usual nobody in the world cares about as long as it doesn't involve Israel kind of massacres.