Peace in Palestine?

[Grace Seeker]

The first link gives some known estimate. Most of the higher numbers are from Muslim, not unbiased, sources.

Grace Seekers link actually provided concrete numbers at least. If anything I would say that his numbers were more unbiased since they were derived scientifically and not by people guessing "based on personal experience in the Muslim community" or other extrapolations based on non-scientific means. If the actual numbers are not accurate the ratios, at least, are probably close.

The second link provides no insight that I could see on Muslim numbers in the US.

Another issue, when counting Muslims, is whether or not to count non-practicing Muslims or those who have left the religion. Some of the higher population estimates include family members of Muslim families that no longer consider themselves Muslim and look at Islam as more of a cultural thing than a religious one. The same issue also occurs when trying to count Jews in the United States as many who are called Jewish do not actually practice the religion.

I have no problem with someone accusing the numbers I reported as being biased. I doubt there was any bias in attempting to intentionally under or over report any group's figures. But all statistical analysis has within it the inherant biases of the researcher with regard to his sampling methodologies. And when denominations, institutions or even individuals are asked to self-report there is certainly room for those who are reporting to inject their own personal bias into the figures they give to researchers. As the USA Today artilce says:

every tally is to some degree an estimate based on institutional or individual reporting. And every way of counting and determining whom should be counted has its critics. There is no agreement among or even within denominations on who is an authentic "member," says David Roozen, director of the Hartford (Conn.) Institute for Religious Research.

One of the reports I used utilized denominational reports, that critique is given above. The other report I used I understand utilized phone calling. In the past, one objection to this sampling procedure was that it missed impoverished people without telephones. Today one might object to it missing young adults who may have no landline, but only a cell phone. Of course number generators will generator all random numbers, including cell phones.

But regardless which set of figures one uses, we are still left with the same critique of The Vale's Lily's original complaint, that Muslims outnumber Jews and yet Jews get holidays that Muslims don't. She offers nothing to substantiate that point of view. The holidays she complains about are locally regulated, not federal. So, the numbers that need to be compared are not world figures or even national figures -- such a process would be valid only if there was an even distribution of religions globally and I hope no one here is so foolish as to make that claim. So, what are the numbers in the community where these decisions were made. Unless she can provide something other than what has been found thus far, using all the numbers that have been reported from either Zafran, Lily, or myself, even the most conservative estimates of the Jewish population and the most liberal estimates of the Muslim population have there being more Jews than Muslims in New York.

The other thing that appears to have been overlooked in what I said, is that this doesn't minimize the appropriateness of seeking an officially recognized Muslim holiday. And the suggestion that if Muslims wish to seek that recognition, they need to get counted and make their voice heard in the polls by voting and by not hiding their real numbers from those who take various surveys and census reports. For that is how things such as she wishes are brought about in this society.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Anyone should be able to look at the latest chart of world religions and come up with a very educated conclusion!

However, this does not have anything to do with the relative populations in your local area. When discussing decisions of a local nature, which holidays are or are not celebrated, beyond the list of federally recongized holidays (that includes no Jewish or Muslim holidays and only 1 Christian holiday) that apply only to federal employees, the practice of people getting time off for certain holidays is something determined on a local level. Hence your complaint about Jews getting holidays off that Muslims don't has nothing to do with world-wide population and needs to be understood in the context of local populations. I suggest that Jews significantly outnumber Muslims among your local population. You, yourself, have complained on this forum in the past about being isolated and having little contact with Muslims where you live.

 

[جوري]

However, this does not have anything to do with the relative populations in your local area. When discussing decisions of a local nature, which holidays are or are not celebrated, beyond the list of federally recongized holidays (that includes no Jewish or Muslim holidays and only 1 Christian holiday) that apply only to federal employees, the practice of people getting time off for certain holidays is something determined on a local level. Hence your complaint about Jews getting holidays off that Muslims don't has nothing to do with world-wide population and needs to be understood in the context of local populations. I suggest that Jews significantly outnumber Muslims among your local population. You, yourself, have complained on this forum in the past about being isolated and having little contact with Muslims where you live.

What you speak and what occurs in reality are obviously two different things-- And it isn't particularly surprising given the set of beliefs you subscribe to.
Once you go about appropriately surveying populations to reflect true numbers can you come and tinkle your all too frequent pearls.

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

any talk about blame or fault went out of the window when you threw hundred of thousands of indigenous people out of their homeland to suite your own purposes and agenda .

I agree. The biggest part of the problem has to do with displacing people who see the land as their rightful home. But that is not as simple of a problem to resolve as just turning it back to the "rightful" owners. For exactly how does one today determine that right? Is was not right for the land to be forcably taken from Palestinian owners and given to Jews immigrating to the new state of Israel. Does that make it right to take it from Jewish owners today to return the land to the grandchildren of those who had the land stolen from them 50-60 years ago? And if one decides that it is right to go back generations, then exactly how many generations? Perhaps we should give the land back not to Palestinians or to Jews, but to Philistine, Canaanites, or Amorites? Now, some Palestinians can probably trace their linage back to one of these groups, but today many Palestinians are specifically designated as Palestinian Arabs, and if they are Arabs, it would follow that their original lands are not in Palestine, but Arabia.

So, I don't think that a simple "Give it back." solution exists. Using that argument is what got us in the predicament we are in today. Continuing to use it means that we can be guaranteed to have people continuing to fight about who qualifies as "indigenous" and disagreeing over to whom it actually "originally" belonged for it to be given back to.

 

[Grace Seeker]

What you speak and what occurs in reality are obviously two different things-- And it isn't particularly surprising given the set of beliefs you subscribe to.
Once you go about appropriately surveying populations to reflect true numbers can you come and tinkle your all too frequent pearls.

all the best

If you've got better numbers, let's see them. It's time to put up or shut up.

 

[جوري]

If you've got better numbers, let's see them. It's time to put up or shut up.

google number of adherents to world religions as I have done previously (if that particular pie chart isn't to your liking) and try to discern some of the more elaborate examples given (like my previous with TB) and then try to stretch that brain of yours to accommodate more than what has been indoctrinated into it.. and then do pretty please shut up since I don't enjoy repeating myself.

all the best

 

[Athrun66]

I agree. The biggest part of the problem has to do with displacing people who see the land as their rightful home. But that is not as simple of a problem to resolve as just turning it back to the "rightful" owners. For exactly how does one today determine that right? Is was not right for the land to be forcably taken from Palestinian owners and given to Jews immigrating to the new state of Israel. Does that make it right to take it from Jewish owners today to return the land to the grandchildren of those who had the land stolen from them 50-60 years ago? And if one decides that it is right to go back generations, then exactly how many generations? Perhaps we should give the land back not to Palestinians or to Jews, but to Philistine, Canaanites, or Amorites? Now, some Palestinians can probably trace their linage back to one of these groups, but today many Palestinians are specifically designated as Palestinian Arabs, and if they are Arabs, it would follow that their original lands are not in Palestine, but Arabia.

So, I don't think that a simple "Give it back." solution exists. Using that argument is what got us in the predicament we are in today. Continuing to use it means that we can be guaranteed to have people continuing to fight about who qualifies as "indigenous" and disagreeing over to whom it actually "originally" belonged for it to be given back to.

then it isn't a peace deal it is simply ATTEMPTING to correct an abhorring violation , give them their lands back [ borders of 1948 ] allow the refuges back , and be grateful they allow Israelis to live on THEIR land .
also saying how far we go back you must be joking that nation [ if you can call it that ] was founded 62 years ago , those displaced could be still alive today , two wrongs don't make it right . the European jews have no right to even be here , like i said be grateful the Palestinians would be generous enough to allow those that wronged them to have that much .
the Palestinians are paying for a crime committed by the nations of the west , who still backup this injustice and speak of freedom and justice while labeling us as savages [ well even if we are savages we still classify as humans and this is our home]

 

[Grace Seeker]

the Palestinians are paying for a crime committed by the nations of the west , who still backup this injustice and speak of freedom and justice while labeling us as savages [well even if we are savages we still classify as humans and this is our home]

Well, Palestians aren't savages. But they are suffering for something that was forced upon them. That is something that does need to be addressed. I think that is why you see growing support in the international community for not just a "peace" solution that doesn't deal with the issues Palestinians raise, but one that includes Palestinians in the solution.

that nation [Israel] was founded 62 years ago , those displaced could be still alive today , two wrongs don't make it right.

I agree two wrongs don't make it right. Nor would three wrongs. What I see being discussed when one uses "give it back" as an answer is to continue stacking up one injustice on top of another.

the European jews have no right to even be here , like i said be grateful the Palestinians would be generous enough to allow those that wronged them to have that much

Why don't the European Jews have a right to be there? They may have become Europeanized over time, but they haven't always been from Europe. They are a product of a diaspora that goes back 2 millenia. Is the reason that they don't have a right to the land because they weren't born on it? Or do you have another reason? How are the rights of Palestinians born on the East Bank any different than those of Jews born in Europe? I understand that there is a difference between 62 years and 2000 years, but is that all there is to the argument which prefers the rights of one group over the other?

allow the refuges back , and be grateful they allow Israelis to live on THEIR land

I have no problem with that as the intended goal. I can see all sorts of problems in regard to how that would be executed, but the big one is, do you think that the two groups could ever work out a way to live together? Presently Israel uses their majority power to disenfranchise everyone who stands in their way. I know of cases of churches that have been claimed by the state as "abandoned" simply because they were left unattended for as little as 48 hours. That is how Israel plays when it has power. What Palestinian would accept that? And should the Palestinians hold the greater political power, would they be willing to forgoe using it as a weapon by which they were to seek reprisals for the wrongs suffered by them over the last 62 years?

Peace is going to involve both parties taking the approach Nelson Mandela did in South Africa and being more concerned about how to go forward than looking back at the past.

 

[Athrun66]

Why don't the European Jews have a right to be there? They may have become Europeanized over time, but they haven't always been from Europe. They are a product of a diaspora that goes back 2 millenia. Is the reason that they don't have a right to the land because they weren't born on it? Or do you have another reason? How are the rights of Palestinians born on the East Bank any different than those of Jews born in Europe? I understand that there is a difference between 62 years and 2000 years, but is that all there is to the argument which prefers the rights of one group over the other?

that doesn't make much sense why would the right of a European born Jew who came to a land illegally that he doesn't own kicked out the indigenous natives and settled down be respected in the first place?
if an illegal immigrant came to your home and forced you out would you respect his rights and allow him he to stay , if you do then it is your choice but to have it forced upon you is unjust and cruel.

 

[Grace Seeker]

that doesn't make much sense why would the right of a European born Jew who came to a land illegally that he doesn't own kicked out the indigenous natives and settled down be respected in the first place?
if an illegal immigrant came to your home and forced you out would you respect his rights and allow him he to stay , if you do then it is your choice but to have it forced upon you is unjust and cruel.

The majority of those who live in Israel today are descendants of those immigrants, not the immigrants themselves. Also majority of those who wish to "return" to their Palestinians homes were not born there, but outside of Palestine. And beyond that, both groups of peoples have roots that go back well beyond the present and try to make ancient claims on the land, yet even then both group is truly indigenous, but migrated there from elsewhere.

 

[Athrun66]

The majority of those who live in Israel today are descendants of those immigrants, not the immigrants themselves. Also majority of those who wish to "return" to their Palestinians homes were not born there, but outside of Palestine. And beyond that, both groups of peoples have roots that go back well beyond the present and try to make ancient claims on the land, yet even then both group is truly indigenous, but migrated there from elsewhere.

notice i said European born

 

[Grace Seeker]

notice i said European born

Well, if invited there by those who are in power, should they not go?

Again, I'm not arguing that the situation is right. But I don't think the "give it back" response is going to be the solution either. The claims of one group born outside of Palestine are any more meritorious than another group born outside of Palestine, given that both groups try to establish their claim based on having "first dibs" by claiming to be the "indigenous" population. That's why I pointed out that such is not really true of either Jews nor Palestinians unless we put some sort of limit to how far one is willing to go back in time to fix what that term means.

 

[Athrun66]

again you are saying that the son of a man fleeing for his life from the Israeli war machine in 1967 right to return is equal to someone from Russia claiming that in his holy book his ancestor was thrown out 2000 years ago?

 

[Grace Seeker]

again you are saying that the son of a man fleeing for his life from the Israeli war machine in 1967 right to return is equal to someone from Russia claiming that in his holy book his ancestor was thrown out 2000 years ago?

I'm not saying that it is, I'm asking why they are not the same?

Is there something other than the passage of time that makes one more right than the other?

 

[Athrun66]

well for one proof , most European jews aren't from middle eastern decent

 

[Grace Seeker]

well for one proof , most European jews aren't from middle eastern decent

So, if a Jew could somehow prove middle eastern descent, then what more would you want?

 

[Athrun66]

its not about proving your ancestry [ i phrased that wrong ] middle eastern Jews were always apart of our society and they lived along side Muslims and Christians , it wasn't until the genocide committed by the nations of Europe that this whole ordeal started ,i'm not saying throw every non Muslim out [ even though that was exactly what IDF did and no one objected ].
but you must allow every Palestinian that was thrown out and there descendants back , you would show mercy to the ones who committed the crime and their children but not the victims?

 

[Grace Seeker]

No, if I were king of the universe, I would open up the borders to Israel so that anyone who wanted to live there could. And I would stop Israel's continued encroachment on other people's lands by means of the settlements they continue to build. But I don't think that this solves the problem. In return to the land are those descendants of people who were forced off their land able to reclaim property rights as well? What if their property has changed in value? Do they get reparations if it has gone down, do they pay if it has gone up? Do people who have themselves now lived on the land for 3, perhaps 4, generations have any rights that accru to them?

you must allow every Palestinian that was thrown out and there descendants back , you would show mercy to the ones who committed the crime and their children but not the victims?

And if one really believes this argument, then you are saying no more than what those Jews who demanded to be able to immigrate to Palestine were saying back in 1947 -- they saw themselves as the descendents of Jews who had suffered genocidal crimes not just from Hitler, but over centuries at the hands of Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans that eventually drove them from their ancesteral lands. And look what a mess saying YES to that got us all into.

It was wrong to force the Jews from the land millenia ago. It was wrong to force the Palestinians from the land just to make room for some Jews in 1948. It was wrong for the Jews to enact laws that were discriminatory against Palestinians who remained in the land. And it is wrong for Israel to prohibit Palestinians from returning now. But it would also be wrong to drive out Jews who presently live on the land in order to make room for Palestinians who wish to return. As you've already said, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

So, there has be an answer that is more nuanced than just "give back the land". For if we're just using the argument of the right of the original indigenous population, I'm giving it to neither Palestinians nor Jews, but to Canaanites.

 

[Athrun66]

so it is wrong to allow all the Palestinians that were evicted back in so that the jews that have no actual proof of their claim other than i'm Jewish my ancestor 2000 years ago lived here can live in a nice and spacious environment ?
also i have no knowledge of the bible who are the descendants of the Canaanites ?

 

[Grace Seeker]

so it is wrong to allow all the Palestinians that were evicted back in so that the jews that have no actual proof of their claim other than i'm Jewish my ancestor 2000 years ago lived here can live in a nice and spacious environment ?

No. That is not what I am saying. Remember I said that Israel needs to open up it borders and let Palestinians return.

What is wrong is to continue to evict one group in favor of another. Somehow everyone must learn to share the land.

also i have no knowledge of the bible who are the descendants of the Canaanites ?

I don't know. I suspect that it is largely those Palestinians who are not of Arab descent but of Phoenician or Syrian descent.