UN attacks Israel

[rosends]

Doesn't seem like a point worth arguing given that there is, by the same standards, no historical Lakota nation, no historical Mohawk nation, no historical Apache nation, etc.

I can't answer to this as I don't know their history. Do THEY claim to be a distinct nation? Because Arabs seem not to claim that Palestinians are.

(if you want, you can forward to about 1:50 in)

 

[Sunstone]

The Native American Nations do claim to be distinct nations.

 

[metis]

Doesn't seem like a point worth arguing given that there is, by the same standards, no historical Lakota nation, no historical Mohawk nation, no historical Apache nation, etc.

Actually they are under U.S. federal law.

 

[metis]

The Native American Nations do claim to be distinct nations.

And they do have limited sovereignty.

BTW, I didn't notice the above post prior to posting my last post. However, because mine was so eloquent, ...

 

[Sunstone]

Actually they are under U.S. federal law.

They weren't always, were they?

At any rate, it seems to me the argument that Palestinians don't exist as a distinct people because they did not or might not have considered themselves a distinct people until recently is a weak one.

 

[rosends]

They weren't always, were they?

At any rate, it seems to me the argument that Palestinians don't exist as a distinct people because they did not or might not have considered themselves a distinct people until recently is a weak one.

It is the argument which allows one to say that something that they had as a people was taken away. One cannot have a construct of "Palestinian land" without a group called "Palestinians."

It seems to me that inventing a people to justify an accusation is the weak rhetorical position.

 

[Sunstone]

It is the argument which allows one to say that something that they had as a people was taken away. One cannot have a construct of "Palestinian land" without a group called "Palestinians."

It seems to me that inventing a people to justify an accusation is the weak rhetorical position.

I see. However, people have invented themselves as a distinct people or nation time and again in the course of history, often in opposition to some real or perceived enemy. Why is the invention of a distinct people here really any different than, say, the invention of the Japanese as a distinct people or nation in opposition to the Mongol invasions? I'm not trying to argue, but I'm genuinely curious about this.

 

[metis]

They weren't always, were they?

At any rate, it seems to me the argument that Palestinians don't exist as a distinct people because they did not or might not have considered themselves a distinct people until recently is a weak one.

"No they weren't" to the question, and I would have to look it up when the change was made because I can't remember.

To your point, all boundaries and nationality titles are quite subjective and changeable, so I sorta agree with you, but there are also further implications that are at stake. The irony is that the closest nationality-wise link through genome testing Jews are actually with Palestinians. IOW, both are genetic brothers & sisters, and are also parts of a rather larger dysfunctional "family".

 

[rosends]

I see. However, people have invented themselves as a distinct people or nation time and again in the course of history, often in opposition to some real or perceived enemy. Why is the invention of a distinct people here really any different than, say, the invention of the Japanese as a distinct people or nation in opposition to the Mongol invasions? I'm not trying to argue, but I'm genuinely curious about this.

I believe there is nothing wrong with it -- the perceived enemy comes into being in, let's say 1948 (though this is not so clear...evidence can be presented for dates before and after). But pre-dating the people to a time before the enemy exists in order to shift the historical structure is the problem. Do we want to say that there is a de facto Palestinian people now? Maybe, but to cast them back, historically to explain the past is what makes no sense.

 

[Sunstone]

I believe there is nothing wrong with it -- the perceived enemy comes into being in, let's say 1948 (though this is not so clear...evidence can be presented for dates before and after). But pre-dating the people to a time before the enemy exists in order to shift the historical structure is the problem. Do we want to say that there is a de facto Palestinian people now? Maybe, but to cast them back, historically to explain the past is what makes no sense.

Ok. that better explains it to me. Thanks!

 

[Aquitaine]

They have finally supported something long overdue. I think the world is getting fed up by the crimes of Israel and their genocide of the Palestinian people.

Just because Jews were once persecuted in the worst ways possible it doesn't give you a free pass to commit the most unthinkable crimes on the face of this earth and play the victim card over and over. Or blame others for their crimes (as mentioned in the article) and somehow justify your own actions because someone else is worse than you. The Syrian war has been going on for 5-6 years, your genocide of the Palestinian people has been going on for 5-6 decades, and yet you still feel you are the victim in this case.

I don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry.

It would be interesting to compare the current total body count of the Israeli/Palestinian over the decades, with the Syrian civil war.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the world is getting fed up by the crimes of Israel and their genocide of the Palestinian people.

If the Israelis are committing actual genocide against the Palestinians, they are remarkably incompetent at it.

 

[RedDragon94]

Aren't you conflating Palestinians with other nationalities, such as Syrians, etc.?

No, how many Arab nations are there?

 

[Gharib]

Who is this post directed toward ? You don't know any of my views on Israel or the Palestinians. Do you want to have a discussion or a rant ?

Your views were made clear by your stance towards the article. And what I said was no rant, it's just pathetic how people like yourself always pull out the victim card when you are criticised for your crimes. The world is fed up by your double standards and hypocrisy. The article in the OP is evidence of that, so too the french stance that they will recognise a Palestinian state if Israel rejects it's peace resolution next month.

 

[Gharib]

If the Israelis are committing actual genocide against the Palestinians, they are remarkably incompetent at it.

No they aren't. They have managed to stay under the radar through indiscriminate and extra judicial killings and either play victim if called to account or make threats just like they did late last year when Ban Ki Moon was set to name them among the list of groups/governments that violate childrens rights.

 

[Gharib]

Genocide is a poor term to use, for sure. But there are some very questionable actions taken by Israel since it's birth that should be investigated. But we all know it won't happen.

It's not a poor term. It fits well because the only place where free people are imprisoned simply for belonging to a particular race/group of people are Palestinians at the hands of Jews. And are killed without hesitation and without differentiation between a child, woman or man. Doesn't that remind you of Nazi Germany.

 

[Gharib]

Do you agree Israel is treated much worse by her neighbors than she treats her Palestinian people ?

Please enlighten us....

 

[Gharib]

I detest the Netanyahu regime and the occupation and hatred it nourishes, but to use the term 'genocide' demonstrates gross and irresponsible ignorance.

I disagree with your last part. For some reason the world seems to think that genocide is only ever when done to Jews, just like a Muslim is the only one who qualifies to be a terrorist because they dress a certain way, say Arabic phrases and grow beards.

And when I speak for Palestinians I do not do so only for those that are Muslim. I feel the same way for non-Muslim Palestinians.

 

[Quetzal]

It's not a poor term. It fits well because the only place where free people are imprisoned simply for belonging to a particular race/group of people are Palestinians at the hands of Jews. And are killed without hesitation and without differentiation between a child, woman or man. Doesn't that remind you of Nazi Germany.

I do not think your definition of what a genocide is correlates properly.

 

[Sunstone]

I do not think your definition of what a genocide is correlates properly.

I love understatement!