Did Palestine really exist?
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Language is culture - in case you hadn't noticed. Your 'point' is not valid.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
The last thing this forum needs is someone popping up and explaining at length what they meant by a personal attack, not satisfying anyone and disrupting the forum even further. Please stop demanding that they do. A line has to be drawn under this bollocks somewhere.GarfieldLeChat said:
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
nino_savatte said:
Language can be part of a culture, it does not define it.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
spring-peeper said:
Did I say it did?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
spring-peeper said:
He said language is culture, not that it defines it. he'd have to be pretty soapy to claim that.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
hang on what you are saying that it's perfectly acceptable for this poster to make such outrageous comments with no consiquence but if any of us respond to those comments we'll be banned.FridgeMagnet said:
Surely the line being drawn is to turn to the poster doing the attacking making wild unsubstitated claims, fact free oddesseys etc and banning their ras...
If the this was a consprisy thread the level of fact free assertations being made by the poster would result in them being justifably banned.
Thus far the line being drawn can only bea conclusion that this poster has in some fashion now got clemancy from the mod team, via your comments to continue their actions. No doubt you will point at the part of your post which claims that
is aimed at everyone however what is clearly meant by your post is those poster who react to the troll are putting themselves in the fireing lin to be booted whilst the troll continues unabaited...
I have repeatdly reported their posts as being wild, sepeculative, unsubstantiated and down right lies, as have others what possible sway would this poster have over you which would allow this behaviour to go unchallenged?
seriously??
i for one am more than a bit pissed off that this particular poster has been allowed to continue in this vain with little or no interference as are others in the forum. Why is it that one poster can be this disruptive and 'get away with it' when the remainder of the posters in this forum are trying to have an engauging debate... christ even some of the pro zionist lot are more communticative than this poster and don't throw their rattles out of their pram when posting...
way to go on the tactic support of their actions fridge really... you are a good and even handed mod the majority of the time but on this occasion your descion sucks, it really does.
but seeing as there is to be no joy from the reported posts or the continued complaints i shan't mention it again, other than to say unevquicably that astronaught is a lying, malicous poster...
Greetings .
Gmarthews ,
coming back to the original thread , the word 'Palestine' was first coined by the Greek historian Herodotus which was the Greek for Philistine. The Philistines had entered the southern part of what is now Palestine / Israel in the biblical times , and accroding to the Wickipedia encyclopedia , natives of that region have always referred to themselves as Palestinian for many centuries.
May peace be with you and all the Jews and Arabs too.
Demetrios
Gmarthews ,
coming back to the original thread , the word 'Palestine' was first coined by the Greek historian Herodotus which was the Greek for Philistine. The Philistines had entered the southern part of what is now Palestine / Israel in the biblical times , and accroding to the Wickipedia encyclopedia , natives of that region have always referred to themselves as Palestinian for many centuries.
May peace be with you and all the Jews and Arabs too.
Demetrios
Demetrios said:
I happen to be reading "The History of the Middle East" by Peter Mansfield, and he says, and I quote, '....... the Philistines, who settled on the coastal plain, giving their name to the region: Palestine ('falastin' in Arabic).
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I agree to both these posts, it seems an open and shut case to me and most of the posters here. However Rach is incapable of accepting that there might have been some oppression by the Israelis and thus despite the vast number of people proving that the Palestinians have been there for centuries, he is insistance that they were not invaded.
The main points seems to be:
1) The area was officially part of the Ottaman Empire and so was not autonomous and so the incumbent Palestinians did not and do not have any right to the land.
2) The Jews in contrast apparently have every right to this land.
3) Despite this self-evident treatment of two races as different and the other discriminations highlighted here between the races he seems insistent that they are both treated the same.
I am still waiting for his version of the options for this poll, which has been criticised as anti-Israelis.
When can a country be invaded? Apparently when there is a minority which wants to take over so as to realise their dream of a religious state as predicted in some book with dodgy roots and authors convinced they can hear voices.
Honestly this is why it is so important to separate politics and religion.
The main points seems to be:
1) The area was officially part of the Ottaman Empire and so was not autonomous and so the incumbent Palestinians did not and do not have any right to the land.
2) The Jews in contrast apparently have every right to this land.
3) Despite this self-evident treatment of two races as different and the other discriminations highlighted here between the races he seems insistent that they are both treated the same.
I am still waiting for his version of the options for this poll, which has been criticised as anti-Israelis.
When can a country be invaded? Apparently when there is a minority which wants to take over so as to realise their dream of a religious state as predicted in some book with dodgy roots and authors convinced they can hear voices.
Honestly this is why it is so important to separate politics and religion.
'Jewish' isn't a race. 'Jewish' is an idea, a religion. People can convert to being Jewish or they can stop being Jewish. Judaism is the doctrine followed by Jews like Socialism is the doctrine followed by Socialists. Early man was socialist long before he devised Judaism or any other 'ism'.
To claim that jews once occupied a physical area essentially means that that particular doctrine was available in that area at that time. No group can claim sovereignty over land because an ideal that they share was once popular there.
The notion is preposterous, an excuse for 'claim-staking', nothing else.
By that notion, socialists have a stronger claim to the area than anybody.
To claim that jews once occupied a physical area essentially means that that particular doctrine was available in that area at that time. No group can claim sovereignty over land because an ideal that they share was once popular there.
The notion is preposterous, an excuse for 'claim-staking', nothing else.
By that notion, socialists have a stronger claim to the area than anybody.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
rachamim18 said:
whooa there fella you are making a world of assumptions here.
firstly shyster isn't racist as it's a corruption of the word shizer german for shit nothing inherently racist about calling some one a shit, period.
as for what a person decides to call themselves this is their opinion their descision and more ove rhow they have choosen to be identified, it has nothing to do with their esteme and everything to do with them owning their idenity and is in effect and empowerment, not as you are attempting to classify it a sign of them beign brow beaten into acceptence of degroitory terms... look at the common usage of the term nigga for refference.
moono said:
Here we go again.
That is extremely questionable.
Here is the real reason for refusing to define Jews as a race.
I would suggest that you are undertaking a highly offensive position in order to attack a contrary equally offensive position.
You are confusing socialism with tribalism.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
astronaut said:Here we go again.
So quantify how "race" is a more suitable terminology to define "Jewishness" by than, for example, "culture", "ethnicity" or "religion".
Good luck.
ViolentPanda said:
Jewishness is a multidimensional concept. It combines race, culture, ethnicity, religion.
All Jews have 1 or more of these in common, many have all four, or degrees of all four.
You cannot exclude the racial element anymore than you can exclude the religious element.
This is part of the problem though - why Jews tend to have quite a bit of internal squabbles while largely maintaining coherence - with religious Jews rejecting secular Jews, Jews for Jesus or Allah - they are Jewish racially/ethnically/culturally, but not religiously.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
instresting hw the originator of the jews as a race was some mr AH of Austria residing in germany around the late 30's early 40's and used this as an exucse to highlight inferior types ... diffferent from the aryan race ...ViolentPanda said:
Also technically there are no races other than the human race it would be better to suggest phenotypes which is aleast a bow in recognitition to the differences between the cospetic but nothing else differences between different human groupings, tribal customs and skin tone... but even this is tenious at best...
Race as a concpet reverts back tto the old order of victorian thinking which they used in an attempted to prove might and in particular white, was right as such tese outdated concepts are neither benifical or indeed scientifically accurate...
It is more accurate to say culture than race and as such that racism is therefore inherently flawed as a concept and also as a philiosphy (be it pro or against) and again more accurate to suggest culture clash rather than a defined difference between spechies of which there is of course none.....
in light of this and based on the comments raised by our more tempestious and troublesome posters they again must consider they level of investment they have in a system which is actually nothing short of an articule of faith...
their inherent insistance on cultural domenance or superiourity is of course nothign short of foolish....
so shut up astronut until you have learned a little anthropology ...
you dingus...
Demtrios: While wikipedia is fabulous for a connection to outside sourcesa, its entries should be taken with a grain of salt. Anyone who wishes may submit entries. In fact, I have more than a couple up there myself. Unless you are willing to accept my words as absolute truth [perish the thought], you should be highly skeptical of the site's info. This year they HAVE started editorial oversight but have not even come close to reviewing all their content.
Now, as for your info...Locals never used the word "Palestine" until the turn of the 19th/20th Centuries CE/AD. Jews always used, and still use [translated] Judah and Samria. Arabs almost always called it Southern Syria until 48. After Israel was created, Arabs coopted the word in hopes of lending credence to the muyth that they predated all Jewish habitacion in the area.
The label was officially applied to the land by foreigners when Rome managed to finally defeat the Jews and conquer the area. In hopes of further denigrating the Jews, the renamed it [again translated] "Palestine" after the Jews ancient enemies, the Philistines.
The Philistines were a Mycaeanen Greek people who had migrated to the land as part of the wave of conquerors known collectively as the "Sea Peoples." When Jews arrived there [in 2 waves] about 3000 years ago, the Philistines became their fiercest enemies. The Jews finally managed to exterminate them about 800 years before the Roman invasion.
The people now calling themselves "Palestinians" are Arabs, most of whom actually migrated to that land within the last 350 years. They are natives of Arabia of course.
GMarthews:I do not understand why you cannot seem to understand that ISraelis are mostly Jews. Jews are the descendants of the Jews exiled by the Romans [those that were not actually continuously living there anyway]. Therefore, Jews that moved there and later became Israelis were just returning to their homeland.
In any event, they BOUGHT their land from the lawful owners. Most of the land was over valued and non-arable. Alot of it was malrial swampland that was reclaimed by Jewish labor.
Arabs never had a nation there, and are not natives of the land. Is that truly difficult to understand? That of course does NOT negate the fact that they now consider themselves a separate people. Nor does it negate their right to self determination in creating the 22nd Arab nation in the region. They are just as entitled as any other entity to master their own destiny. However, so far they have refused to do so.
Now, as for your new points. Point one is true, up to a point. They have just as much right as any other Arab people, all of whom were subject to the Ottomans as well. If people now calling themselves Lebanese are entitled to a nation of their own, why shouldn't the "Palestinians" be as well?
Point two is also true up to a point. Both Jew and "Palestinian" were offered a shared compromise on the land. Jews accepted. "Palestinians" did not. That is the crux of the communal war.
Point three is completely muddled. You need to differentiate between the more than 1 million Arabs who choose to be Israeli CITIZENS and the millions of others who choose to call themselves "Palestinians." Israeli-Arabs have every right enjoyed by other Israelis, Jewish and otherwise. "Palestinians" on the other hand are afforded full civil rights but not the rights of citizens. The only way to do so would be to formally annex their lands. This is not something either side wants.
My "option" [sic] of the poll? It was expressed in the beginning of your thread.
Look, you also seem to have a problem understanding that Israel is not a religious state, nor was it founded on a religious premise. Please take the following to heart: ISRAEL IS A SECUALR STATE. IT HAS NO OFFICIAL RELIGION. JEWS ARE A PEOPLE, JUDAISIM IS A RELIGION.
Moono: I have referred you to relevant genetic studies more than once. Please do us both a favor and finally look at the information. How many Lutheran genetic diseases are there? By anhtropological standards, the Jews are a seaparate "people." They are not a separate "race." They are however a unique culture.
The rest of your post does not make any sense.
Garfield: Funny that you should use "nigga" as your example. There is a high profile murder case revolving around EXACTLY that term. Obviously the majority seem to disagree with you. Call yourself what you like, but do not expect others to debase themselves as well as you.
As for "shyster," I think to just prove a point I will offer up a nice list of references to the thread, since it seems to be a never ending debate.
Now, as for your info...Locals never used the word "Palestine" until the turn of the 19th/20th Centuries CE/AD. Jews always used, and still use [translated] Judah and Samria. Arabs almost always called it Southern Syria until 48. After Israel was created, Arabs coopted the word in hopes of lending credence to the muyth that they predated all Jewish habitacion in the area.
The label was officially applied to the land by foreigners when Rome managed to finally defeat the Jews and conquer the area. In hopes of further denigrating the Jews, the renamed it [again translated] "Palestine" after the Jews ancient enemies, the Philistines.
The Philistines were a Mycaeanen Greek people who had migrated to the land as part of the wave of conquerors known collectively as the "Sea Peoples." When Jews arrived there [in 2 waves] about 3000 years ago, the Philistines became their fiercest enemies. The Jews finally managed to exterminate them about 800 years before the Roman invasion.
The people now calling themselves "Palestinians" are Arabs, most of whom actually migrated to that land within the last 350 years. They are natives of Arabia of course.
GMarthews:I do not understand why you cannot seem to understand that ISraelis are mostly Jews. Jews are the descendants of the Jews exiled by the Romans [those that were not actually continuously living there anyway]. Therefore, Jews that moved there and later became Israelis were just returning to their homeland.
In any event, they BOUGHT their land from the lawful owners. Most of the land was over valued and non-arable. Alot of it was malrial swampland that was reclaimed by Jewish labor.
Arabs never had a nation there, and are not natives of the land. Is that truly difficult to understand? That of course does NOT negate the fact that they now consider themselves a separate people. Nor does it negate their right to self determination in creating the 22nd Arab nation in the region. They are just as entitled as any other entity to master their own destiny. However, so far they have refused to do so.
Now, as for your new points. Point one is true, up to a point. They have just as much right as any other Arab people, all of whom were subject to the Ottomans as well. If people now calling themselves Lebanese are entitled to a nation of their own, why shouldn't the "Palestinians" be as well?
Point two is also true up to a point. Both Jew and "Palestinian" were offered a shared compromise on the land. Jews accepted. "Palestinians" did not. That is the crux of the communal war.
Point three is completely muddled. You need to differentiate between the more than 1 million Arabs who choose to be Israeli CITIZENS and the millions of others who choose to call themselves "Palestinians." Israeli-Arabs have every right enjoyed by other Israelis, Jewish and otherwise. "Palestinians" on the other hand are afforded full civil rights but not the rights of citizens. The only way to do so would be to formally annex their lands. This is not something either side wants.
My "option" [sic] of the poll? It was expressed in the beginning of your thread.
Look, you also seem to have a problem understanding that Israel is not a religious state, nor was it founded on a religious premise. Please take the following to heart: ISRAEL IS A SECUALR STATE. IT HAS NO OFFICIAL RELIGION. JEWS ARE A PEOPLE, JUDAISIM IS A RELIGION.
Moono: I have referred you to relevant genetic studies more than once. Please do us both a favor and finally look at the information. How many Lutheran genetic diseases are there? By anhtropological standards, the Jews are a seaparate "people." They are not a separate "race." They are however a unique culture.
The rest of your post does not make any sense.
Garfield: Funny that you should use "nigga" as your example. There is a high profile murder case revolving around EXACTLY that term. Obviously the majority seem to disagree with you. Call yourself what you like, but do not expect others to debase themselves as well as you.
As for "shyster," I think to just prove a point I will offer up a nice list of references to the thread, since it seems to be a never ending debate.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
i used the example as it's a well know one...rachamim18 said:
as for your refferences you cannot deny the fact it's from the german for shit as has been evidenced just as astro has to accept that arabs are semitic you'll have to accept the root of the word isn't inherently judophobic...
Just a point on "shyster," rather than spemnd time making a list of references for people that will summarily dismiss them [if they even take the few minutes needed to read them], I will quickly make a point: It is not for non-Jews to decide what is offensive for Jews. How can a person outside of the target demographic state unequivocally what is and is not offensive for the demographic? It makes no sense...even if there were no mainstream references to support the assertion.
As I had pointed out much earlier, there is a rather well known libel case in the UK courts concerning the racist connoations of the word. I will list it again since I suspect most will not look back at the original post describing it:
Case # A2/ 2004/ 0380... "Lewis vs. King in the Royal Court of Justice in London, before Justice Eady. It was conceeded then that the word does in fact have racist connoations.
I do not think that courts are neccessarily the hear all,end all but in this case it provides a fair enough mainstream source for all the skeptics, including the miderator who defends the use of the word while threatening to ban others for ad hominems.
Another mainstream reference, just for good measure found in the few minutes since I completed my previous post, is a Wikipedia offshoot. However, as Wikipedia soemtimes does, it is actually an offsite reference list. the url: www.reference.com/browse/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs
As I had pointed out much earlier, there is a rather well known libel case in the UK courts concerning the racist connoations of the word. I will list it again since I suspect most will not look back at the original post describing it:
Case # A2/ 2004/ 0380... "Lewis vs. King in the Royal Court of Justice in London, before Justice Eady. It was conceeded then that the word does in fact have racist connoations.
I do not think that courts are neccessarily the hear all,end all but in this case it provides a fair enough mainstream source for all the skeptics, including the miderator who defends the use of the word while threatening to ban others for ad hominems.
Another mainstream reference, just for good measure found in the few minutes since I completed my previous post, is a Wikipedia offshoot. However, as Wikipedia soemtimes does, it is actually an offsite reference list. the url: www.reference.com/browse/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
rachamim18 said:
it's not for anyone however to take an inoccuouis term and then characterise it as being against their ethnicity, group, sect, religion however the word in question has never had derogitory terms or judophobic terms associated with it (outside of your head it appears) it's not in the usuage or the origins of the words, the fact that people may reffer to jews using that term is no more judophobic than calling some one jewish a twat... if the origin of the word is not endemically pointed to be anything more derogitory than a general insult (reffering the person to a piece of shit) then i'm afriad that no amount of your biased daft asscosiations will change the historical and accurate intention of the word ...
that's called etomology son... deal with it...
again for your refference....
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=shyster&searchmode=noneetomology online said:
no refference to jews here then...
so please do let this nonsense now...
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
moreover please do not presume to tell the english the origin and definition of their words... it's their cocking language... fool....
Garfield: In light of the links I have posted, which include your own court system, you are acting irrational. to claim a word has never had those connotations when the links prove that it has in fact [rightly or wrongly] it has is disingenuous.
As for the science of word origins, it has little bearing on connotation.
You insist on posting a reference that does not emntion it, I have posted a couple that do. Obviously then, the word is taken by some to be negative. Again, this is not a debateable issue.
As for the science of word origins, it has little bearing on connotation.
You insist on posting a reference that does not emntion it, I have posted a couple that do. Obviously then, the word is taken by some to be negative. Again, this is not a debateable issue.
It's been ruled by the forum moderator that 'shyster' is not a racial term and it can be used here on this forum. If you can't live with that, Rachamim, go somewhere where people like you agree to be wrong together.
Astronaut;
You might WANT 'Jewish' to signify a 'race' but it doesn't. You're also out of step with a scientific world which is emphasising that the concept of 'race' is silly and devisive.
Wait a minute, silly and devisive. NOW I see where you're coming from.
Astronaut;
You might WANT 'Jewish' to signify a 'race' but it doesn't. You're also out of step with a scientific world which is emphasising that the concept of 'race' is silly and devisive.
Wait a minute, silly and devisive. NOW I see where you're coming from.
There is little in the way of similarity. Oh dear, you thought there was.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
look we can take an objective look this verifiable list of cross refferenced sources from aroudn the globe http://www.etymonline.com/sources.phprachamim18 said:
where as your own has no refference points and even in your own link (singluar you have post little to nothing else)
which states that it's used regardless of their ethnic origin... can you read that again and understand this ... your own link say's it's not an ethnic slur...
regardless means inspite of, with out regard to (a situation...)
so you are right it isn't debateable both you and i have proved you wrong... shyster is not a judophobic word... congratulations... now stop with your intellectual dishonesty, your dicking around and your insistance of continuing this bollocks a moment longer...
more over stop trying to infer via this something other than what it is yet again you have failed to do your research scrabbled around on the internet for things to back your daft comments up half read what you sourced and the posted a link hoping people wouldn't read the thing and would just accept what you summised inaccuratly from it as being true as it has a link to 'back you up' it's this level of dishonest and lazy argument which consistantly shows you up as being of limited knowledge on the subject and as a charleton...
so learn to debate, do your own research, actually learn about what the discussion is and then contribute...
STFU until then eh...
best you keep your mouth shut have people think you are fool than to open it and leave no doubt...
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
astronaut said:
Except of course that any 1st year social sciences student knows that the concepts of culture, ethnicity and religion pretty much negate the need for the concept of "race", they make it superfluous by more closely defining the roots of the bonds that hold societies anf groupings together.
"Race" is a spurious denomination.
Can't I?
can you provide any kind of academic support for this premise, or is it just another one of those arbitrary "facts" that you spit out?
Irrelevant. A Jew is a Jew is a Jew, whether they're fully-observant or secular, white or black, right or left. They share cultural, ethnic and religious commonalities that are far closer than any "race" or genetic (which is what "race" is reducible to) bond.
Moono: the moderator only controls what is acceptable in this forum/site, not in life. I do not need to go anywhere because as I have stated at least once, I could not give a rat's ass about the word ...nor any other word. I am simply REstating a fundamental truth.
Garfield: I think YOU need to reread the link I provided that YOU claim says it is not an ethnic slur. It most certainly does. Tell you what, we can dismiss all the links I ever provided on anything, simply Google something constructive like: "racial connotations of the word shyster" and see what happens. Your argument that the word is never associated with racism is thus rendered moot. OK? Is that better? Learn to debate? Is that what this is supposed to be? OK, I'll take your advice.
Panda: I actually agree with your post. Well said.
Garfield: I think YOU need to reread the link I provided that YOU claim says it is not an ethnic slur. It most certainly does. Tell you what, we can dismiss all the links I ever provided on anything, simply Google something constructive like: "racial connotations of the word shyster" and see what happens. Your argument that the word is never associated with racism is thus rendered moot. OK? Is that better? Learn to debate? Is that what this is supposed to be? OK, I'll take your advice.
Panda: I actually agree with your post. Well said.
ViolentPanda said:
Well I don't know where they're teaching you that, but the existence of race is a fact. It's absurd to suggest otherwise.
can you provide any kind of academic support for this premise, or is it just another one of those arbitrary "facts" that you spit out?
Well if you're going to reject the notion of race to begin with, it's pointless giving you any supporting evidence to the contrary.
Agreed.
But, not true at all. Jews are certainly tied together by genetic closeness. It is one of the strongest ties in fact.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
rachamim18 said:
no let's look at the original claim you state it's a racist word now you are asserting a different claim that it has racist conitiations two very different things stop wriggling do your research...
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
astronaut said:
really what race are you?
is desmond tutu?
mel brooks?
lucy lu?
James Brown?
Can you tell me what race they are please...
no give imperical scientific evidence of race on this thread now go on...astronaut said:
Similar threads
