Iran Really DOES Have A Case For Nukes (ethic, highway, government)

[rb4browns]

Originally Posted by saganista

Transjordan was administratively separated from Palestine in 1922. The map refers to Palestinian loss of land, 1946-2000...

But who was a "Palestinian?" The Palestinians who lost their land when it was "administratively seperated" in 1922? The Palestinians who did not even exist as a political or social entity before WWI when the area was under Ottoman rule for centuries? The Jews who lived in "Palestine" before the Romans renamed the area as a derogatory dig at the Jews who they conquered in the first century era, centuries before Islam or the Arab imperialist conquest of the Levant?

The idea that there has somehow been a "Palestinian loss of land" when they never had that land in the first place since the people known as Palestinians today never existed as a political or social entity before Israel was created is ridiculous.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by rb4browns

North Africa falls under the rubric of the Middle East as the countries are both Muslim and Arab.

Egypt is the only African country included in the actual Middle East, and the ethnicity of current populations in the former Barbary States is predominantly Berber, secondarily Arab.

Originally Posted by rb4browns

And thank you, btw, for pointing out the factuality of my statement - namely that folks in that part of the world has issues with us (and everyone else) long before the advent of the State of Israel.

Read a little history. Folks have been having issues with other folks in every part of the world for as long as history has been written. The Barbary Deys, Beys, and Pashas meanwhile had no idea who we even were. They took us to be more Europeans. All they cared about was that our ships had some cool stuff on them.

Originally Posted by rb4browns

Case closed.

Just as well. You didn't have one anyway.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by rb4browns

But who was a "Palestinian?" The Palestinians who lost their land when it was "administratively seperated" in 1922?

Pretty good on "Israeli", not so good on "separated". Meanwhile, no one lost any land in the 1922 administrative separation. Britain merely requested and received approval from the League of Nations to operate the Mandate as two separate entities, creating Transjordan to the east of the river and Palestine to the west.

Originally Posted by rb4browns

The idea that there has somehow been a "Palestinian loss of land" when they never had that land in the first place since the people known as Palestinians today never existed as a political or social entity before Israel was created is ridiculous.

Ridiculous to an Israeli partisan. In any rational analysis, people do not need to be represented by any particular social or political entity in order to have their existence, and therefore their rights, confirmed. Political decisions for the entire region had been seized by, fought over in, and ultimately imposed from, far away places for quite a long time. All the while, people worked, farmed, fished, and passed the land on to the their heirs when they died. Briefly put, they lived there. Then, increasing numbers of them were forced by others not to live there any more. I suspect that this is what is refered to as "loss of land". If you don't believe me, perhaps you could ask some American Indians about how this sort of process tends to play out...

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by saganista

In any rational analysis, people do not need to be represented by any particular social or political entity in order to have their existence, and therefore their rights, confirmed. Political decisions for the entire region had been seized by, fought over in, and ultimately imposed from, far away places for quite a long time. All the while, people worked, farmed, fished, and passed the land on to the their heirs when they died. Briefly put, they lived there. Then, increasing numbers of them were forced by others not to live there any more. I suspect that this is what is refered to as "loss of land". If you don't believe me, perhaps you could ask some American Indians about how this sort of process tends to play out...

Or those who were dispossessed by said American Indians...

[Habsburg]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Or those who were dispossessed by said American Indians...

Yeah but give every ethnic group their own nation... yikes!

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by Habsburg

Yeah but give every ethnic group their own nation... yikes!

Nah. Limit it to those who were subjected to nazi genocide.

[Luiso]

Originally Posted by norcalmom101

I'm Jewish and what is good for Isreal is not good for me. I am one of a great many Jews who do not support the Isreali Agenda. In fact, it makes me sick.

There is a Zula saying

" During the night Lions kill Hyenas and Hyenas kill Lions , Neither is bad neither is good they are simply doing what they must do to survive"


# Zulus consider Hyenas equal to Lions .

Its a simplistic way to put it but in this case I think it makes sense

[rb4browns]

Originally Posted by saganista

Egypt is the only African country included in the actual Middle East, and the ethnicity of current populations in the former Barbary States is predominantly Berber, secondarily Arab.

<shrug> There is no clear cut "racial" demarcation anymore between Arab and Berber for the most part due to intermarriage, etc. over the years. Morocco, Libya, etc. are very much considered Arab states by themselves and the rest of the world. Your mileage may vary.

Originally Posted by saganista

Read a little history. Folks have been having issues with other folks in every part of the world for as long as history has been written.

Profound, deep and insightful. Thank you.

Originally Posted by saganista

The Barbary Deys, Beys, and Pashas meanwhile had no idea who we even were. They took us to be more Europeans. All they cared about was that our ships had some cool stuff on them.

And once again, my point was that these countries' issues began with us before 1948. Where is the disagreement here?

Originally Posted by saganista

Just as well. You didn't have one anyway.

So clever and pithy. Bravo!

[rb4browns]

Originally Posted by saganista

Pretty good on "Israeli", not so good on "separated". Meanwhile, no one lost any land in the 1922 administrative separation. Britain merely requested and received approval from the League of Nations to operate the Mandate as two separate entities, creating Transjordan to the east of the river and Palestine to the west.

Tell that to the majority of the residents of Jordan who consider themselves ethnic Palestinians, because the minority Hashemites rule the country eventually formed from the land in that "seperate entity." Funny how occupation and oppression isn't quite as bad when it's not the Jews doing it.

Originally Posted by saganista

Ridiculous to an Israeli partisan. In any rational analysis, people do not need to be represented by any particular social or political entity in order to have their existence, and therefore their rights, confirmed.

Ridiculous to anyone who does not dwell in sophmoric political psychobabble. The Arab residents of Palestine adopted their identity as "Palestinians" only in response to Zionism and the state of Israel. You don't get to retroactively say it was "their" land when that "their" did not even exist, no matter how you want to spin it. Arabs in that region historically identified themselves by family/clan first and foremost. Some may have aspired to see themselves as "Ottoman citizens" but nobody thought of themselves as "Palestinians" the way the term is understood today.

Originally Posted by saganista

Political decisions for the entire region had been seized by, fought over in, and ultimately imposed from, far away places for quite a long time. All the while, people worked, farmed, fished, and passed the land on to the their heirs when they died. Briefly put, they lived there. Then, increasing numbers of them were forced by others not to live there any more. I suspect that this is what is refered to as "loss of land". If you don't believe me, perhaps you could ask some American Indians about how this sort of process tends to play out...

Perhaps, so where exactly do you live? If a descendant of an American Indian comes knocking on your door saying his great-great-grandfather lived on the land your house now stands on, are you ready to hand it over?

.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by rb4browns

But who was a "Palestinian?" The Palestinians who lost their land when it was "administratively seperated" in 1922? The Palestinians who did not even exist as a political or social entity before WWI when the area was under Ottoman rule for centuries?

Palestinians are the same as Philistines. Etymologically Philistine --> Filistine --> Falistine --> Palistine --> Palastine --> Palestine

Nationalism was not a concept in Europe or elsewhere until the 17th Century. Consequently, in the Ottoman Empire, everyone was an Ottoman. There was no such thing as Romanian-Ottoman, Greek-Ottoman, Bugarian-Ottoman, Serbian-Ottoman, Albanian-Ottoman, Iraqi-Ottoman, Syrian-Ottoman, Egyptian-Ottoman and so on.

Nationalistic sentiments did not develop until the 18th Century in the Ottoman Empire.

Originally Posted by rb4browns

The Jews who lived in "Palestine" before the Romans renamed the area as a derogatory dig at the Jews who they conquered in the first century era, centuries before Islam or the Arab imperialist conquest of the Levant?

Um, except the Hebrew word Pelesheth, "the land of the Philistines," recorded in the Pentateuch before the existence of the first Hebrew, Abrahm (aka Abraham) disproves that.

Originally Posted by rb4browns

The idea that there has somehow been a "Palestinian loss of land" when they never had that land in the first place since the people known as Palestinians today never existed as a political or social entity before Israel was created is ridiculous.

Again, the history of the Hebrews disproves that. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the story of David slaying a Palestinian named Goliath.