5 ms·

You forgot eighty years of occupation, cultural , economical and ethnical cleansing of the local indigenous people called Palestinians with help of US and Weste

You forgot eighty years of occupation, cultural , economical and ethnical cleansing of the local indigenous people called Palestinians with help of US and Western countries mainly.

slg 8mo ago
>the local indigenous people called Palestinians While you have a valid point overall, I always hate this specific phrasing because it's either ignorant of history or implies there is a statute of limitations on being indigenous. And if it is the latter, you're actively being counterproductive to the cause because that is telling the Israelis that the land will be morally theirs if they can hold it for enough generations thereby encouraging continued occupation.
- pojzon 8mo ago
  This will be the case tho. US big brother will make sure to protect its little “older” brother. Hilarious as it sounds.
- echoangle 8mo ago
  > implies there is a statute of limitations on being indigenous. Is there not? I’m pretty sure every tribe that’s considered indigenous now at any place has replaced some other group that lived there before them.
  - defrost 8mo ago
    Not clear, and unlikely in Australia. * https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/map_col_highres.jpg https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/map_col_high... * https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-09-22/world-first-study-reveals-rich-history-of-aboriginal-australians/7858376 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-09-22/world-first-s... This recent genetic based view replaces the "gut feeling" view akin to yours that was long pushed by Quadrant et al.
    - echoangle 8mo ago
      But surely, the different tribes in Australia also moved around and replaced each other? They might all come from the same people that came to Australia first, but that doesn’t mean they are native to the place they currently live in. If a tribe moved from southern Australia to the north and replaced another tribe, who gets the land now? And how do you settle that without some arbitrary statute of limitations?
      - defrost 8mo ago
        > But surely, the different tribes in Australia also moved around and replaced each other? Read article, chase up the papers, evidence says "no". The Tasmanians and the Noongars (Southern most to east, southern most to west) have genetically been in place a long time and had no one to replace. The article mentions "genetic diversity" between east, west, centre, north, south, etc - that comes from not mixing. "But surely..." <-- gut feelings? You should joinn Quadrant. > If a tribe moved from southern Australia to the north and replaced another tribe Do you have any evidence of that? > who gets the land now? There's a wealth of material on Mabo, Land rights, Native title, et al that address all that - if you're generally curious it's there to read. eg: starting with, say https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case
        echoangle 8mo ago
        Ok, then we settled who gets Australia. Sorry for shifting the goalposts now, but we still need a method to determine what to do with the rest of the earth, right? Who gets to stay in the different parts of Europe for example?
        defrost 8mo ago
        "We" haven't settled anything .. neither of us is an expert or player in the domain of indigenuous land ownership. Your "assertion" (weakly stated) was > I’m pretty sure every tribe that’s considered indigenous now at any place has replaced some other group that lived there before them. which is _false_. A single counter example suffices, the Māori people of New Zealand are still in a shared treaty with European settlers and no prior humans were displaced by the Māori people when they first arrived circe 1320 or so. Australia and that region offer up many many other examples. > Who gets to stay in the different parts of Europe for example? I cannot see how this is related to your global assertion nor can I see how I'm responsible to answer it.
  - slg 8mo ago
    If you take the view of history that the ability to forcibly drive other people off their land grants the new inhabitants a valid claim to that land, then Israel's actions are only objectionable because they are happening now rather than in the history books. It's inherently a doctrine of might is right, and the Israelis are mightier than the Palestinians at this current moment in history.
    - echoangle 8mo ago
      Right, but at least historically, what alternative is there? You can’t really unroll thousands of years of human history and make everyone go back to where their ancestors came from (even just because people ended up mixing after colonizing other places), so you have to take some state as the correct one and then condemn every change after that (or just let everyone do whatever they want). Otherwise, how would you decide who gets which part of the world?
      - slg 8mo ago
        Which is exactly why this area has been in conflict for millennia. Many different groups have valid claims to the area being their historic homeland. Dubbing one single group as "indigenous" is a refutation of all the other people's historical claims on that land and it means all the Israelis have to do is wait out this conflict until it becomes "history" and the Palestinians lose that "indigenous" label.
xdennis 8mo ago
Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine. Palestine was Roman when it was colonized by the Arabs. Before Palestine, Judea was a Jewish state which was colonized by the Romans.
- kombine 8mo ago
  You think you are a smart alec
- Parae 8mo ago
  And before that, the australopithecus
- etiennebausson 8mo ago
  They are the same people, they just converted to another religion since the diaspora that saw some of the population leave 2000 years ago.
h33t-l4x0r 8mo ago
Obviously Palestinians were displaced and that needs to be addressed, but ethnic cleansing is a tough sell. Their population has multiplied by 20x since then.
- Parae 8mo ago
  Forced displacement due to the mass destruction of all facilities in an area consists exactly in ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing means : systemic removal of a group or person by another group of person in an area. And it's exactly what's happening. It makes no sense to say it's neither a genocide nor ethnic cleansing if the population grows. Same as saying there were no genocide or ethnic cleansing in Rwanda or Bosnia since the population has grown.
  - h33t-l4x0r 8mo ago
    I mean by that definition, USA's immigration enforcement constitutes ethnic cleansing. I guess I just question your moral authority to second guess Israel's handling of their very unique situation.
    - Parae 8mo ago
      > USA's immigration enforcement constitutes ethnic cleansing. Indeed, it is ethnic cleansing. This situation isn't unique at all. Actually, it's quite common in History. The same happened to Algeria with the French colonization.

You forgot eighty years of occupation, cultural , economical and ethnical cleansing of the local indigenous people called Palestinians with help of US and Western countries mainly.

slg 8mo ago

>the local indigenous people called Palestinians While you have a valid point overall, I always hate this specific phrasing because it's either ignorant of history or implies there is a statute of limitations on being indigenous. And if it is the latter, you're actively being counterproductive to the cause because that is telling the Israelis that the land will be morally theirs if they can hold it for enough generations thereby encouraging continued occupation.

pojzon 8mo ago
This will be the case tho. US big brother will make sure to protect its little “older” brother. Hilarious as it sounds.
echoangle 8mo ago
> implies there is a statute of limitations on being indigenous. Is there not? I’m pretty sure every tribe that’s considered indigenous now at any place has replaced some other group that lived there before them.
- defrost 8mo ago
  Not clear, and unlikely in Australia. * https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/map_col_highres.jpg https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/map_col_high... * https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-09-22/world-first-study-reveals-rich-history-of-aboriginal-australians/7858376 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-09-22/world-first-s... This recent genetic based view replaces the "gut feeling" view akin to yours that was long pushed by Quadrant et al.
  - echoangle 8mo ago
    But surely, the different tribes in Australia also moved around and replaced each other? They might all come from the same people that came to Australia first, but that doesn’t mean they are native to the place they currently live in. If a tribe moved from southern Australia to the north and replaced another tribe, who gets the land now? And how do you settle that without some arbitrary statute of limitations?
    - defrost 8mo ago
      > But surely, the different tribes in Australia also moved around and replaced each other? Read article, chase up the papers, evidence says "no". The Tasmanians and the Noongars (Southern most to east, southern most to west) have genetically been in place a long time and had no one to replace. The article mentions "genetic diversity" between east, west, centre, north, south, etc - that comes from not mixing. "But surely..." <-- gut feelings? You should joinn Quadrant. > If a tribe moved from southern Australia to the north and replaced another tribe Do you have any evidence of that? > who gets the land now? There's a wealth of material on Mabo, Land rights, Native title, et al that address all that - if you're generally curious it's there to read. eg: starting with, say https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case
      - echoangle 8mo ago
        Ok, then we settled who gets Australia. Sorry for shifting the goalposts now, but we still need a method to determine what to do with the rest of the earth, right? Who gets to stay in the different parts of Europe for example?
        defrost 8mo ago
        "We" haven't settled anything .. neither of us is an expert or player in the domain of indigenuous land ownership. Your "assertion" (weakly stated) was > I’m pretty sure every tribe that’s considered indigenous now at any place has replaced some other group that lived there before them. which is _false_. A single counter example suffices, the Māori people of New Zealand are still in a shared treaty with European settlers and no prior humans were displaced by the Māori people when they first arrived circe 1320 or so. Australia and that region offer up many many other examples. > Who gets to stay in the different parts of Europe for example? I cannot see how this is related to your global assertion nor can I see how I'm responsible to answer it.
- slg 8mo ago
  If you take the view of history that the ability to forcibly drive other people off their land grants the new inhabitants a valid claim to that land, then Israel's actions are only objectionable because they are happening now rather than in the history books. It's inherently a doctrine of might is right, and the Israelis are mightier than the Palestinians at this current moment in history.
  - echoangle 8mo ago
    Right, but at least historically, what alternative is there? You can’t really unroll thousands of years of human history and make everyone go back to where their ancestors came from (even just because people ended up mixing after colonizing other places), so you have to take some state as the correct one and then condemn every change after that (or just let everyone do whatever they want). Otherwise, how would you decide who gets which part of the world?
    - slg 8mo ago
      Which is exactly why this area has been in conflict for millennia. Many different groups have valid claims to the area being their historic homeland. Dubbing one single group as "indigenous" is a refutation of all the other people's historical claims on that land and it means all the Israelis have to do is wait out this conflict until it becomes "history" and the Palestinians lose that "indigenous" label.

xdennis 8mo ago

Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine. Palestine was Roman when it was colonized by the Arabs. Before Palestine, Judea was a Jewish state which was colonized by the Romans.

kombine 8mo ago
You think you are a smart alec
Parae 8mo ago
And before that, the australopithecus
etiennebausson 8mo ago
They are the same people, they just converted to another religion since the diaspora that saw some of the population leave 2000 years ago.

h33t-l4x0r 8mo ago

Obviously Palestinians were displaced and that needs to be addressed, but ethnic cleansing is a tough sell. Their population has multiplied by 20x since then.

Parae 8mo ago
Forced displacement due to the mass destruction of all facilities in an area consists exactly in ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing means : systemic removal of a group or person by another group of person in an area. And it's exactly what's happening. It makes no sense to say it's neither a genocide nor ethnic cleansing if the population grows. Same as saying there were no genocide or ethnic cleansing in Rwanda or Bosnia since the population has grown.
- h33t-l4x0r 8mo ago
  I mean by that definition, USA's immigration enforcement constitutes ethnic cleansing. I guess I just question your moral authority to second guess Israel's handling of their very unique situation.
  - Parae 8mo ago
    > USA's immigration enforcement constitutes ethnic cleansing. Indeed, it is ethnic cleansing. This situation isn't unique at all. Actually, it's quite common in History. The same happened to Algeria with the French colonization.