Avskaffa Israel?

Sedan är ju din "pålitliga källa" Wikipedia intressant inte minst eftersom du citerar selektivt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronites

Alltså är maroniter en semitisk folkgrupp. Vidare så härstammar de enligt Wikipedia från flera olika grupper där exempelvis araber ingår:

Hur långt tillbaka i tiden ska man gå anser du, för att hitta "de rättmätiga ägarna" till Palestinaområdet?

Källa till ditt påstående? IOF sköt sönder större delen av södra Libanons infrastruktur och urskillningslöst mot civila och icke-militära mål utan anledning och det anser du bör hedras med medalj!?! Stackars förvillade sate, jag tycker uppriktigt synd om dig och dina indoktrinerade önsketolkningar av verkligheten.

Judar är också en subras ur semiterna, vad vill du komma? Araberna som folk nämns inte fören 850 f.kr. som jag redan klargjort i en annan tråd.

Maroniterna härstammar från fernicéerna som i sin tur är ättlingar till kananéerna som bodde i området när Judarna kom dit. Hittils är kananéerna det äldsta folk man hittat som bott i området, således bör väl deras ättlingar klassas som ursprungsbefolkningen i nuläget?

Araberna kom dit långt efter, araberna var inte ens ett enat folk fören Islam kom. Fernicéerna nämns i nya testamentet som ett folkslag som bodde i området samtidigt som judarna (vilket även andra historiska källor indikerar).

I fråga om att maroniterna härstammar från araber så beror det såklart på de stora arabströmmarna från Syrien på 1850-talet och uppblandning. Men idag så kan man fortfarande se klara skillnader mellan maroniter och deras arabiska grannar, undra varför?

Som sagt, araberna kom långt efter både kananéerna och judarna till området. Och nej det är inte någon sionistisk propaganda.

Vad har du för referens till ditt påstående att araber som folk inte nämns förrän 850 fvt? Det är faktiskt viktigt att du redovisar din källa här enär du påstår att en del semiter skulle ha kommit till området senare än andra ur samma folkgrupp. Hur förklarar du det?

The first written attestation of the ethnonym "Arab" occurs in an Assyrian inscription of 853 BC, where Shalmaneser III lists a King Gindibu of mâtu arbâi (Arab land) as among the people he defeated at the Battle of Qarqar.

Widespread proliferation throughout the Middle East and North Africa, however, did not start until after the 7th century following the advent of Islam and the ensuing Arab Muslim expansionism resulting in the cultural assimilation of other of the region's indigenous Semitic peoples of non-Arabian origin — most often, though not necessarily, in combination with their Islamization.

Jag vill poängtera att bibeln näppeligen kan klassas som historisk källa vilket ditt påstående med nya testamentet som källa indikerar.

För det första: Semitisk betecknar språkgrupp, knappast ras/folkgrupp.

Jag är nästan säker på att jag visade källa i en annan tråd i Historiaforumet, men skadar inte att visa igen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_people#History

Finns annat intressant på samma sida:

Fernicéerna nämns i nya testamentet och har även historiska källor att de funnits i området längre än judarna och araberna. Fernicéerna är ättlingar till kananéerna och i nya testamentet så tvingas de fly efter förlorade slag och de har genom hela bibeln används med ett negativt klang.

Den moderna tolkningen ja, men enligt bibliska texter är semiter ättlingar till en av Abrahams söner, Sem. Så nog kan de räknas som en folkgrupp?

Din källa wikipedia talar om "the ethnonym", det vill säga 'den etniska benämningen araber'. Men semiter måste de väl ha varit långt innan de kom att kallas araber, eller hur?

En annan sak som inte stämmer i ditt resonemang är att du påstår att maroniterna var där först, men de är ju ättlingar till de som är de första kända invånarna i Palestina, kananéerna. Sammantaget kan man anta att det funnits 'araber' - trots att de inte benämndes araber förrän 853 fvt enligt din källa - lika länge som andra semiter i området. Alltså fanns araber långt innan islam men knappast judar innan judendom. Vän av ordning ställer sig frågan hur många som konverterade till kristendom och islam när de jämfört och upptäckt den befängda förljugenheten med judendom (som knappast förtjänar att betecknas som religion)?

Nå, har östeuropeiska rookiejudar (ashkenazim) mer rätt till Palestina än den semitiska ursprungsbefolkningen?

Those among the Palestinians who regrettably continue to resist are being penalised for their intransigence by economic choking and starvation, supplemented by regular bombardment and raids, as well as international isolation. These persuasive methods, Israel hopes, will finally convince a recalcitrant population to recognise the dire need of Israel to be a racist state.
After all, Israeli racism only manifests in its flag, its national anthem, and a bunch of laws that are necessary to safeguard Jewish privilege, including the Law of Return (1950), the Law of Absentee Property (1950), the Law of the State's Property (1951), the Law of Citizenship (1952), the Status Law (1952), the Israel Lands Administration Law (1960), the Construction and Building Law (1965), and the 2002 temporary law banning marriage between Israelis and Palestinians of the occupied territories.
[...]
More recently, Israel's ambassador to Australia, Naftali Tamir, stressed that:

"We are in Asia without the characteristics of Asians. We don't have yellow skin and slanted eyes. Asia is basically the yellow race. Australia and Israel are not -- we are basically the white race."

God has given this land to the Jews and told them to safeguard themselves against gentiles who hate them. To make Israel a non-Jewish state then would run the risk of challenging God Himself.

This position is not only upheld by Jewish and Christian fundamentalists, but even by erstwhile secular Zionists (Jews and Christians alike). Ben Gurion himself understood, as does Bill Clinton and George W Bush, that: "God promised it to us."

It is important to stress that this Zionist rationale is correct on all counts if one accepts the proposition of Jewish exceptionalism. Remember that Zionism and Israel are very careful not to generalise the principles that justify Israel's need to be racist but are rather vehement in upholding it as an exceptional principle.

It is not that no other people has been oppressed historically, it is that Jews have been oppressed more. It is not that no other people's cultural and physical existence has been threatened; it is that the Jews' cultural and physical existence is threatened more.
[...]
Where else, pondered the Saudis, could one broker an agreement where the leadership of the victims of Israeli racism and oppression can be brought to solemnly swear that they recognise their oppressor's special need to oppress them? Well, Hamas has been resisting the formula, which Fatah has upheld for five years, namely to "commit" to this crucial recognition.
[...]
It should be clear then that in this international context, all existing solutions to what is called the Palestinian-Israeli "conflict" guarantee Israel's need to maintain its racist laws and its racist character and ensure its right to impose apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza.

What Abbas and the Palestinians are allowed to negotiate on, and what the Palestinian people and other Arabs are being invited to partake of, in these projected negotiations is the political and economic (but not the geographic) character of the Bantustans that Israel is carving up for them in the West Bank, and the conditions of the siege around the Big Prison called Gaza and the smaller ones in the West Bank.

Make no mistake about it, Israel will not negotiate about anything else, as to do so would be tantamount to giving up its racist rule.

As for those among us who insist that no resolution will ever be possible before Israel revokes all its racist laws and does away with all its racist symbols, thus opening the way for a non-racist future for Palestinians and Jews in a decolonised bi-national state, Israel and its apologists have a ready-made response that has redefined the meaning of anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism is no longer the hatred of and discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group; in the age of Zionism, we are told, anti-Semitism has metamorphosed into something that is more insidious.

Today, Israel and its Western defenders insist, genocidal anti-Semitism consists mainly of any attempt to take away and to refuse to uphold the absolute right of Israel to be a racist Jewish state.

Eh? Enligt bibliska texter är Abraham en avkomma av Sem och inte tvärtom.

Men det är fortfarande inte araber, oavsett hur mycket du försöker skönmåla dem, ledsen men de hade inte ens upptäckt hur man rider på hästar när kananéerna bosatte sig i området.

Judar som ras har funnits långt längre innan judendomen.

Varför är palestinier så hatade i både Libanon, Syrien och Jordanien?
Du undviker den frågan rätt så kraftigt.

There is no sense in opposing just the occupation, nor any other particular policy of the Israeli government. The problem is the very essence of Israel as a Zionist state. This essence is unchangeable as long as the state exists. No change from the inside is possible, because in Israel there is no essential difference between Right and Left. Both are accomplices in a policy whose real aim is ethnic cleansing, the expulsion of the Palestinians not only from the occupied territories, but also from Israel proper.

Therefore, everyone who strives for a just solution must aim at the establishment of a single state, to which the refugees of 1948 and 1967 will be invited to return. This will be a joint and egalitarian state, like today's South Africa.

There is no sense in trying to change Israel from the inside. Salvation will come from the outside: a world-wide boycott of Israel, which will cause the state to collapse and convince the Israeli public that there is no escape from the One-State Solution.

We need to wake up. The day Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush declared their loyal support for the two states' solution, this formula became a cynical means by which Israel can maintain its discriminatory regime inside the 1967 borders, its occupation in the West Bank and the Ghettoization of the Gaza Strip. Anyone who blocks a debate in alternative political models allows the discourse of two states to shield the criminal Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories.

Moreover, not only there are no stones left in the occupied territories with which to build a state - after Israel ruined the infrastructure there in the last six years - a reasonable partition is not offering the Palestinian a mere 20 percent of their homeland. The basis should be at least half of their homeland, on the basis of the 181 map, or similar idea. Here is another useful avenue to explore, instead of embroiling for ever inside the Sodom and Gomorrah stew that the two states solution has produced so far on the ground.

And finally, there will be no solution to this conflict without a settlement of the Palestinian refugees problem. These refugees can not return to their homeland for the same reasons that their brothers and sisters are being expelled from Greater Jerusalem and alongside the wall and their relatives are discriminated against in Israel. They can not return for the same reason that every Palestinian is under the potential danger of been occupied and expelled as long as the Zionist project has not been completed in the eyes of its captains.

They are entitled to opt for the return because it is their full human and political right. They can return because the international community had already promised them that they could. We as the Jews should want them to return because otherwise we will continue to live in a state where the value of ethnic superiority and supremacy overrides any other human and civil value. And we can not promise ourselves and the refugees such a fair and just solution within the framework of the two states' formula.

Do you think Israel is capable of transforming in such a way that it will become the Sate of all its citizens, with equal rights of all its citizens, independently of their religious or ethnic affiliations ?

“This is a difficult question. I think it would take possibly another 50 years. But it could happen by the end of the century. I don’t’ think that Israel, as it exists at the moment, is viable. I think the only viable solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a single state in which all Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze and Druids and whatsoever have the same rights. It’s what we fought for in South Africa, And it’s what will have to be fought for in Israel. And people will jump up and scream: ‘no, we will never live with each other’. But living with each other is what has to be argued for. I think, it’s the only serious alternative. A Palestinian State is not possible. It would be a tiny little Bantustan run by a corrupt leadership, funded by the West and treated like an NGO. That is the PLO. That is the Palestinian Authority. It is not an authority, it is a joke. And the sooner it recognizes that it’s a joke and dissolves itself, the better. That’s what Hamas should do: they should not play this game, they should say ‘we dissolve the Palestinian Authority, it is not an authority, it is an outfit of the Israeli army. We dissolve all these bodies, we are now citizens of whatever entity there is in the region and deal with it. And then just live in their villages and towns, not trying to develop this fake apparatus of government, when that’s a joke, when they have no power at all and are treated like a joke. So all this is done to create a tiny, corrupt Palestinian elite. That’s why Hamas won the elections, because it is opposed to this. If it now capitulates to this, they will be finished”.