Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2017 2:57 PM
342 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, halibut, jar, PaulK, RAZD, ringo (8 members, 334 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: willietern
Happy Birthday: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 821,047 Year: 25,653/21,208 Month: 1,280/2,338 Week: 37/364 Day: 37/57 Hour: 5/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the continuing oppression of Palestinians?
Faith
Member
Posts: 26450
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 61 of 68 (816143)
07-30-2017 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Riggamortis
07-30-2017 2:54 AM


Re: The question of the right to the land, and a suggestion
All I have done is argue against the idea that the Jews somehow have more right to the land in any context you have claimed they do.

It had been under majority Muslim control for centuries prior to the immigration of the Jews in the early 20th century.

Control by the Ottoman Empire doesn't mean anything since the land was mostly a wilderness until the mid-19th century, had no national or even tribal identity and also had a continuous Jewish population
even since the days of the Roman Empire, although no doubt the Arabs were in the majority -- though all in widely scattered settlements or living as nomads.

You had claimed that Arabs migrated in large numbers to the area,

I showed it I didn't just claim it. The statistics are indisputable that Arabs moved into the area in great numbers in the mid-19th century.

based on the data I looked at, that may be true from 1922-1945 but it was alongside much higher Jewish immigration. It begs the question, were they responding to Jewish immigration to maintain their majority?

The study that showed greatly increased Arab immigration in the mid 19th century is very creditable. And your idea that the numbers can be reasonably compared with world statistics doesn't hold up at all because the circumstances in Palestine are totally different from normal population growth in the world. Arabs were drawn there specifically in the 19th century because of opportunities afforded by the British presence, and later the Israeli presence as well because of employment opportunities. There was nothing in Palestine comparable to world population growth. Nobody had any reason to be there before the British and Israeli presence.

If you are not basing the Arab claim to the land on ancient occupation of it, then is the McMahon letter or letters the reason for the claim?

Yes. Alongside the fact that Jewish claim to the land is based on nothing. The Balfour Declaration was fraudulent, the land wasn't Britains to promise to the zionists, as per the existing agreement with the Arabs.

Now you are raising a new subject and I have to wonder just how valid your opinion is. It could be argued for instance that a second agreement would supersede and nullify the first. I certainly agree, however, that it looks to me like Britain made a huge goof-up if nothing more malicious than that, and that the Arabs were defrauded in the process.

But also it appears that the Jews honestly took the Balfour declaration as their legal right to be there. You say it was fraudulent, I'm not sure, but even if it was fraudulent it was acted upon honestly and what can be done about it now anyway? What good does it do to keep trying to undermine Israel now that they are established there and honestly enough as far as I can tell.

Perhaps it's irrelevant to you but shouldn't it also be taken into account that Palestine is a tiny bit of land in comparison with the enormous extent of the Arab lands in general, so that there was no real Arab need for it though there was clearly a great need for the Jews to have a homeland? Again the amount of geography we are talking about is minuscule by comparison with the Arab lands in general. I agree the McMahon Balfour promise defrauded the Arabs but I would think given the great need of the Jews to be there and hardly any need that I can see for Arab possession of that sliver of geography, that some kind of reparation should be made to the defrauded Arabs to settle the problem and leave Israel in peace. (I think it could possibly be argued that all the aid given to the Palestinian refugees to establish a state could be considered reparation but that's for further discussion.)

That's my current suggestion. What's your objection?

I'm not looking for a reason to "give the land back to the Indians" as it were, just trying to understand the confusions involved in the current situation and discuss ways to resolve the problems.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Riggamortis, posted 07-30-2017 2:54 AM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Riggamortis, posted 07-30-2017 7:28 AM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 62 of 68 (816144)
07-30-2017 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Riggamortis
07-29-2017 11:58 PM


Re: Legalese question.
Theoretically restoring the rights of individuals to participate in boycotts unofficially but preventing companies in the US participating officially.

Companies are not robots, they are run and operated by people. It would be a person who made any decision to participate or not participate in a boycott. If you see some language in the bill which restricts the bill from applying to individuals, I'd appreciate a pointer. Absent that, my reading agrees with that of the ACLU and I have yet to hear of any of the sponsors credibly defending the bill by saying the ACLU is wrong.

Overturn citizens united and we'll talk about restricting companies ability to influence politics via boycotts lol.

I'm not sure that I'd interested in such restrictions. Historically, such boycotts have primarily advanced interests I favor. In fact, I as a private citizen can pressure companies and my local government, to divest/boycott. Instead, it is their private lobbying of the government that causes the most harm to common folks.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Riggamortis, posted 07-29-2017 11:58 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

    
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 63 of 68 (816149)
07-30-2017 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
07-30-2017 3:51 AM


Re: Anti-semitism
I don't do social media...

Well I can assure you, Islamaphobia gets plenty of pats on the back. Evc is a small world compared to SM.

But as I said it also keeps people from saying anything about the religion of Islam.

Patently false. Your existence is a counter example. As is the existence of front page rag. As is my experience on social media,

SomeRandomDude writes:

These aren't muslim extremists! They are just 'good' muslims following the quran which instructs them to KILL us!

The top comment from a story about a foiled terror plot today. Followed by a backup.

SomeRandomDude writes:

Ali Yousef Quran 8:12 “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Quran”.
Quran 8:65 “The unbelievers are stupid, urge the muslims to fight them”.
Quran 2:191 “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”
Quran 8:60 “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels”
Quran 9:5 “When opportunity arises kill the infidels wherever you find them”
Quran 9:123 “Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood”
Quran 47:4 “Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them”
Quran 5:33 “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam”

There's plenty of it out there Faith and they aren't being deleted or otherwise suppressed. People disagree with them but that isn't suppression. They also get support from people who like their posts and so on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 3:51 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 64 of 68 (816151)
07-30-2017 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
07-30-2017 4:22 AM


Re: The question of the right to the land, and a suggestion
I showed it I didn't just claim it. The statistics are indisputable that Arabs moved into the area in great numbers in the mid-19th century.

I assume you mean this?

FrontPageMag writes:

Turkish and British records are clear that Palestine was flooded with Arab immigrants from the late 1850’s onward due to the salutary effects of British colonial and Zionist developments from the mid-19th century onward. Groundbreaking work on the Arab historical demography of Palestine during the second half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries has been done by Professor Justin McCarthy in his book The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate (Institute for Palestine Studies Series), summarized here. McCarthy, not a Jew nor an Israeli nor a Zionist, writing for a Palestinian institute, demonstrates that the Arab population of Palestine almost quadrupled from c. 1855 to 1947. Only a tiny minority of Arabs can claim ancestral attachment to this territory, and even those claims are based solely on anecdotal accounts for which there is no empirical evidence.

Britain didn't control Palestine until most of the way through the time frame given. Are we to believe that Zionist developments there caused hundreds of thousands of Arabs to flock there prior to British rule?

Demonstrating that the growth is from immigration is a different thing than demonstrating that growth occurred. You can't ignore that this was a period of increasing trade and population growth when looking at the data. And given the Jewish data I looked at, the Jewish population over the same period rose by around 12x. Your biased source didn't mention that though. The last line of that quote is evidence of just how desperately they're trying to convince people that the Arabs have no claim to the land. I don't care about ancestry though, I showed that Palestine was more immigrant Jew than Arab anyway.

Now you are raising a new subject and I have to wonder just how valid your opinion is. It could be argued for instance that a second agreement would supersede and nullify the first. I certainly agree, however, that it looks to me like Britain made a huge goof-up if nothing more malicious than that, and that the Arabs were defrauded in the process.

It's the same point I've been making all along, I just explicitly added the word fraudulent this time. One is a letter of support and one is a detailed agreement. One was signed after the other. One doesn't appear to have been based on anything and the other was a quid-pro-quo agreement, fight and have your land. You can argue that all you like but it doesn't make sense to me, especially in light of the other facts.

Try signing a contract to sell your house and then 3 months later deciding you're changing realtors. Unless you have a means to break the contract legally, you're stuck.

Perhaps it's irrelevant to you but shouldn't it also be taken into account that Palestine is a tiny bit of land in comparison with the enormous extent of the Arab lands in general, so that there was no real Arab need for it though there was clearly a great need for the Jews to have a homeland?

Given the shitstorm it has created, do you really think it was that great an idea? I'm sure the US won't mind continuing to allow plenty of Mexicans in every year, there's a bunch of jobs Americans won't do and plenty of room. Besides they're escaping violence. I don't really think that a group of people who believe in the same magic sky daddy are justified in taking others land because of persecution. That they are now subjugating and murdering the Arabs they took the land from they get even less sympathy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 4:22 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 11:03 AM Riggamortis has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26450
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 65 of 68 (816153)
07-30-2017 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Riggamortis
07-30-2017 7:28 AM


Re: The question of the right to the land, and a suggestion
FPM may be "biased" but the study they referenced was done for a Palestinian agency and was not at all biased. Your remarks about it are totally unwarranted. You should at least check the link in the article -- Message 48.

HERE'S the link to the summary of the study.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Riggamortis, posted 07-30-2017 7:28 AM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Riggamortis, posted 07-31-2017 9:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3043
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 66 of 68 (816212)
07-31-2017 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by NoNukes
07-25-2017 5:53 PM


The blurb about this bill is incorrect. It acutlaly is just renewing a bill that has been in effect for 40 years, and what it does is prohibit COMPANIES (not people) from joining any boycott instituted by the U.N. against Israel
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2017 5:53 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2017 7:01 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 67 of 68 (816218)
07-31-2017 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
07-30-2017 11:03 AM


Re: The question of the right to the land, and a suggestion
Faith writes:

Your remarks about it are totally unwarranted.

I hadn't seen the study, I was critising the FPM quote you provided. It first asserts that the records are clear regarding Arab immigration to the area. It then cites the study, claiming the Arab population almost quadrupled between 1855-1947. It seems to imply that high pop growth alone equals high immigration, which is false. The industrial revolution saw a population explosion, this must be taken into account when looking at the data. As it turns out my criticism was entirely justified, here's the quote for reference.

FrontPageMag writes:

Turkish and British records are clear that Palestine was flooded with Arab immigrants from the late 1850’s onward due to the salutary effects of British colonial and Zionist developments from the mid-19th century onward. Groundbreaking work on the Arab historical demography of Palestine during the second half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries has been done by Professor Justin McCarthy in his book The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate (Institute for Palestine Studies Series), summarized here. McCarthy, not a Jew nor an Israeli nor a Zionist, writing for a Palestinian institute, demonstrates that the Arab population of Palestine almost quadrupled from c. 1855 to 1947. Only a tiny minority of Arabs can claim ancestral attachment to this territory, and even those claims are based solely on anecdotal accounts for which there is no empirical evidence.

Now here's a quote from the article you linked to.

In the Ottoman and Mandate periods, migration was a minor factor in the demographic makeup of the Muslim and Christian (though obviously not the Jewish) population of Palestine.
Although there was a certain amount of seasonal labor migration to and from Palestine, analysis of Ottoman statistics (McCarthy, 1990) yields evidence of little permanent migration of Arabs into or out of Palestine from 1860 to 1914.

So the article says literally the exact opposite as the quote from FPM. There's no evidence of high migration. Further, its claim of 'almost quadrupled' is not supported by the article either. The table shows the poplulation at 411k in 1860 and 1308k in 1946, just over 3 times, not nearly 4. We also know that the Jews went from 10% to 30% in the same period so it's impossible for the FPM claim to be true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 11:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 68 of 68 (816228)
08-01-2017 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by ramoss
07-31-2017 6:27 PM


It acutlaly is just renewing a bill that has been in effect for 40 years, and what it does is prohibit COMPANIES (not people) from joining any boycott instituted by the U.N. against Israel

First of all, I can read the bill and see exactly what portions of the bill are changes to the law because the bill is written in the form of edits to current law. I can see that the UNCHR and references to "any international boycott" have been added and were not there in the old law. I can see words like "whosoever" and understand that such words don't apply to companies.

I can also see the references to criminal provisions that include time in prison.

I don't believe your interpretation is correct, but I am willing to be shown differently. A statement or two from Schumer or another of the drafters would be of great help here.

Secondly, companies are inanimate objects and we cannot imprison a building or a fork lift. Human beings are the ones subject to that kind of penalty. It is a human being who will make the decision to purchase or not to purchase from Israel.

Here is a quote from the ACLU's analysis.

quote:
But even apart from limiting the right to boycott by refusing to purchase goods for political reasons, the bill infringes on pure speech. It prohibits even requests for information about whether a person is doing business in Israel in order to support a boycott of Israel, regardless of whether the requester is actually engaged in a boycott. This additional prohibition will chill people from seeking information about companies boycotting Israel or engaged in business dealings in Israel.

In short, I don't find your words the least bit comforting; the bill does substantially more than just renew existing provisions or simply add the UN to the mix. If the intentions of the new law are as you claim, then the bill ought to be clear about that, instead of requiring that somebody initiate a law suit to sort things out. Instead, the bill is an attempt at evil suppression of citizens rights even without accepting that the UN provisions which provoked this "renewing" were right on target.

Edited by NoNukes, : remove some mellowing words.

Edited by NoNukes, : some grammar fixing. No changes to content.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ramoss, posted 07-31-2017 6:27 PM ramoss has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017