Stephen Hawking boycotts Israeli academic conference

[The Grand Nudger]

AGAIN I invite you to produce a list of displaced or replaced people. Merely repeating the assertion is worthless. I have mentioned DNA evidence going back some 6000 years so you can recite any and all going back that far.

To which I entreat you to isolate a single group of human beings alive today that did not displace a previous group, or are not now on grounds previously occupied by another. IOW, I think the way that you phrased the question is complete bullshit.

The fact is discovering the stability of populations essentially from the beginning of settlement before recorded history was surprising to everyone. You can also produce examples from recorded history if you can find any.

I remember mentioning something about proving things door to door in another thread, it applies to more people than I mentioned, apparently.

Then fucking list them.

Reread my response. I got started with a couple obvious examples and one bit of obscure anthropology.

Of course not. You merely have to be honest that almost all of them are
1) sitting just across the border waiting the go home and
2) they were made refugees by the fellow countrymen and thus are not being replaced by anyone new.

Actually, most of them are currently residing in 1st world countries far removed from their homes (largely 3rd world shitholes), that data point comes from the same report.

Yes different sovereignty. I did say sovereignty is different from ownership.

-and with that sovereignty come immigrants..but I'm sure the new immigrant overlords of this 5 sq mile patch of land treated the natives with priority and all.....it's not as though they may have given lands to their kin that already had a claim or anything...it's not as though these continuing claims and thefts dominated the history of the region for a few centuries......or that populations shifted with the conflicts, both in genetics and location.......

nothing at all like that. Nope, no one displaced, nothing seized or stolen. We'll have to wait till 1492 and those damned jews, amiright?

AND living in the same geographic location as their ancestors.

So long as you make the geographic region significantly broad and then ignore that with the exception of the britons...none of them are "first peoples" of the UK...even remotely. The britains themselves..well, there may have been "some" peoples in the area that got the short end of that stick......but I don't mind ignoring them, they were even more different than the rest of you strange bastards are to me.

But we do not find Mongols replaced local populations. There are no pockets of Mongolian descent people living in Europe.

Nope, mostly just raiding this far afield, they seem to have been more interested in asia, another place you offered up and the reason I mentioned them.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180246/

Let wonder lead you to knowledge.

Never heard of it. It is difficult to explain how people always on the move, hunter gatherers, can be displaced. So please tell me from memory the explanation he gave in this book you never read.

Not a book, peer reviewed. Go grab it for yourself, I'm still munching through it. Buddy clued me in, the guys been pretty prolific and I'd never heard of him either.

So if there is no way to know who were the first then there is no way to know if they were displaced. Is that a shot through one foot or two? By description the first people were those who settled into a region to farm it. From there archaeology can show consistent culture with those in geographically related areas rising and falling in dominance.

It's sometimes more difficult to identify who the firsts were then it is to identify who the seconds where. Garbage heaps pile up, and beyond a point we expect evidence to get sparce. That we find evidence of displacement -even amongst hunter gatherers- isn't exactly surprising. Some hunting grounds are more fertile than others, and a few choice farming communities - the birthplaces of agriculture if you will, we now know had been inhabited in a grand way long before any farming ever took place. Perhaps they chose those sites precisely because they were fertile in the hunting and gathering sense, and resorted to agriculture to cover a gap. That method failed horribly at first, by the way, the earliest farmers were some malnourished sons of bitches.

When people left Africa there were obviously no people to displace. They were all H-Gs until farming took over. It is unclear how one can displace people who are always moving around already. When it comes to settled communities a city may be destroyed but 90+% of the population are still farmers. Again where DNA evidence from ancient times has been available they are quite close to the people living in the same place today. The DNA from mummies is essentially the same as Egyptians today.

That's what you'd be looking for, the original wave of expansion- every successive expansion that's sufficiently pervasive amounts to theft (I don;t think it does, but that's where the isreali song and dance leads..and you're committed - so own it). We could cut to the chase though, and I'd laugh at the notion that being the first there is anything to pin your nations legitimacy on in the first place. Mummies....there you go again, with that myopic view.

As above it was quite simple the first to settle down to farming. Or like the body found in a C14 dated bog the DNA is the same. I did say to look at the history also. History cannot mean anything but what was written. One does not assume it was all different before writing without additional evidence.

Hardly, and for the reasons already elaborated upon. Now I loves me some farmin buddy, but what claim does digging a trench give you that carries down in perpetuity? You're going to start believing things just because some schmuck wrote it down all of a sudden? Perhaps I'm a cynic, but I doubt that anyone would write "we weren't the first here" in the deeds they scratch into their cave walls.

Haganah, Irgun, Lehi, Stern Gang for openers. If you do not like the words of openly declared terrorists try Jabotinsky's Iron Wall. If you prefer to avoid reading and research we can do it from simple reason.

If they had not been expelled the entire Zionist Enterprise would have been voted out of existence in the first election. The only way for Zionism to succeed was to get rid of 80% of the potential voters who would have shitcanned the idea at the polls. People do not just go away upon request therefore violence would be required. That constitutes premeditated murder as deadly force would be the only way to get them to leave.

In other words, it isn't in there, but one can infer it if one were so inclined. Good reading, by the way. I knew that it was some shady shit but it's more amusing than I thought it would be. The bit about attempting to ally with Nazi Germany was a laugh riot.

Again you are not talking about a change in sovereignty.

I'm not? Of course I am. Changes in sovereignty are a great impetus for displacement, and also the reverse, with displacement you expect a change in sovereignty. You seem to think that one has to be forced off a cliff and over an ocean to be displaced. They don't. They can be moved across the river, or forced into ghettos - for example, within throwing distance of their previous homes. Displacement from an anthropologist's point of view is merely when a population of people are left with no choice but to relocate. Some of the most major instances appear to have been driven by natural causes, the worst being before the advent of agriculture. Putting the lie the that "first people are farmers" bullshit you tried to float.

So far as I am aware all the claims to lost private property related to WWII have been addressed fairly in national courts particularly in Germany and Poland. What have I missed?

Well, if the people who fled Europe to Israel immediately following the seizure of their property had their grievances handled then that's that isn't it, so long as they got what was theirs. I assume they can go back to their homes now then? Speaking of shady shit..that compensation plan..also a laugh riot of late.

It think at a minimum the Palestinians should be compensated and their claims fairly adjudicated as they were in Europe.

I suppose I have higher expectations. I expect to see the Palestinians be treated as equals, at a minimum, and watch the divide between the two groups erode into nothing through dedicated and directed effort. Whether or not there is any compensation means about as much to me as whether or not any of our folks with a greievance get their acres and mules. The acres, the mules, far less valuable than the right to participate in ones own government. If you won't participate until you get your acres and mules, I'd call you a moron. You know why? What do you imagine the best way to get the acres and mules might be....uh huh..participation.

In any event there is no linkage between the two. If there were Israel would be legally obligated to do as Europe has done instead of just morally.

That's not really how it works. We do have international law, but insisting that something be done in one country simply because it was done in another...well..shaky, at best. Self determination and all that jazz you know. On the other hand, I hope that if there ever is a compensation arrangement it;s handled better than europe handled it.

To do that they will have to return first. Israel flatly refuses both return and compensation. Palestinians are certainly open to return and most would likely take compensation. Thus the intransigent side is the Jewish side.

Of course, it;s a win/win for the Palestinian side of the debate, but thats not how progress is achieved, nor how compromise is made. What you're describing would be more like unilateral victory. Good luck with that. You know what I think, I think that any unilateral response or leverage would just be the impetus for another generation of bickering.

One cannot point at the Palestinians without blaming the victims of the Jews. What pray tell do you think they have done wrong besides resist and attempt to get their property back? BTW: I judge the actions of the Palestinians by the actions of the victorious good guys in WWII. They could nuke Tel Aviv without being condemned.

So that is all you have, tq and the fathers sins. Well tough titty bud. The victim of an assault does not have the right to then repeat the same crime upon their aggressor. Further, they do not have the right to stew about it for a generation, and then assault the children of their aggressor. That's here, that's how we've set up our laws. I think that's reasonable. You clearly disagree. Victims don't get a pass in the now for having been victims at some point in the past. I don't begrudge a person for trying to get back some thing that they've lost, but at some point it becomes a lost cause. Better to move on and better the future. You aren't doing yourself any favors clinging to an irretrievable past. That's the area where I disagree with the Israeli side of the issue the most strongly.

Skeletons in the closet? Okay, you;re an ass but we've all got them, I mean whats the US going to say about displacing people and seizing their property, eh? Would be great if you could offer some sort of compensation - but if that's off the table for whatever reason, then lets go ahead and move forward. Maybe readdress it some later time, when those involved are more amenable. -Going forward- lets not douche it up. How hard is that eh?

I mean, obviously it's nigh fucking impossible - but that's difficult for me to accept.