Is there some universally acknowledged principle to define a special right of ownership? A Palestinian who’s ancestors may come from Egypt as little as a hundred years ago has no special interest in a given section of dirt. But someone who’s ancestors, two thousand years departed, may have lived on said dirt lo, those many years ago… but have recently been hanging about in Poland for, say, a millennia and change…that person has a special, ordained and universally accepted and inherent right to the aforementioned dirt.
Excuse me but says who? Or, says Who? What compelling principle other than divine sanction is being invoked, here? And what is the math behind someone who’s family has lived there for a hundred years has less equity that someone who’s family has lived there for fifty?
Now, if that is it, if its Divine Authority, well, hell, go ahead and say so, not the craziest thing I’ve heard around here. But you might want to modulate your tone so you sound like Morgan Freeman.
You want me to prove the claim that “Masri” in Arabic means “Egyptian” and “Mughrabi” means “Moroccan”, “Lubnani” means from Lebanon and “Yamani” means from Yemen? Really?
You think that people took those last names out of some whimsy and they don’t really mean anything. You’re entitled to that opinion, however wrong it is.
If it’s wrong, why is there no cite that proves your claim? For something this controversial, you’d think someone would have studied and documented it. Is it being suppressed?
No. It’s just obvious. Like the fact that someone with a name Ivanov’s ancestors came from a Slavic country - either Russia or, less likely, Bulgaria. Like the fact that someone with a name of Rabinovich’s ancestors were Eastern European Jews. Or that someone with a name of Dubois’s ancestors came from France.
I mean, how much more obvious can you get when the last name is “The Egyptian”?
"When we ask for your help, it is so that we can continue the jihad. Praise God, we all have Arab roots and every Palestinian in Gaza and all over Palestine can prove their Arab roots, whether they be in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, or anywhere else. We have blood ties.
Speaking personally, half of my family is Egyptian. Where is your mercy? There are over 30 families in the Gaza Strip with the surname Al-Masri, ‘Egyptian.’ Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptian, and the other half are Saudi. Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri whose roots are Egyptian! They come from Alexandria, Cairo, and Aswan. We are Egyptians. We are Arabs. We are Muslims."
So a Hamas politician trying to get money from Egypt is your only cite? Were the Egyptians convinced? I doubt he is a genealogist, in any case. It’s not that simple a conclusion from a patrilineal surname alone. Which is why you have no cite from a genealogist or historian.
You know you would never accept me saying something was “obvious” without a cite, or only with a cite from someone associated with Hamas. Why should I accept it from you?
Well, at least it’s something you have in common with Hamas. They don’t want to accept the genetic or historical evidence either, for their own justifications. Politics trumps science, right?
Of course. Because of course if someone has the surname “The Egyptian” that cannot possibly mean that his ancestors came from Egypt. Even if he says so himself. Because science!
I didn’t say it was impossible. I said it’s not something that can be proven by a surname alone. My own experience tells me that is true, and there are many people who have no idea, or are mistaken, about their lineage. It’s not that simple. Find me a genealogist who says otherwise. You know that, but choose to take this as obvious on its face, because you want it to be true.
I’m genuinely curious about this, and if there is evidence, I’ll accept it, whatever it is. But I don’t think it will matter, either way. It won’t solve the problem, will it?
Someone whose family has been here for 50 years doesn’t have *less *of a right than someone who’s family has been here 100, though, does he?
Besides, it doesn’t matter. Property is a legal fiction. If the government or the courts say you own something, then you own it, and they don’t, you don’t.
Well, yes. In my view, all persons born in Israel are “natives”, equally valid and having precisely equal rights to think of her as their “homeland”. I make no contentious proposals, only that the question of when the “Palestinians” arrived is moot and irrelevant. And, of course, the question of whether or not someone’s family name reveals a family origin outside of Israel is perfectly ridiculous.
And of course you are right about property and the law. But the question is whether or not the “Palestinians” enjoy equal rights under the law. If they do not, and I conclude that they do not, then they have a legitimate complaint that should be fairly answered. And it therefore follows that criticism of injustice is valid and worthy, and leveling a charge of anti-semitism against those who offer such criticism is wrong. Just plain wrong.
It would be an interesting subject (although a hijack) if it wasn’t tainted by a political agenda.
But when Terr - who never misses an opportunity to trump a leftist when he can - hesitates to post a cite that mentions this “obvious fact”, you can just imagine the kind of sites that mention it.
Now I’m wondering about all those “fake Italians” who must have sneaked into Italy. Greco is one of the top ten family names. Tedesco (German), Francese (French), Scozzese (Scottish), Siriano (Syrian) … It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? Too bad the Real Italians didn’t stay on top of it. Those Palestinians with suspicious clan names should have changed them, the way most of the Ashkenazi Jews did.
There are Ethiopian Jews, Yemeni Jews, Georgian Jews, “Spanish” (Sephardic) Jews, Russian Jews, Mesopotamian Jews. Which of those came from Israel?
Do you really want to argue that the Palestinians are illegitimate because their ancestors came from different places? And supposedly in the last hundred years? Really?
Are you going to pretend next that the Israelis have been there, speaking Hebrew, in the land of Canaan, all along? Or are you going to pretend that no one was living in the territory when the Zionists showed up?
When your very denunciation of them as invaders and johnny-come-latelies more obviously applies to you then to them,* you actually end up arguing against yourself.* By using this argument you rhetorically repudiate Zionism; you argue against it and for your own forced repatriation.