The United Nations says Israel is imposing an "apartheid regime" on Palestianians - Page 4 - 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

 
@TOM
You speculate (actually state as fact despite not presenting any evidence) that (Palestinian) Arabs are definitively not indigenous to the region now known as Israel/Palestine.

Since indigeneity seems to be the crux of much of the rest of your position, would you care to support this with evidence (outside of the etymological)?

We can get back to the rest of it later, having established the truth of that matter.

Also...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai's Source
Some recent genetic studies have found (by analysis of the DNA of Semitic-speaking peoples) that they have some common ancestry. Although no significant common mitochondrial results have been found, Y-chromosomal links between modern Semitic-speaking peoples of the Middle East like Arabs, Hebrews, Mandaeans, Samaritans, and Assyrians have shown links, despite differences contributed from other groups (see Y-chromosomal Aaron).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai's Source
Genetic studies indicate that modern Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi specifically), Levantine Arabs, Assyrians, Samaritans, Maronites, Druze, Mandaeans, and Mhallami, all have an ancient indigenous common Near Eastern heritage which can be genetically mapped back to the ancient Fertile Crescent, but often also display genetic profiles distinct from one another, indicating the different histories of these peoples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
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.
Agreed.
However, if the 'indigenous rules' are in play, they have to apply to everyone. If they apply to everyone 'cept for one specific group, that' suspicious as hell, man.
I would actually rather we took those rules off the table but I'm in the minority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Heck, we're all from Africa if we go back far enough, aren't we? The entire exercise is nothing more than arbitrary division.
Yes and no. Ethogenesis can actually be tied to specific locations, the same way we know apples originated in Afghanistan even if they share common ancestry with every other plant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
You speculate (actually state as fact despite not presenting any evidence) that (Palestinian) Arabs are definitively not indigenous to the region now known as Israel/Palestine.
It's not speculation. Arabs colonized vast regions of the Middle East in the same manner that Europeans colonized the Americas.
'Palestinian' as a term, I find useless. It's a term constructed by the Romans, who never mentioned any Arabs running around when the Jews were trying to throw them out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
Since indigeneity seems to be the crux of much of the rest of your position, would you care to support this with evidence (outside of the etymological)?
Indegenity isn't the crux of my position. Its the whole position. Jews are being called colonizers and settlers in the lands to which they are indigenous.
It'll take me some time to gather the arguments and evidence I'll need to make the case that Arabs are not indigenous to the Levant and are actually invaders in the same way Europeans are in the Americas.
However, let's say that I fail.
What then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
It's not speculation. Arabs colonized vast regions of the Middle East in the same manner that Europeans colonized the Americas.
Source? Mainly for the "in the same manner that the Europeans colonized" part. Conquering an area and establishing an empire is not the same as colonizing, and my understanding is that the early Islamic caliphates (which is what I assume you're referring to when you say "Arab") were conquerors, not colonizers.

If
(we're not merely talking about the people of the Arabian Peninsula, here, or even their descendants elsewhere, so I'll continue the use of this term until I have a better one to make the same distinction)
Palestinian Arabs are indigenous to the region, then forcibly displacing them is not decolonization.

Displacing them in favour of Jewish immigrants from around the world, many of whom with far weaker claims on indigeneity, is colonization.

Systematically limiting their rights relative to the foreign Jewish population, if not apartheid (should we set aside that term as applying solely to a single time and place), is at least apartheid's equally vicious sibling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkWren View Post
Source? Mainly for the "in the same manner that the Europeans colonized" part. Conquering an area and establishing an empire is not the same as colonizing, and my understanding is that the early Islamic caliphates (which is what I assume you're referring to when you say "Arab") were conquerors, not colonizers.
Okay. It wasn't exactly the same. There was just the genocide, slavery, rape, land theft and suppression and force conversions of indigenous peoples, theft of resources, destruction of culture and atrocities.
I misspoke but I think, not by much. I think that the Persians Zoroastrians who suffered at the hands of the Arabs and later their own, Persian convert brothers would find a lot in common with the Cherokee if they ever sat down to talk about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
If Palestinian Arabs are indigenous to the region, then forcibly displacing them is not decolonization.
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
we're not merely talking about the people of the Arabian Peninsula, here, or even their descendants elsewhere, so I'll continue the use of this term until I have a better one to make the same distinction
Well, what distinction are you making?
Is an Arab who moved from Egypt to Jerusalem in 1900 as a child and lost his home him the 1960s indigenous? Or a settler?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
Displacing them in favour of Jewish immigrants from around the world, many of whom with far weaker claims on indigeneity, is colonization.
Incorrect and close to blood libel.
  1. Indegenity is binary; you either have it or you don't. It cannot be weakened. Well, unless you're Jew, for some reason.
  2. Even if Jews were being bused in to replace 'indigenous Palestinian Arabs' that would not, in anyway, be colonization, since Jews are definitely indigenous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
Systematically limiting their rights relative to the foreign Jewish population, if not apartheid (should we set aside that term as applying solely to a single time and place), is at least apartheid's equally vicious sibling.
You mean the diasporic Jewish population.
Also, if you're willing to say this, then it is very likely we do not disagree with on much.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict deserves to have its own term. I'm fine with referencing apartheid to discuss it however calling it apartheid is not as okay with me.

I don't think anyone would dare call Cherokee, displaced from their ancestral homelands in the Southeastern US, west of the Mississippi, immigrants or 'foreign' if they returned to those lands.
Do not do the same to Jews...
...unless, of course, you believe that Jews are not indigenous to the Levant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
Well, what distinction are you making?
The distinction that 'Arab' and 'Palestinian Arab' are not freely interchangeable. That Palestinian Arabs have claims to indigeneity outside the Arabian Peninsula moreso than they do within.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
Is an Arab who moved from Egypt to Jerusalem in 1900 as a child and lost his home him the 1960s indigenous?
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
Or a settler?
Maybe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
Incorrect and close to blood libel.
  1. Indegenity is binary; you either have it or you don't. It cannot be weakened. Well, unless you're Jew, for some reason.
  2. Even if Jews were being bused in to replace 'indigenous Palestinian Arabs' that would not, in anyway, be colonization, since Jews are definitely indigenous.
While indigeneity itself may be binary, the strength of a claim to it need not be. Nor is an assessment of such strength 'close to blood libel'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
You mean the diasporic Jewish population.
They are diasporic if they have a claim to the land.
They are foreign if they do not.
Whether they do or do not is influenced by whether or not there are competing claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
The distinction that 'Arab' and 'Palestinian Arab' are not freely interchangeable. That Palestinian Arabs have claims to indigeneity outside the Arabian Peninsula moreso than they do within.
How do you figure?
Did you read the studies you cited on Wikipedia, by the way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
While indigeneity itself may be binary, the strength of a claim to it need not be. Nor is an assessment of such strength 'close to blood libel'.
I think implying that Jews might not be indigenous to the Levant and immigrants is close blood libel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
They are diasporic if they have a claim to the land.
They are foreign if they do not.
Whether they do or do not is influenced by whether or not there are competing claims.
Do you believe that Jews are indigenous to the Levant or not?
About the quality of evidence I need to provide to meet my burden of proof on my claim that Arabs are not indigenous to the Levant...
Would you accept the quality of evidence that would prove Arabs are not indigenous to Japan? Antarctica? That Europeans are not indigenous to the Americas? That Turks are not indigenous to Turkey? Welsh people to Central Europe?
I just don't want to waste my time, especially since I realize I've got a burden of proof to prove a negative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
How do you figure?
By my understanding, the Arabization of Palestine in the 600s CE did not include a complete genocide of its indigenous population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
Did you read the studies you cited on Wikipedia, by the way?
Is there a particular section you believe supports your assertion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
Do you believe that Jews are indigenous to the Levant or not?
Some? Many? Not all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
About the quality of evidence I need to provide to meet my burden of proof on my claim that Arabs are not indigenous to the Levant...
Would you accept the quality of evidence that would prove Arabs are not indigenous to Japan? Antarctica? That Europeans are not indigenous to the Americas? That Turks are not indigenous to Turkey?
I just don't want to waste my time, especially since I realize I've got a burden of proof to prove a negative.
Given that I don't know what standard of evidence you reference in each of those cases, it's difficult to say for certain. I think it would just be easier to present what evidence you have, and if it is insufficient but you think you could present more, then you can do so.
Ultimately, either you trust that I am engaging in this discussion in good faith, and will be open to consider your evidence should you decide to present it, or you do not, and there is no point in continuing regardless of what answer I give.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
By my understanding, the Arabization of Palestine in the 600s CE did not include a complete genocide of its indigenous population.
I never implied it did.
So what if it didn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
Is there a particular section you believe supports your assertion?
I'm finding discrepancies between what you quoted from Wikipedia and one of the articles.
And given that Jews recently have accused Wikipedia anti-Semitism and historical revision that denies their indigenous status.
If you didn't read it, that's fine, I guess.
Do you acknowledge that Jews and Arabs that identify as Palestinian being related and Semetic does not suggest either way to their indigenous status?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
Some? Many? Not all.
I don't think I see much point in continuing this discussion then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
Ultimately, either you trust that I am engaging in this discussion in good faith, and will be open to consider your evidence should you decide to present it, or you do not, and there is no point in continuing regardless of what answer I give.
Well, that's what I'm trying to gauge. I figure, you don't believe that Europeans are indigenous to the Americas...
...and that whatever evidence or argument one might make to 'prove' that claim, should be just as good to prove that Arabs are not indigenous to the Levant.
The Greeks and Romans and Egyptians specifically mention Jews living in the region and there's plenty of Jewish relics lying around in the Levant. Not much Arab stuff. And the term Palestine wouldn't be created by the Romans until after the Jewish revolt.
Arabs on the other hand, are specifically mentioned by civilizations at the time, like the Assyrians as originating from the Arabian peninsula.
There's no confusion there.
The Greeks don't mention having to fight off Arab communities living in Jerusalem and the term 'Jew' is specifically a reference to the kingdom of Judah.
I suppose, my best evidence is the lack of evidence of Arab indigenity to the Levant. If they were indigenous to that region, there would be some sign of it in the artifacts to be found there or mentioned by all the people passing through.
The Jews themselves never mention Arabs.
Not even the Arabs mention being there and they had writing. In fact, we know Aramaic was one of the major languages bouncing around the Levant.
Not any form of Arabic.
So when I say my 'evidence' or, more literally argument, is the lack of evidence, its the same 'evidence' that would be used to question European indigenity; the Europeans didn't mention it. Neither did the First Nations. There's no evidence of their culture being there.
If that won't convince you, should I waste my time dragging up Egyptian murals? Greek accounts of conquest? Roman carvings?
I don't know if I'm interested in trying to prove a negative that would or could be readily accepted in another situation.








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 2018-07-22 09:00:13am local time
Myth-Weavers Status