Why Palestine can not recognize Israel as a state

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

This has been in the news for a while and people wonder. As did I. Then I realized that being a real country has lots of benefits that's why Palestine wants that honour itself so badly.

So why is it so important to not recognize Israel as a country? Why is it so hotly debated that when Egypt recognized Israel as a state it got their leader assasinated wth grenades?

1. Well first of all as a personal hero mine Jimmy Carter once stated it's about recognizing the other's right to exist. A country is legitamate and has rights. It's not like a roaming group such as gypsies or say the Jews when they roamed the desert 40 years. They have a right to exist and own land and a sovereign right to protect themselves on such land. If they are not a country there is nothing wrong with claiming their land as your own. You'll remember this is what happened in the 6 day war. the surrounding countries disregarded the UN and attempted to displace and claim the land of Canaan.

2. How about the soveriegn right to protect yourself? An Israeli soldier is currently being held hostage by Hamas. How can you hold a soldier as a POW without a declaration of war? Simple, you can't declare war on a country that doesn't exist. You simply march in and claim you have authority there, (or in this case burrow uner the army base at night but you get the idea)

3. A country has borders it can enforce. What's wrong with checkpoints with gaurds? We have them at our border with Mexico. Why can't we build a fence to seperate the two countries? We can because we and mexico are both soveriegn nations. If a rich group of people build a wall to cut themselves off from poor people (even if they are suicide bombers) and set up checkpoints to make sure you are legitamate alien workers and not terrorists it's aparthied. It's even a land grab. If it's not a country it has no right to secure those borders any more than your average two neighbours can set up gigantic concrete walls with armed gaurds.

4. An asshat supported by a political group to strap bombs to himself, walk into a group of people of another race and kill himself and others, men women children whatever. This is a hate crime and terrorism. BUT if it's between two countries it's a war crime, that's is the governments responsibility, and take responsibility to arrest similar individuals and give reperations and face a war crimes tribunal for doing this act agianst another countries civilians.

5. the Geneva convention covers war crimes. War is a fight between 2 countries. If Israel isn't a country this is no different then the Hatfields and McCoys.

[El Blanco]

Well, maybe all of those, but I'm pretty sure since Palestine isn't a country themselves, they can't recognize anybody.

[Abcdxxxx]

That's really the problem. Israel is a soveriegn country wether or not anyone likes that fact, while Palestine is still a concept yet to ever be realized. Anyone using the term POW in this instance should have their head examined.

[davinxtk]

Hey this one's always fun.


Israel is only a sovereign nation because the UN said it was. Israel, as a nation, didn't exist until the middle of the 1900s. Palestine, however, did... so let's talk about concepts, shall we?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yup, before UNSCOMP finalized the Israeli state, there was NOTHING there. No Jews, no society, no infrastructure, nothing.

Just happy, peaceful Palestinians. Yup.

btw, when was the nation of Palestine founded? I mean, it was there, right?

[derrida]

Don't all those points apply equally to the Israeli government's motivations for not recognizing Palestinian statehood? By criminalizing the PLO or Hamas the IDF is freed from compliance with international regulations.

Kevin the omnivore: The question of whether or not we can prove the existence of large scale Arab immigration into the region during the periods of Ottoman and British control (though the demographic revolution occurring in the 19th century owing to declining infant mortality is the most likely cause of a population explosion in the region) should be immaterial. Both groups represent ethnic populations that have found themselves on the wrong side of imperialism at least once in the course of recorded history. Isn't one of the most basic constitutive forces of a nation ideological or cultural homogeneity? If palestinians meet the criteria for nationhood, why deny them political recognition as a sovereign state?

Or do you actually believe that Jews have been the majority population in the region for the past 200 or so years?

[Abcdxxxx]

Don't you think the PLO and Hamas have criminalized THEMSELVES?

Nobody has denied Palestinians a state accept for the Palestinians themselves who reject every offering since 1967 itself. Israel accepts and recognizes that other partition of land designated as a Palestinian state... you may have heard of it? It's called Jordan.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Isn't one of the most basic constitutive forces of a nation ideological or cultural homogeneity? If palestinians meet the criteria for nationhood, why deny them political recognition as a sovereign state?

I think abc addressed this, however one thing I would add is that you look at 1947-48, and look at what the respective "nations" did to prepare for nationhood.

What the UN granted Israel was ceremonial and paper. By that time, Israelis had already developed this "cultural homogeneity" you mentioned. They built sustainable agriculture, schools, cities, and culture.

What did the Arab residents do (since it's arguable whether or not there was even much of a "Palestinian" identity at that point)? They mobilized for war, with the intention of wiping the Jews off of the map once and for all.

Or do you actually believe that Jews have been the majority population in the region for the past 200 or so years?

Speaking of immaterial.....The Jewish population in Israel is under pressure now, but that doesn't fully address the issue of nationalism.

The Arab world is full of nations that have ethnic, religious, or cultural minorities ruling over majorities. Why is it that Israel, which allows the highest Arab standard of living in the Middle East, AND extends them a democratic vote, is somehow acting contrary to the standards of the Middle East?

Palestinians could've had a state in 1948, and they could have a state now if they stopped shooting missiles into school yards, blowing up civilians, and generally just stopped targeting innocent people.

[Abcdxxxx]

Or do you actually believe that Jews have been the majority population in the region for the past 200 or so years?

Yes, Jews were the majority in the small patch of land originally partitioned to them, as well as in Jerusalem.

Historically, a soveriegn Jewish nation ruled over the land as far back as 1312 BCE. When Arabs arrived in 636 CE they were actually the colonizers, and yet there still wasn't a "Palestinian" ruler. If we limit the scope of our timeline to 200 years like you suggest, that entire period is accounted for by the Brits, and the Ottoman's who arrived in 1516. If we're to measure a nation by it's majority then again, there's Jordan, with 75% of their population identifying as Palestinian.

So why is it okay to condemn Jewish nationalism while defending Arab/Palestinian nationalism?

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Who was there first is a long and very religous debate. Although as I understand it in modern times in the 19th century Jews began to return and purchased some of the then useless land and began to settle it again, they created jobs and hence got many arabs who began to move in. This is also why Israel HAS to have checkpoints and not a zero tolerence fence because TO THIS DAY most of their workforce is Palestinian.

Palestine has shot itself in the foot many a time in the road to statehood. It was at one point said if they would abstain from homocide bombings for 2 weeks the process would begin. After many years there wa FINALLY a 2 week slow down and it began. Now we expect to have a legitamate state (as if anything the UN does is really legit, i mean they sent "UN" troops into Vietnam and then sat back and watch America, canada and a scant few others fight it alone without bothering for requesting more troops.) Anyway my UN bitching is another thread altogether. My point is Palestine is it's own big blockade towards statehood, never renouncing or even trying to stop terrorism. Then they are shocked SHOCKED when Israel sends in troops to attack the terror cells.

Religion is of course a huge part of it. They agree up to a part. Origanelly the land was empty and it was first settled by squatter descendent of Canaan who had no inheritance (modern day Jordanians, palestinians, etc.) According to both Islaam, Judaism, and Christianity God was displeased with their idolatry and sent in the Jews who had been wandering the desert for 40 years to start a good kingdom there....whcih they never really did. Under the riegn of on particular king befor the First Babylonian captivity a particular Prophet said the land would ALWAYS be shared with Canaanites and would never really be exclusive to either. This continued back and forth as Jews went into captivity of everyone from Persia to Rome over the years and eventually BOTH were driven out in A.D. 70 by the Romans. At that point almost no one lived in the area outside of bi cities and even Jerusalem had few people. At the advent of Mohammed his teachings were that God angry with the Jews for perverting his word wanted the land to be returned to the Canaanites under a muslim rule. Which never really got rid of the jews and fought of Christians during the crusades. Eventually the land became uninhabitable and was bandoned practicly up until about 200 years ago. Each one believes they have a divine right to it.

(as is my understanding, correct me where I'm wrong cause this is only as much as I know of it)

[Abcdxxxx]

Well, your biggest confusion there is thinking Canaanites are Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims. The Canaanites are Canaanites, a seperate people entirely, who are pretty much extinct now. Both Canaanites and Jews preclude Islam by thousands of years. There were a few Jewish kingdoms, but wether or not they fullfill any prophecies, or biblical thoughts really has no place in a political conversation.

Who was there first is a long and very religous debate. Although as I understand it in modern times in the 19th century Jews began to return and purchased some of the then useless land and began to settle it again, they created jobs and hence got many arabs who began to move in. This is also why Israel HAS to have checkpoints and not a zero tolerence fence because TO THIS DAY most of their workforce is Palestinian.

It's actualy very clearly stated in the Koran, and logically one has to admit what it means when the Koran resurps passages of the first and second testaments. There were many other religions which "came first" but that's not so much the issue, unless someone tries to call Jews who are indegenous to the land "collonizers" or outsiders. Jews started returning to the land long before the 19th century, but you're very right in noting that along with the biggest Jewish influx also came a huge influx of Arabs too as the quality of life improved.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Well, your biggest confusion there is thinking Canaanites are Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims. The Canaanites are Canaanites, a seperate people entirely, who are pretty much extinct now. Both Canaanites and Jews preclude Islam by thousands of years. There were a few Jewish kingdoms, but wether or not they fullfill any prophecies, or biblical thoughts really has no place in a political conversation.

Who was there first is a long and very religous debate. Although as I understand it in modern times in the 19th century Jews began to return and purchased some of the then useless land and began to settle it again, they created jobs and hence got many arabs who began to move in. This is also why Israel HAS to have checkpoints and not a zero tolerence fence because TO THIS DAY most of their workforce is Palestinian.

It's actualy very clearly stated in the Koran, and logically one has to admit what it means when the Koran resurps passages of the first and second testaments. There were many other religions which "came first" but that's not so much the issue, unless someone tries to call Jews who are indegenous to the land "collonizers" or outsiders. Jews started returning to the land long before the 19th century, but you're very right in noting that along with the biggest Jewish influx also came a huge influx of Arabs too as the quality of life improved.
Ask any Palestinian if they are Canaanite and they WILL tell you they are. Granted most Canaanitic people such as hittites and perrizites are now extinct many in fact most still exist.

Although I can't geneticly prove it, the idea that modern arabs of the Palestine/Jordan region are descended of Canaan son of Ham is taught in Palestinian primary schools in the region. Denying that would be like telling a jew they weren't descendent of Abaraham. They are taught from a young age that modern Arabs of that region are descendent of Canaan, Ishmael, Lot, and Abraham amongst others. Or so PBS's special last year has led me to believe.

My point regardles is the deeply held belief by BOTH parties of birthright to the land.

Also i must commend how extremely well read you are on the subject. It's rare to find people in thi line of conversation who are so thorough and historical, kudos.

Off topic: oddly enough Mormons claim black people are descendent of Canaan and used the Noahic curse to justify slavery. Which is Assanine and racist IMHO because if you do believe the Biblical genealogy (keep in mind I said IF) most african nations are descendent of Cush and Ham's other sons who had no curse and were given inheritence on the african continents.

[Abcdxxxx]

Uh, well they should probably decide if they're Phillistines, or Canaanites and get their stories straight, right?

I suppose the idea is to manipulate the terminology to mean "from the land of Canaan", in which case, anyone can be a Canaanite if it means winning an argument. Even then, one belief is the Canaanites mainly became the Lebanese Phoenicians. Another large group of Canaanites became Jews, were wiped out, or both. Phillistines are from Crete/Greece/Asia Minor and they were actually invaders who went to war against a Jewish/Canaanite resistance over the area we now call Gaza. So what's super absurd is claiming both titles AND calling themselves semitic Arabs. You can also find scholarly essays claiming these Palestinian Arabs were also Jebusites, and really any tribe you can mention that's fallen off the face of the earth, in some desperate attempt to claim an indegenous right and erase the fact that they are the descendents who threw the Jews off the land after 2000 years. You won't find a single book published in Arabic which refers to any one Palestinian people prior to Israel's creation.

[kahljorn]

"Although I can't geneticly prove it, the idea that modern arabs of the Palestine/Jordan region are descended of Canaan son of Ham is taught in Palestinian primary schools in the region."

You're talking about the curse of Ham and they are actually descendents of Noah, I should add in that all arabs are considered descendents of Abrahams son Ishmael. Also from what I recall the term "Canaan" is about as vague as the term "Mesopotamia" in that they merely describe masses of land.

I believe the jews and many other groups considered the curse of ham to be about black people, and was used as justification for their slavery and as an excuse for the annhilation of canaans. Supposedly.

[Abcdxxxx]

I believe the jews and many other groups considered the curse of ham to be about black people, and was used as justification for their slavery and as an excuse for the annhilation of canaans. Supposedly.

Uh. No.
But thanks Wikipedia. It's great how just anyone can write the entries.
Anyway, they didn't look for an justification, they did it because Joshua told them it was an order from god.
True Jews don't view skin color the way you're implying.

[kahljorn]

Even when I'm purposefully semantical in what I say someone tries to tell me it's not true.
There's actually a recorded history of african people being referred to as "Hamites" and/or "Cushites". In fact if I remember correctly that's how they were anthropologically classified for quite some time.

"True Jews don't view skin color the way you're implying."

You know, I seriously couldn't resist this. So what makes a "True jew"? Are you a "True Jew"? Is it possible some of the "Fake Jews" are the ones who made that excuse and looked at skin color or whatever?
Not that I'm saying they did or anything, who knows, the conflict could've had more to do politics and religion which is completely understandable, but isn't it possible the "True jews" had a conversation like the following:

"Hey! Those sons of ham guys are pretty naughty we should kick their asses!"
"I don't know, what did they do?"
"Who knows but Joshua told us God said we should kill them!"
"Oh shit, Joshua? What do these jerks look like?"
"They have black skin"

Notice how none of that is racially motivated, and yet their skin color stayed the same. I don't think anyone implied anything about skin color being the reason they were enslaved or killed, just that the verse itself has been used as justification for their slavery. The True excuse is because it COMES FROM THE BIBLE, FROM GOD not because of their skin color.
Dense asshole.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

I must say this is rather intrigueing I thought Philistines were Cananittic as well but I guess I was wrong.

You find a LOT of people (mainly ill read americans and mormons) trying to cliam the cananitic curse on black people but like I said that is very wrong. Cush who begat Nimrod (or Ninus if you follow the Latin) founded Timbuktu, and Mali and Ninus founded Ninevah and some say Babylon as well and both were black. (Nimrod died childless so that's why he was the only babylonian king of colour if you follow that line of thought and believe this)

Anyway my point is that the Mormon idea that Canaan was black and that's why black people became slaves in America is VERY wrong very racist lie. Ham's UNCURSED innocent children are the ascendents of most north Africans.

Canaan I suppose, unless they interbred with Ishmaelites are extinct. And this thing they are taught is a lie. Now I'm kind of curious what the Canaanitic race looked like I was always picturing what I guess is simple Semetic Arabs. (Ishmaelites are semetic because they are descendent of Abraham who was descendent of Shem, hence where the word semite comes from) I guess there is ONE canaanite in the lineage of Jesus that being Rahaab the harlot.

I must say ABCDxxx you are VERY well read int his area, where did you learn all this? Did you take anthrpology or archaelogy in college?

While we are on the old racial origins I have a theory about Japheth I'd like to run by you. Obviously American indians came across the land bridge a several thousand years ago from Asia. They are mongoloid which is clear from the blue mark on babies, their features and shared genetic things. About this time Was when Noah blessed Shem and said he would enlarge his inheritance of land. You think this crossing into the other two continents was a fulfilling of a prophecy? Or an aincent recording of a historical event or a coincidence? (I don't even know if you're religous i just wanted to run the idea by you)

as for kahljorn, I think Jesus put it best when he stated that a true jew had Abraham's faith, not nessacarily his blood. Galatians 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. I think all of us here are smart enough to judge from the heart and not skin colour, as we know man looks on the outside but God looks on the heart.

This is the oddest place to have a religous discussion but I must say i am learning much more here then most Christian forums.

[Abcdxxxx]

Shame on me for responding to this instead of Cowardly Dog, who actually wants to engage in some dialogue....but....


There's actually a recorded history of african people being referred to as "Hamites" and/or "Cushites". In fact if I remember correctly that's how they were anthropologically classified for quite some time.

Goodie. Maybe you should start a thread about the African slave trade so you can actually be on topic.

"True Jews don't view skin color the way you're implying."

You know, I seriously couldn't resist this. So what makes a "True jew"? Are you a "True Jew"? Is it possible some of the "Fake Jews" are the ones who made that excuse and looked at skin color or whatever?
Not that I'm saying they did or anything, who knows, the conflict could've had more to do politics and religion which is completely understandabl. BLAHBLAHBLAH NON SEQUITOR STONER WHO DOESN'T READ NEWSPAPERS DRIBBLE.....I don't think anyone implied anything about skin color being the reason they were enslaved or killed, just that the verse itself has been used as justification for their slavery. The True excuse is because it COMES FROM THE BIBLE, FROM GOD not because of their skin color.
Dense asshole.

Erm, still lobbying for the scatalogical poster of the year award? Who the fuck are you even talking about? Palestinians, Black Africans or Canaanites? Gergemites maybe? Pick one. See, I'm thinking you're the dense one....you won't find anything about the curse of Ham on any Orthodox "Ask the Rabbi" websites, because it's not mainstream Judaism. There's some supposition attributed to the Babylonian Talmud, and we know the Canaanites were doomed at the hands of Jews - but the rest is a lot of crossed wires and conflicting history/accounts/fables. We can talk about some confused cracker ass Jews, and all the cases of the Old Testament being perverted through history, but in this case it's more of a blood libel then an accurate reflection of any Judaic teachings. Your claim that "jews and many other groups considered the curse of ham to be about black people" implies the roots of Black slavery are Judaic, which is illogical since true Jews don't view skin color that way.

[kahljorn]

But it was describing their race as being black(or dark, in the general case of hamites versus kushites), right? I'm not saying it in itself was racist, or therein implying racism, but rather that it does indeed imply that the sons of cush or whomever were a black tribe(which is an accurate description, no? Generally when you're describing a person per ancestory you refer to their characteristics, right?). I didn't mean to imply that the jews themselves were being racist, because I don't really know, all I was doing was responding to a post cowardly posted which you responded to. The part about slavery was more about the european and american civilization who, in part, used it as a religous excuse for slavery. Did the jews ever use the sons of cush for servants?

Quit being so defensive and read what somebody says before you talk. It's really annoying. I never responded to anything you said in specific negatively or gave out any bad information. I just tried to add to the information regarding if jews or palestines have more of a right to their home than the jews.

Another thing, as to who has rights to the land and yada yada. Remember a few millenia ago there was no civilization and nobody had land. They are arguing about invisible lines in land that everybody established as national territory through war and the politics preceeding it.
So shut your trap when you try to recite history to me like it makes a damn difference, especially since it's partially derived from your heritage. I rarily see somebody who makes race as big of an issue as you do, you're very sensitive about it for some reason.

"in some desperate attempt to claim an indegenous right and erase the fact that they are the descendents who threw the Jews off the land after 2000 years"

Aren't they doing the same thing? Who did they throw off the land? Great stance on the issue though, way to cut to the core.

[kahljorn]

"Who the fuck are you even talking about? Palestinians, Black Africans or Canaanites? Gergemites maybe? Pick one. See, I'm thinking you're the dense one."

Well we were talking about the curse of ham, right? Isn't his son Canaan the one who gets the curse put on him, and put into a life of servitude? Also isn't this particular set really symbolic of the various nations/people that inhabited the world? The bible includes many passages that are merely political passages-- such as the referencing to other religous figures as Demons, like ba'al, a horribly apt figure-- in the same sense this statement offers an interpreted view of history. Obviously it was written in a similar style as most early, mythological/religous documents.

Also you might find that alot of the stories about genealogy in the bible are symbolically(or not, i don't know) referring to how the various civilizations of the world came to be, and the inter-relations of them, often outlining actual historical events. That's a pretty basic format as far as religion goes.

Also Kush is the name of Ham's oldest son, and similarly, Kush is also a nation.

Hamitic anthropological classification index magic (http://35.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HA/HAMITIC_RACES_AND_LANGUAGES.htm)

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

we all agree Cushites were the African ones and NOT cursed like Canaan. Cush despite his father and brother, was an honourable man and a founder of cities and even early schools. (timbuktu)

The only thing that is slightly debated is whether all Canaanites are dead or if they are simply a very very rare bloodline bred in with ishmaelites moabites and what have you.

Long story short the DEBATE is about why Palestine refuses to recognize Israel and I think it's because it means they'd have to renounce terror and fight within geneva convenetions.

[ziggytrix]

human obsession with genealogy is poison. :(

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Especailly mormons. God they genealogize EVERYTHING. Cause of that stupid proxy baptism thing.

I'm very different from my father I don't care who my ancestors are.

[Abcdxxxx]

[quote="kahljorn"
Well we were talking about the curse of ham, right? Isn't his son Canaan the one who gets the curse put on him, and put into a life of servitude? [/quote]

I sure thought we were talking about the curse of Ham, but it's nutty to tie it into black slavery from any angle, and I've just told you it's never been a mainstream Jewish teaching, yet you've attributed it to Jews. Since we're talking about Jewish beliefs (and I'm willing to talk in terms of mythology, but it's still Jewish mythology we're dealing with here) the concept that the ancestry reflects a Beneton commercial is just one way of looking at it - but it's not really how Jews percieve things. We only recognize two tribes for example. Cohens, and Levis. It doesn't matter if you're a Falascha from Ethiopea or an Ashkenazic from Europe, both have members of the two tribes among them. They themselves do not represent their own tribe. In historical terms, there are lots of reasons to question it as well. Ishmael's descendents are said to have died out around 1,000 CE in some circles.

Cowardly, Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel because they hate Jews, and their jealous. As complex as the conflict is, it really starts and ends there.

[kahljorn]

Let me break down what I said for you since you seem to have problems understanding the proper functioning of the english language:

"I believe the jews and many other groups considered the curse of ham to be about black people"

The reason this was brought up is because courage was talking about how the mormons use it to justify slavery. All I was merely adding in on the JEWISH side of things is that they did consider them dark skinned, as historically and anthropologically speaking the kush/hams were generally considered varying degrees of dark skinned.

"and was used as justification for their slavery"

This is obviously about mormons since that's what courage was talking about, and also about European civilizations in general. I think I mentioned that in another post.

"and as an excuse for the annhilation of canaans. Supposedly."

This is the part about the jews, I'm sure some people have definitley used it as a legitimate excuse, you recently used the excuse of, "Joshua said God said to kill them and enslave them". I probably shouldn't have used the word annhilation, but most people seem to believe they don't exist anymore.

"but it's nutty to tie it into black slavery from any angle"

Yea well no shit, don't fucking argue with me about it though it wasn't my fucking idea. I was just adding in to the conversation. Since we were discussing it I thought it's relevance as a description of the true Canaans might be applied to the problem of if Palestinians are really Canaans thus leading evidence towards validity or invalidity.

[Abcdxxxx]

I was merely adding in on the JEWISH side of things is that they did consider them dark skinned, as historically and anthropologically speaking the kush/hams were generally considered varying degrees of dark skinned.

Again. The modern concept of race and skin color was not a factor for the ancient Israelites. There were Jews with darker skin. That's the problem with the whole table of nations concept.

Anyway, the Jews killed the Canaanites, but the Canaanites aren't todays self indentified Palestinians.

[derrida]

Long story short the DEBATE is about why Palestine refuses to recognize Israel and I think it's because it means they'd have to renounce terror and fight within geneva convenetions.

"the so-called sacred and inalienable rights of man prove to be completely unprotected at the very moment it is no longer possible to characterize them as rights of the citizens of a state." - Giorgio Agamben

So, then, is non-recognizance a strategy employed by both sides in order to justify acts of brutality? While liberal thought holds that natural human rights form the ground for civil rights, in a pragmatic sense those human rights are meaningless when not integrated into a legalistic framework.

[kahljorn]

"Again. The modern concept of race and skin color was not a factor for the ancient Israelites. There were Jews with darker skin. That's the problem with the whole table of nations concept. "

These are people who are often classified as half-negro, there's a world of difference but I don't really want to argue this that badly because I don't even really think it's a good point, I was just trying to add information on the topic. You don't need to be a prick over every little thing, I wasn't at all insulting jews or their ancestors. I love jews. I do however enjoy taking in the facts and not listening to your drama over how the Jews never did anyone anything wrong and no single jew has ever made a racist remark and of course you know the ancient israelites didn't too because they were a peace loving race and you were there when it all happened.
I mean technically with the shit you've been saying in this conversation you've been racist on multiple occasions. Check out the dictionary definition.

Doesn't the jewish word, "Kushi" translate to ******? I know I've heard that before. That's why I kept bringing up the term KUSH. KUSH. KUSH. I don't think jews were the only ones who used that as a racial slur either, I think it might've originally been egyptian. Maybe it's a more modern jewish term, though.

Here's an example I found (http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/2869/format/html/displaystory.html)

And I'm glad you know everything about the ancient israelites. I'm willing to bet 60% of the time you're talking out of your asshole because it seems to me you'll say anything if you think people don't know what you're talking about. Also common sense dictates you are talking out of your asshole, because it's physically and mentally impossible for you to know many of the things you claim, unless of course you are lying. Case in point, it's absolutely ridiculous to pretend you can understand the motivations of ancient israelites, their personal opinions and emotional status. Unless you have one-hundred-thousand journals from 4,000 years ago I don't even want to hear it.

And sorry to derail this thread, it wasn't my original intention when I posted four sentences. I wasn't expecting such a negative response, to me it was just cold information.

Back on topic:
How do you know the palestinians aren't Canaan? And don't tell me, "because we killed them all" that's impossible. If anything their genes would've mixed with whatever race they immigrated to.
The one thing I think eliminates them from being a canaan is that canaan was never technically a country, and I think the nation most identified with it was Phoenicia(which is also gone). Most of the various tribes who made up the land of canaan(including ancient israelites) all pretty much had the same culture and language, they even had a religion setup around worshipping baal. I don't think modern palestinians worship baal, or speak whatever the canaan language is. Considering that uniformity in culture is what made them a unified "Canaanical" people despite their ethnical differences, it's pretty ridiculous for a culture that is culturally disimilar to consider themselves canaan.

P.S. I just noticed this but why do the palestinians call themselves HAMas? lol, kind of ironic.

[Abcdxxxx]

[quote="derrida"
So, then, is non-recognizance a strategy employed by both sides in order to justify acts of brutality? While liberal thought holds that natural human rights form the ground for civil rights, in a pragmatic sense those human rights are meaningless when not integrated into a legalistic framework.[/quote]

Dude, shut up. Follow up on the earlier post if you want to stay in this conversation. There's only one country with a legalistic frameword that recognizes human rights in this equation, period. So let me ask you. Do you think it's A) the one that has an Arab PM in Parliament that calls for the destruction of the government he was elected to. or B) The one that stones women for marrying Christians, and cruxifies others, without a trial, for being suspected spies.

[Abcdxxxx]

[quote="kahljorn"]

Doesn't the jewish word, "Kushi" translate to disreputable person of African-American descent, whom I think is quite nice? I know I've heard that before. That's why I kept bringing up the term KUSH. KUSH. KUSH. [quote]

Is there a translation of the word black that hasn't been appropriated into a slur in modern times? It just means black. It's not the words Kush or the Curse of Ham which is the basis for these slurs, and if anyone has tried to say so, they weren't doing it as a teaching of mainstream Judaism. I think Mormons put more stock in it then anything. Like I said, you won't find the Curse of Ham discussed on any Judaic websites. It's a modern libel at this point. The Curse of Ham wasn't really anaylized in racial terms until the 16th Century, by Rabbinical scholars.... which means very little unless you were a follower of that particular Rabbi.

[quote="kahljorn"]
Here's an example I found (http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/2869/format/html/displaystory.html)[quote]

Okay, so let me explain you something about Israel. There is and has always been tensions even amongst Jews there. The Germans hate the Iraqis, the Iraqis hate the Kurds, the Russians hate the religious and the Ethipoeans, and the Persians.... and it's neverending. The infighting is ignorant and silly, but it's really just a product of a culture clash. We're talking about a country of refugees. These types of divides are the products of the Diapora not Judaism. For example, I attribute a shitload of anti-semitism to the reason behind why Soviet born Jews can be so fucked. It's the result of institutionalized hatred for Jews, that Jews can display hatred for each other. These politics weren't in place at the time of the first or second Temple, and they go against the basic tenants of Judaism.

[quote="kahljorn"]
And I'm glad you know everything about the ancient israelites.[quote]

Grow up. I'm not even claiming to be a Talmudic scholar, but we have the wiritngs of our Jewish sages and our modern archeaologists, and common sense.

[quote="kahljorn"]
Case in point, it's absolutely ridiculous to pretend you can understand the motivations of ancient israelites, their personal opinions and emotional status. Unless you have one-hundred-thousand journals from 4,000 years ago I don't even want to hear it.[quote]


Again, it's called the Talmud. A lot of the stories even conflict and offer opposing analysis....it's like the footnotes to the Bible. Maybe it's iffy as a historical document, but as a document for understanding "personal opinions and emotional status" it's rock solid. I use a lot of common sense as well. If Jews were enslaved to Egypt, or wandering the dessert then skin pigment would reflect that. There would be little difference in skin color then that of the Canaanites since they were wandering around the same region give or take. We know that the First Temple did not operate with the bias you're talking about. Why would Canaanites be enslaved for skin color, while others with skin like the Falaschas were made High Priests? Jesus was a Rabbi, and while controversial, we know he likely had dark skin. Like I said, Canaanites were enslaved, or killed, and it happened at the hands of Jews.... I'm not excusing it, or pretending that didn't happen, but any stories that have been fictionalized by other religions and other denominations to justify modern behavior such as the Black slave trade should not be attributed to Jews, let alone ancient Jews. You're not talking about really heady stuff here. You haven't hit on stuff where I need to talk out of my ass, to answer. I'll be the first one to tell you if there's something I don't know.

Anyway, maybe you forgot, we were talking about Replacement History. I think we've both managed to refute the Palestinian conection to Canaanites pretty easily.

[derrida]

Sure Isreal has a legal framework protecting human rights... yet it applies only to citizens. Refugees, then, are considered homo sacer, legal non-entities subject to confiscation of property, arrest, search and detainment without explanation, exploitation of natural resources, deportation of local leaders, imposition of curfews and collective punishment... Isn't that the whole point of martial law?

[kahljorn]

"Is there a translation of the word black that hasn't been appropriated into a slur in modern times? It just means black. It's not the words Kush"

Probably not and I understand that it may not necessarily have been a racial slur but just a way to describe them, but there was a nation known as Kush which is where the jewish word black comes from. Either that or somebody named them Kush because of the jewish word and it just kind of stuck, regardless, though:
An example (http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/kush.html)


"I think Mormons put more stock in it then anything"

Yea, it was used more by europeans, in general.

"Why would Canaanites be enslaved for skin color, while others with skin like the Falaschas were made High Priests?"

I was talking more about the Europeans, and obviously america, where that was an active excuse for their enslavement. I'm sure it wasn't all of them who used it, again, but it was still used. I never intended this conversation to continue this long ;/

"I'm not excusing it, or pretending that didn't happen, but any stories that have been fictionalized by other religions and other denominations to justify modern behavior such as the Black slave trade should not be attributed to Jews, let alone ancient Jews."

Okay. I really wasn't trying to justify it by saying the jews did it first, I was just responding to courage by saying the notions were actually derived INDIRECTLY from the jews.

"Like I said, Canaanites were enslaved, or killed, and it happened at the hands of Jews"

And they had a religous excuse; just like europeans were trying to do with the curse of ham. I guess my placement of the jewish religous excuse was wrong, is all, but the sentiment was still along the same lines.

" I think we've both managed to refute the Palestinian conection to Canaanites pretty easily."

Yep.
According to the bible and historical information jewish people would actually be descendent of canaans, because I believe abraham was a canaan for some time. Wasn't he a nomad who settled in canaan, adopting their culture and such?

[Abcdxxxx]

Sure Isreal has a legal framework protecting human rights... yet it applies only to citizens. Refugees, then, are considered homo sacer, legal non-entities subject to confiscation of property, arrest, search and detainment without explanation, exploitation of natural resources, deportation of local leaders, imposition of curfews and collective punishment... Isn't that the whole point of martial law?

1) Why should Palestinians have the same rights as Israeli Arabs?
2) The property is still within Israel's official borders.
3) Palestinians didn't even have the natural resources you say Israel exploits until Israel provided them.
4) Their local leaders are criminals. Deporting them
5) Arrests, searches,and detainement are always with explanation, and trial.
6) Curfews and "collective punishment" are responses to non-traditional warfare
7) The Palestinian government declared martial law, and turned their security forces to aid terror groups in attacking Israel. The guns, and training for these security forces were originally provided by Israel itself, in accordance with Oslo. You tell me what the point is.

[derrida]

Actually, the martial law part can also refer to the Israeli military's occupation of the West Bank.

[Abcdxxxx]

Yep.
According to the bible and historical information jewish people would actually be descendent of canaans, because I believe abraham was a canaan for some time. Wasn't he a nomad who settled in canaan, adopting their culture and such?

Hmm, that I'm not so sure of. The Bible doesn't make a lot of mention of Canaanites. Mostly Canaan is just refered to as a region of land the Israelites settled in. The few mentions are of them are not suprisingly as conquerors, or enemies of Israel alongside the Amalaks, and Sichon and the Emirates.

Abraham definetly lived in Canaan, and traveled there from the Euphrates valley and most likely originated in Babylonia/Messopotamia - but I don't have a clue how intertwined he became with the pagan culture. There's one story from the Midrash has him smashing all the statues in his father's idol store, which I guess introduces monotheism. I don't think that would make Jews descendents, but it at least backs up the claim that Jews have always been on the land.

[Abcdxxxx]

Actually, the martial law part can also refer to the Israeli military's occupation of the West Bank.

Oh really? Say something you didn't read on a protest poster.

The fact that a Palestinian government and previousely a Jordanian goverment has declared martial law pretty much negates any gripes about the rule of order under Israel's jurisdiction.

[derrida]

Can you explain exactly how those concerns are negated? As far as I know, checkpoints between towns aren't being operated by PA forces. You can't seriously argue that the IDF is simply performing the duties of the Palestinian military.

[Abcdxxxx]

Just like you can't say that life without an Israel, or IDF presence would change anything for Palestinian Arabs, or anyone in the Middle East for that matter. Wasn't Jordan the first to declare martial law in the West Bank ?

We can go toe to toe Derrida, but let's try some logic. You started off talking about the situation in Gaza, and then tossed out an accusation of Martial Law in the West Bank. Maybe Israel could withdraw from the West Bank as planned if Gaza wasn't being used as a community military base. It doesn't help when morons like yourself start pretending that their elected leaders are anything but crime bosses. If you even gave a single shit about these people, you wouldn't be chastising the deportation of Hamas members for goodness sakes. Or is it really cool and Marxist to support genocide and oppression against Jews. Let me know, 'kay?