Stephen Hawking boycotts Israeli academic conference

[A_Nony_Mouse]

The examples of it are almost all post 1492, post Columbus, and having to do with the Americas and Australia. There are no known examples of it in Europe or Asia. There are some well known examples such as Basques who were there so long they speak an Indo-European language.

Who cares how long they were there? If they aren't the original inhabitants of the area then those inhabitants were displaced. It doesn't matter how far back in time one has to go. Nevertheless, I'd suggest the opposite, that displacement decreased in frequency as we draw closer to the present but increased in intensity. You're focusing on what, 50 years (max 550 years going by 1450) out of a potential 200 thousand? Just, wow.

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.

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.

There are examples of it from Africa but not many -- which is not surprising of course. The best known the Zulus were migrating south as the Afrikaans were migrating north and both "encouraging" the original population to get out of the way.

There are examples of it from every corner of the globe stretching back the entirety of our experience as a species.

Then fucking list them.

People have been displaced recently with much greater ferocity though, sure. Political refugees are the original impetus for the coining of the term - and there are plenty of them worldwide. In 2009 the UNHCR released an estimate of 42 million refugees worldwide. Must I list where each and every refugee fled from? I think not.

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.

Similarly, we find no shortage of displacement in europe long before 1492, the UK is a great example of this, being a nation comprised of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes and Normans. Each group having more or less power and range at any given time -

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

all marking the landscape until finally congealing into a singular entity.

AND living in the same geographic location as their ancestors.

Then of course we have that wonderful mongol horde devastating the populations all across Europe and Asia.

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

If we wanted to continue further back it becomes more difficult to identify these displacements - but not so difficult that it's impossible, que one Chris Stojanowski who just may have written a fairly definitive paper on identifying a displacement so vast that it is near total in scope by means of skeletal remains dated to the early holocene.....

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.

Name the displacements. There was one Sennacherib bragged about. There were ruling classes imported in some cases but not actual displacements or replacements, I am very interested in reading your list of them. The supposed Hadrian expulsion is no more than religious legend.

Identify a "first peoples", and we'll have something to discuss, won't we? When you're done imagining, I'll ask you what you reckon happened to whatever older culture or peoples we find remains for in the same area. Pro-tip, they were likely displaced. We have a knack for displacing other species of animals (including other species of hominid) and of course, for displacing each other. One might even say that it goes farther than a knack...to a willing eagerness.

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.

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.

Of course, I know that you can't - because we're hard pressed to identify any first peoples - what with a major displacement event of some kind or another having occurred more than once in our history as a species - with profound and lasting results on a tenacious sort of evidence. The genes we carry tell a story.

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.

If you are going to consider premeditated murder and theft as legitimate we do not share a common understanding of those words.

Strange, never saw anything in their declarations about either.

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.

So what if it is there? They wiped Palestine off the map after 2500 or more years. No one misses Palestine. It will be no different when this first and only Israel ever to exist is gone. ALL of its problems exist because those problems are what the Zionists wanted. There is no sympathy for the fool who deliberately creates his own problems.

The same can be said of any nation built on the ashes of another, any invading peoples, the examples of which could bury our own in ash (and probably will someday).

Again you are not talking about a change in sovereignty.

To continue along the same line - no one will miss any part of europe carved up in an effort to return it to whomever we finger as the thief that said piece of land rightly belongs to - I suggest that a significant amount of property in europe belongs to the isrealis.

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?

What say you, if any portion of Isreal belongs to the Palestinians - then surely the same assessment holds farther north. That's whats on the table, is it not, unless we're just talking about taking something from someone...and using the notion of returning something as pretext......

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

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.

Or, we could drop the bullshit and insist that -they- handle their shit together, as cohabitators of a single nation - or not..make the split, but fucking handle it, rather than using it as a running excuse for extremism from either side. You know what, I just remembered that there are 42 million refugees in the world...perhaps if the Isrealis and Palestinians can't get it together we could send them there.

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.

And if one is not pointing at the Jews, just who else is there to point to? They wanted it this way.

There are the Palestinians to point at. Something you've consistently missed or deliberately omitted. All you've got is the sins of the father and the crimes of another? Tell me you're joking......

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.