change of conduct in USA administration towards Israel

[ShaNDiaN]

It seems like you really want a time stamp for times where we have been kicked from our homeland. The times when the Rome Empire controlled most of the world is one of those times, I really don't need to write all the times we have been kicked, when you can google it (considering you believe anything Wikipedia says, who are strong supporters of Palestine FYI).

"guilty until proven innocent" - What do I need to prove here more than the fact that our lands were taken from us several times by them?

The ten lost tribes - They don't claim to be part of those tribes, therefore this is invalid to use this fact as something to consider when looking back in time and trying to decide if we have been there at the same time or not. Not even once they argued they belong to one of those tribes, nor wanted to find that out. I really don't see how using this argument is valid considering that.

[Hyperqube]

It seems like you really want a time stamp for times where we have been kicked from our homeland.

If there's a timestamp I would want, it's not when you were kicked out it's ... lets see if I can formulate this accurately ...

 

What year do you say "If my ancestor lived there that year, I am considered owner of that land"

To the best of my knowledge - as you hinted to it - this would be about 2500 years, no?

(considering you need a timestamp when you still were the first people there, before anyone else)

 

That afterward, you can back & got kicked out again, truely isn't that relevant.

 

The only reason why I don't directly use the number 2500 (but see me refering to, for example, Charlemagne 1200 years ago) - is because that are studies & examples given by actual scientists.

 

considering you believe anything Wikipedia says, who are strong supporters of Palestine FYI).

Feel free to correct me if I make a mistake.

 

"guilty until proven innocent" - What do I need to prove here more than the fact that our lands were taken from us several times by them?

You arguing it was your land, give you warent to go live adjacent to them... but that's not what you're doing.

You are effectively relocating them - not because it's your land, but because it isn't theirs.

 

And That what you need to prove: You would need to prove that it's not their land.

 

 

 

As far as I get it, here seems to be your reasoning

 

(1) you have an ancestor that was kicked out of the land

(2) they have an ancestor who kicked your ancestor out of the land

(ergo) so it's not their land, but yours

Correct?

 

The problem with this, however, is that it apparently presumes you only have one ancestor at any given time

This, however, is horribly faulty. science shows us

• one person living 1200 years ago has over 700 000 000 offpring at this day
• one person living now, has about 1 000 000 ancestors (only) 1000 years ago (the usual 2 parents, 4 grandparents, etc, with taken into account eventual inbreading)

The time span you are talking about ... it would be nothing short of a miracle, if you find a single person of which the opposite wasn't true either, being

 

(1) they ALSO have an ancestor that was kicked out of the land - perhaps even the same ancestor you had, perhaps one of the lost tribes.

(2) you ALSO have an ancestor who kicked their ancestor out of the land - perhaps even the same ancestor.

(ergo) So, by the same logic you applied earlier, it would be their land, not yours

the inital "actions of an ancestor"-argument utterly breaks down.

 

The only difference I spot, is you saying that it's proven it's your land, while it isn't proven it's theirs. Which would make the reasoning

 

 

it's not proven it's their land, ... so until proven, they are considered 'guilty'

I really don't see how using this argument is valid considering that.

Because it's your logic.

 

it's your land because your ancestors lived there, not because you happen to say your ancestors lived there.

 

I'm assuming your logic is the correct logic - and applying it to the situation.

 

 

 

((tip: beware trying to argue that your logic applies to you but not to them. That's an argument doomed to fail))

[ShaNDiaN]

You've said many things which I don't agree with and are wrong the way I see it, but I won't start a new discussion, it already went off-topic anyways.

I'll only say that:

 

Because it's your logic.



((tip: beware trying to argue that your logic applies to you but not to them. That's an argument doomed to fail))

 

No, I was following your logic.

 

Thank you for the fertile conversation, although I do not agree with what you say, it was very interesting talking with you.

[Hyperqube]

You've said many things which I don't agree with and are wrong the way I see it

I can only quote myself.

 

Feel free to correct me if I make a mistake.

No, I was following your logic.

I was following your logic as you explained it. Do note, I event pointed out:

 

As far as I get it, here seems to be your reasoning

 

(1) you have an ancestor that was kicked out of the land

(2) they have an ancestor who kicked your ancestor out of the land

(ergo) so it's not their land, but yours

 

Correct?

Because it's you who keep saying things like

 

It was ours before they were there

That's your logic. Not Mine (because I personally don't agree with it that being sufficient justification). Who is this "ours" you refer to if not your ancestor? Who is this "they" you refer to if not their ancestor.

 

 

 

Feel free to correct me if I make a mistake, but if the best you got is a childish, blank "no, you're wrong" ... you pretty much lost the argument.

[ShaNDiaN]

There's nothing for me to lose here, you are the one who started this argument and I have no intentions to keep discussing it. I can tell you are trying very hard to make me continue this discussion by the post above, but I simply won't. I will not correct you, you can go and search it up yourself, this was literally your logic which I followed, telling me it was doomed to failed is saying that to yourself.

 

Feel free to correct me if I make a mistake, but if the best you got is a childish, blank "no, you're wrong" ... you pretty much lost the argument.

 

I'm not the one acting childish here, but if you really want me to.... There you go;

I am sorry to annoy you with my existence and well-being here in Israel. Be annoyed for as long as you want, we ain't going anywhere.

I let the crowd speak, and 3/4 agree with the fact the UN did no justice with Israel under Obama's administration. While the opinions are controversial about the topic 'will Trump help Israel', the facts are 60% of his consultants are Jewish, he has Jewish grandkids, a Jewish daughter and his Adviser on Middle East peace is his Jewish son-in-law.

The future for Israel is very bright, and sadly you can't change it with wrong facts/assumptions

I just feel bad for the brain wash you had to go through in your childhood. At least I can tell most people who cast their vote are not like you (luckily) - http://imgur.com/XdZQ0mm

[Hyperqube]

I am sorry to annoy you with my existence and well-being here in Israel.

LOL. No clue where that comes from.

 

I just feel bad for the brain wash you had to go through in your childhood.

Intersting ... considering you are the one who grew up witht the palastinan-isrealy conflict, not me.

I wans't interested in global politics before the age of about 20.

 

So, please, don't feel bad for me.

 

The future for Israel is very bright

Both for yours and the palestians sake*, I can only hope so ...

 

*: A bright future for Israel implies a solutions, that will not make palestians want to attack more.

 

the facts are 60% of his consultants are Jewish, he has Jewish grandkids, a Jewish daughter and his Adviser on Middle East peace is his Jewish son-in-law.

That time where you need to remind someone that (since you like bolding) not all jews are zionists.

Do remember that israel has a significantly higher amount of zionist in the jewish community then elsewhere in the world.

 

There's nothing for me to lose here,...

 

I will not correct you, you can go and search it up yourself,

Oh, but there is something you can lose: your credibility.

 

You've used, and confirmed to use, the last argument used by someone who's wrong, but doesn't want to admit it:

 

You're wrong, and I will not correct you, you can go and search it up yourself

 

 

 

 

- - - - - -

 

BTW: recall how you are quite adamant you were there first? And when that argument became unsustainable, you flipped to claiming it as important what they claimed? 2 seconds of google-fu would have told you that apparently they do claim they were there first. (fyi - written by an Israeli)

 

Since you were so friendly to say you feel bad for me, becasue you incorrectly presumed I was brainwashed ... even if you don't respond, I would ask you to reflect on the following:

... What would be your next justifcation, why what you're doing is right?

• you can no longer claim you were there first & they wren't (as pointed out, that's simply genetically impossible)
• you can no longer say that they agree you were there first, but have other justifciation (the article contradicts it being factual* you were there first)

... what's next?

... and why doesn't it matter anymore that the things you once presumed where decent arguments, actually aren't relevant if proven wrong.

 

 

 

food for thought.

[ShaNDiaN]

food for thought.

Delicious.