Why Palestine can not recognize Israel as a state

[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

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[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


"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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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]

Originally Posted by derrida

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?