The United Nations says Israel is imposing an "apartheid regime" on Palestianians - Page 3 - Myth-Weavers

Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


The United Nations says Israel is imposing an "apartheid regime" on Palestianians

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
Yeah, well, I'm not on trial and you do not have the power to compel me to answer your questions nor I you.
Rather than using an analogy, why not simply ask me a question about the thing you're analogizing?
Wouldn't that be easier? This way, I wouldn't even have to accuse you of making a false analogy.
No, it wouldn't be easier. Asking on a scale that people live in is better than asking about a scale that people don't really comprehend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by canjowolf View Post
No, it wouldn't be easier. Asking on a scale that people live in is better than asking about a scale that people don't really comprehend.
Are you including yourself among those who cannot comprehend? Are you including me?
Have some faith. Try me.
Or is it more difficult because you're deliberately making a false analogy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
That word, 'colonialism'.
I could be wrong, and pleasantly surprised, and the prior works are referring to the colonialism that brought Arabs to the Levantine region in the first place. But I suspect that 'colonialism' is being used to delegitimatize the indegenity of Jewish and Samaritan people to Judea and Samaria and that general region.
Conversely, I would assume the reference to be to the nature of the action which established the state of Israel, the manner by which the non-Jewish indigenous population has been treated since, and particularly the treatment of foreign-born (many for uncounted generations) Jews as compared to native-born Palestinians.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
In my humble opinion, describing Israel as a 'settler colonial state' already means that at least one person in the discussion, for or against the use of that term, is standing on sand.
I have a feeling that if this thread lasts for a while that I'm going to need to repeat this often...
...but here's the first time: Jews are an ethnoreligious people who are indigenous and have their ethnogenesis to and in the Levant. Arabs, on the other hand, are not indigenous to the Levant and do not have their ethnogenesis in the Levant.
I think, from there, it should be relatively easy to see why one might object to the seemingly casual use of the word 'colonialism' and 'apartheid'.
A DNA study of Jews and Palestinian Arabs (including Bedouins) found that these were more closely related to each other than to people of the Arabian Peninsula, Ethiopian Semitic-speaking people (Amharas, Tigrayans , Harari and Tigre people), and the Arabic speakers of North Africa.
Palestinians, while 'largely culturally and linguistically Arab' are Semites.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
So, I take it that you agree with me when I say that Lord Balfour's declaration did not go far enough and that he should have extended the same privileges to the Assyrians and Armenians?
I am unconvinced that Lord Balfour's declaration was at all a wise response to the problem of anti-Jewish sentiment, or that they were his priveleges to extend in the first place, which has nothing to do with whether or not I would be neutral with respect to oppression faced by those respective groups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
you're deliberately making a false analogy?
How so?

Quote:
Palestinians, while 'largely culturally and linguistically Arab' are Semites.
They fall into the same category as the Samaritans. And the LORD God of Israel is quite clear on what should be done.

It is the only moral thing to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
Conversely, I would assume the reference to be to the nature of the action which established the state of Israel,
An action that was actually decolonizing and granted autonomy and the right of self-determination to an indigenous people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
the manner by which the non-Jewish indigenous population has been treated since
*eyes narrow*
What non-Jewish indigenous population do you speak of? Samaritans?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
and particularly the treatment of foreign-born (many for uncounted generations) Jews as compared to native-born Palestinians.
What does that have to do with colonialism?
I do not dispute that study.
It does not, however, make Arabs indigenous to the Levant or make Jews colonizing settlers.
All it shows is that they're more closely related.
Any other conclusions you might care to draw are speculative at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
I am unconvinced that Lord Balfour's declaration was at all a wise response to the problem of anti-Jewish sentiment
It's not solely 'anti-Jewish sentiment' about the rights of indigenous people.
I figure this conversation will eventually drift into a discussion of international laws and human rights...
...do you not recognize the rights of indigenous people to self-determination?
EDIT: Are you convinced of the wisdom of Umar ibn Al-Khattab's decision to conquer the Levant? Rather than return it to its indigenous people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
, or that they were his priveleges to extend in the first place
Correct.
The Jewish people did not need the permission of the British or the Arabs in order to determine their own destinies and free themselves from the yoke of Arab kindness and guardianship. And neither do Greek Cypriots, Armenians, Assyrians and Copts and the few Persian Zoroastrians left alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canjowolf View Post
How so?
That was a question. Even if you cut it off when you quoted it, Canjowolf.
You asked a question. I asked if you were making an analogy. You said yes. I asked you to dispense with the analogy and get to the point. You implied that you and others might need the analogy. And in return, I wonder why.
I can only come up with a few reasons why you wouldn't simply get to the point and one of them is that you're making a false analogy.
It's only a suspicion but I cannot confirm it unless you get to the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
Palestinians, while 'largely culturally and linguistically Arab' are Semites.
Also, I would caution against using Palestinian and Semite too liberally and without modifiers, these terms are a blend of archaic, linguistic, cultural and genetic and manufactured.
When you say Palestinian, are you excluding Jews? Even though they live in the region the Romans named Palestine? Why?
When you say Palestinian, are you including Arabs who left the region before WWI and emigrated to Chile, calling themselves 'Turks' with pride? If so, why?
When you say Semite, are you talking about people speaking Semitic languages? Referencing Biblical genealogy? Or genetics?

Quote:
An action that was actually decolonizing and granted autonomy and the right of self-determination to an indigenous people.
I'm going to have to be brutally honest here.

Why is this sort of policy supported in some cases, and harshly condemned in others?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
I'm going to have to be brutally honest here.
You weren't brutally honest before?
=P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Why is this sort of policy supported in some cases, and harshly condemned in others?
I don't know. People have one standard for Jews. Another for other indigenous people.
I can only suspect why.
I know people who, with pride, say they'd gladly help First Nations people in the Americas drive out Europeans and other settlers and reestablish themselves but begin stuttering when they're asked about Jews and Assyrians and Armenians in the same context.
I haven't gotten to the point of accusing people of hypocrisy...
...first we just have to get to the point on agreeing word definitions, history and who's indigenous or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
I don't know. People have one standard for Jews. Another for other indigenous people.
I can only suspect why.
I know people who, with pride, say they'd gladly help First Nations people in the Americas drive out Europeans and other settlers and reestablish themselves but begin stuttering when they're asked about Jews and Assyrians and Armenians in the same context.
I haven't gotten to the point of accusing people of hypocrisy...
...first we just have to get to the point on agreeing word definitions, history and who's indigenous or not.
The problem I find with that term is that the history of human civilization is of groups traveling, conquering, sharing, and intermingling. Past a certain point, it's hard to say who is, or is not, indigenous.

Heck, we're all from Africa if we go back far enough, aren't we? The entire exercise is nothing more than arbitrary division.

Besides, we all know the real arbiter for right and wrong is the LORD God of Israel, who gave the land of Israel to the Jews, and who gave the Americas to the followers of Christ. The indigenous people have no claim to the land that the LORD created.







 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2018-07-18 09:00:11am local time
Myth-Weavers Status