History Talk :: View topic - The Jewish claim to Isreal in Perspective.

History Talk
History Talk

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The Jewish claim to Isreal in Perspective.
Goto page 1, 2 Next

History Talk Forum Index -> History Talk

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

David Hume
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:54 am Post subject: The Jewish claim to Isreal in Perspective.

On Jul 7, 12:46 am, "Truth Will Out" <Truthwillout@all_times.net>
wrote:

Quote:

"jgarbuz" <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote in message

news:e2e8b5b4-45d5-4f42-a9dc-1132d2635f73@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
1948, ISRAEL, AND THE PALESTINIANS –– THE TRUE STORY

NONE of the rubbish you posted is truth.

It is no more than zionist lies.

Simple facts

1) Before 1948 there had been no Jewish state in the region since
before the time of emperor Hadrian, and then only a client state of
the Roman Empire.
2) The Jews had originally stolen the land from the indigenous
inhabitants after their trek from Egypt.
3) After the fall of the Ottoman Empire WW1 the British held the
"mandate" over Palestine, and with the holocaust in mind was seeking
ways to peacefully establish a homeland for Jews. However....
4) A Jewish terrorist organisation took the law into its own hands and
seized the land from the Palestinians, on the eve of the ending of the
mandate.
5) In parallel with so-called "scholars" in South Africa who once
insisted that the whiteman was there before the Bantu, similarly,
Jewish "scholars" try to tell similar stories to justify the Jewish
"right" over the lands of Palestine. We should pay no more attention
to them than is deserved by holocaust deniers.
6) Until these simple facts are recognised there will be no peace in
the ME.

The Jews' claim to the region back dates to pre -135 AD, but even at
the height of its power its claim was always tenuous existing as a
army of occupation to the various other populations that were there.
Lets take a similar situation in the UK.
Around to year 500-600 AD the Saxons came to Britian and overlorded
the local Romano-British inhabitants, who were forced to flee to the
the hinterlands: Wales, Cernow, Scotland and Ireland. To extend the
same logic as exist in the Jewish justification of the occupation of
Isreal we would have to eject the Saxons back to Germany and have the
welsh and scots take control of England. Further to that it would be
apparently okay for the USA to supply them with arms and money to do
so. Does this sound ridiculous to you? That is exactly how the take
over of Palestine felt to the Arabs in 1948.
There are many other examples. The Moari get to keep New Zealand, and
the Aboriginees get to keep Australia - these claims only back date
200 years. What about the North American Indians getting back their
homelands from the US government? Can any one tell me what the
difference is?

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

jgarbuz
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: Re: The Jewish claim to Isreal in Perspective.

On Jul 7, 5:54 am, David Hume <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 7, 12:46 am, "Truth Will Out" <Truthwillout@all_times.net
wrote:

"jgarbuz" <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote in message

news:e2e8b5b4-45d5-4f42-a9dc-1132d2635f73@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com....
1948, ISRAEL, AND THE PALESTINIANS –– THE TRUE STORY

NONE of the rubbish you posted is truth.

It is no more than zionist lies.

Simple facts

1) Before 1948 there had been no Jewish state in the region since
before the time of emperor Hadrian, and then only a client state of
the Roman Empire.

True. That doesn't mean it ceased to be Jewish land. Many tribal lands
are conquered by large empires, but have gotten their independence
since. The major difference between the Jewish case and that of most
other small conquered peoples, is that the Jews went into exile but
managed to preserve their identity and never gave up their claim to
their homeland, and indeed enshrined it as the second major part of
its tribal religion. Also, thanks to the Jewish legal system, they
managed to even prosper in exile in many cases. But with most other
cases, the locals were either assimilated or killed off or both. In
America, the remnants of many native "Indian" nations languish in
miniscule parts of their ancient land we call "reservations" and some
only prosper slightly due to gambling and no cigarette taxes.

Quote:

2) The Jews had originally stolen the land from the indigenous
inhabitants after their trek from Egypt.

The Canaanites, who preceded the Hebrews by some 1,000 years, had
destroyed the earlier inhabitants before them. They too were not
indigenous. To me "indigenous" means the FIRST or EARLIEST people who
had inhabited the land. Neither the Canaanites, Hebrews nor Arabs fit
that bill. And the Canaanites were a collection of city states often
warring with each other, and often under Egyptian or Hittite rule. In
fact, Abraham bought his burial lands from Hittites.
But the Canaanites practiced infanticide, a fact that was confirmed by
archaeology both in Israel, and especially in Carethage (North Africa)
where many of the Canaanites fled to create that powerful ancient city
state.

Quote:

3) After the fall of the Ottoman Empire WW1 the British held the
"mandate" over Palestine,

The British defeated the Ottomans, who had aligned themselves with the
German and Austro-HUmgarian empires, and as such, Britain had the
right to do as it wished with the conquered lands of the Ottoman
empire. But the League of Nations was created in 1919, and it was
decided to return the land to the Jewish people while giving non-Jews
full civic and religious rights in what was intended to become the
Jewish National Home. The Mandate to administer Palestine was given to
Britain, for the purpose of helping resurrect the Jewish homeland. But
immediately upon this, eastern Palestine was turned into an Arab
state, under the rule of an emir from Mecca, Abdullah, and was renamed
Transjordan. So that larger part of Palestine was taken away from
Jewish settlement, and given to the Arabs to rule.

Quote:

and with the holocaust in mind was seeking
ways to peacefully establish a homeland for Jews.

YOu mean right after WWI, in 1920, the European powers already
anticipated the rise of Hitler and the genocide of the Jews of Europe?
Arab nonsense. Talk about historical revisionism.

Quote:

However....
4) A Jewish terrorist organisation took the law into its own hands and
seized the land from the Palestinians, on the eve of the ending of the
mandate.

Total ahistorical bullshit. The land was alloted to become the Jewish
homeland again, but the terrorist Arab leadership, mainly under the
rule of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini, started a
campaign of terror and "resistance" from 1920 onwards, as soon as the
League had decided in favor of the Jews. But just before WWII began,
when Britain decided to reverse its policy, in order to keep oil
supplies flowing from Iraq to Haifa, and closed Palestine to Jewish
immigration, only then did some underground Jews start their own
program of resistance and terror - two decades after the Mufti had
already done so.

Quote:

There is zero evidence of any caucasian settlement or control of South
Africa before the Dutch arrived. By contrast, there is not a shred of
Arabic to be found in the Land of Israel prior to the Arab conquests
of the 7th century. There is an enormous amount of evidence of Hebrew
and Jewish presence long before Muhammad was even born.

Quote:

6) Until these simple facts are recognised there will be no peace in
the ME.

Until 56 Muslim states, and the world at large, fully recognizes and
respects Jewish rights to ancient Jewish lands, there will be no peace
in the ME.

Quote:

Nonsense. Total utter rubbish. Roman and then Arab imperialism may
have occupied our homeland for long stretches of time, but thank God,
and some good Christian zionists who helped the Jewish struggle
immensely, some of the Jewish homeland is back in its historical,
legal homeland.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

David Hume
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:30 pm Post subject: Re: The Jewish claim to Isreal in Perspective.

On Jul 7, 1:49 pm, jgarbuz <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 7, 5:54 am, David Hume <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 7, 12:46 am, "Truth Will Out" <Truthwillout@all_times.net
wrote:

"jgarbuz" <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote in message

news:e2e8b5b4-45d5-4f42-a9dc-1132d2635f73@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com....
1948, ISRAEL, AND THE PALESTINIANS –– THE TRUE STORY

NONE of the rubbish you posted is truth.

It is no more than zionist lies.

Simple facts

1) Before 1948 there had been no Jewish state in the region since
before the time of emperor Hadrian, and then only a client state of
the Roman Empire.

True. That doesn't mean it ceased to be Jewish land.

Sadly the same can be said of Palestinians who have bee dispossessed.

Many tribal lands

Quote:

are conquered by large empires, but have gotten their independence
since.

And far more have not.

The major difference between the Jewish case and that of most

Quote:

other small conquered peoples, is that the Jews went into exile but
managed to preserve their identity and never gave up their claim to
their homeland,

And neither have the American Indians or Maori - to name but two.

and indeed enshrined it as the second major part of

Quote:

its tribal religion. Also, thanks to the Jewish legal system, they
managed to even prosper in exile in many cases. But with most other
cases, the locals were either assimilated or killed off or both. In
America, the remnants of many native "Indian" nations languish in
miniscule parts of their ancient land we call "reservations" and some
only prosper slightly due to gambling and no cigarette taxes.

2) The Jews had originally stolen the land from the indigenous
inhabitants after their trek from Egypt.

The Canaanites, who preceded the Hebrews by some 1,000 years, had
destroyed the earlier inhabitants before them. They too were not
indigenous.

So tel me does that justify that Palestine is a Jewish "tribal land" -
I think not.

To me "indigenous" means the FIRST or EARLIEST people who

Quote:

had inhabited the land. Neither the Canaanites, Hebrews nor Arabs fit
that bill. And the Canaanites were a collection of city states often
warring with each other, and often under Egyptian or Hittite rule. In
fact, Abraham bought his burial lands from Hittites.
But the Canaanites practiced infanticide, a fact that was confirmed by
archaeology both in Israel, and especially in Carethage (North Africa)
where many of the Canaanites fled to create that powerful ancient city
state.

3) After the fall of the Ottoman Empire WW1 the British held the
"mandate" over Palestine,

The British defeated the Ottomans, who had aligned themselves with the
German and Austro-HUmgarian empires, and as such, Britain had the
right to do as it wished with the conquered lands of the Ottoman
empire.

Then why did the Jews not respect that right and upset the
negotiations by taking the law into their own hands?

But the League of Nations was created in 1919, and it was

Quote:

decided to return the land to the Jewish people while giving non-Jews
full civic and religious rights in what was intended to become the
Jewish National Home.

The League of Nations had no Internationally recognized legal right to
do that, as it excluded from its number all the opposing interests in
this matter.

The Mandate to administer Palestine was given to

Quote:

Britain, for the purpose of helping resurrect the Jewish homeland.

Now you are contradicting yourself (above).

But

Quote:

immediately upon this, eastern Palestine was turned into an Arab
state, under the rule of an emir from Mecca, Abdullah, and was renamed
Transjordan. So that larger part of Palestine was taken away from
Jewish settlement, and given to the Arabs to rule.

and with the holocaust in mind was seeking
ways to peacefully establish a homeland for Jews.

YOu mean right after WWI, in 1920, the European powers already
anticipated the rise of Hitler and the genocide of the Jews of Europe?
Arab nonsense. Talk about historical revisionism.

No, you dolt! - I am talking about the Jews throwing away any chance
of a peacful settlement by taking Israel by force with terrorism. 1948

Quote:

However....
4) A Jewish terrorist organisation took the law into its own hands and
seized the land from the Palestinians, on the eve of the ending of the
mandate.

Total ahistorical bullshit.

I think you owe it to yourself to read the history of this moment, as
you are sorely confused.
Quote wiki:
After 1945 the United Kingdom became embroiled in an increasingly
violent conflict with the Jews.[49] In 1947, the British government
withdrew from commitment to the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was
unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.[50]
The newly-created United Nations approved the UN Partition Plan
(United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947,
dividing the country into two states, one Arab and one Jewish.
Jerusalem was to be designated an international city – a corpus
separatum – administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.
[51] The Jewish community accepted the plan,[52] but the Arab League
and Arab Higher Committee rejected it.[53]

Regardless, the State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948, one
day before the expiry of the British Mandate for Palestine.[54]

This shows that Jews disregarded the mandate and the plan for peace
and took matters into its own hands to impose a Jewish state even
though Jews only represented 33% of the population, despite massive
attempts to swamp the land with immigrants to increase it from 11% in
1922.

The land was alloted to become the Jewish

Quote:

homeland again, but the terrorist Arab leadership, mainly under the
rule of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini, started a
campaign of terror and "resistance" from 1920 onwards, as soon as the
League had decided in favor of the Jews.

The League held no legal credibility. Never did.

But just before WWII began,

Quote:

when Britain decided to reverse its policy, in order to keep oil
supplies flowing from Iraq to Haifa, and closed Palestine to Jewish
immigration,

Lie: Jewish population rose from 11% to 33% from 1922 to 1945.

only then did some underground Jews start their own

Quote:

program of resistance and terror - two decades after the Mufti had
already done so.

As Palestine was 89% Arab one would imagine that the Arabs had every
right to resist British rule. In fat they had more right to do so than
the Jews who were still a minority long after 1948. You can't justify
Jews' terrorism of the 1940s and condemn Arabic terrorism of the 1920
and 30s

Quote:

5) In parallel with so-called "scholars" in South Africa who once
insisted that the whiteman was there before the Bantu, similarly,
Jewish "scholars" try to tell similar stories to justify the Jewish
"right" over the lands of Palestine. We should pay no more attention
to them than is deserved by holocaust deniers.

There is zero evidence of any caucasian settlement or control of South
Africa before the Dutch arrived.

Yes, but the "scholars" of apartheid claimed that there were no blacks
there either.

By contrast, there is not a shred of

Quote:

Arabic to be found in the Land of Israel prior to the Arab conquests
of the 7th century. There is an enormous amount of evidence of Hebrew
and Jewish presence long before Muhammad was even born.

I have to say - so fucking what! The progenitors of Moslims were there
before Mohammed, just as the Caananites were there before the Jews.

The entire claim of the Jews is based on a fantasy of a land promised
by a fantasy being.

Quote:

This will never happen as too much blood has been split. When the US
fades as a world power the Jewish state will fall to the Arabs once
again.
I give them 100 years max.

Until the Jews learn; that taking land by force is not a solution;
dispossessing its inhabitants without compensation does not make
friends; being a minority army of occupation is no better than
naziism; the meaning of humility; their days in the ME are numbered.

Quote:

The Jews' claim to the region back dates to pre -135 AD, but even at
the height of its power its claim was always tenuous existing as a
army of occupation to the various other populations that were there.

Nonsense. Total utter rubbish. Roman and then Arab imperialism may
have occupied our homeland for long stretches of time, but thank God,
and some good Christian zionists who helped the Jewish struggle
immensely, some of the Jewish homeland is back in its historical,
legal homeland.

It is not a homeland. It is not legal.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

jgarbuz
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: Re: The Jewish claim to Isreal in Perspective.

On Jul 7, 9:30 am, David Hume <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 7, 1:49 pm,jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:

1) Before 1948 there had been no Jewish state in the region since
before the time of emperor Hadrian, and then only a client state of
the Roman Empire.

True. That doesn't mean it ceased to be Jewish land.

Sadly the same can be said of Palestinians who have bee dispossessed.

Same is true of the Jews of Arabia who founded Medina (Yathrib) and
were dispossessed by Muhammad.They come from Judea some 500 years
before Muhammad was born, but that did not stop him from dispossessing
and kicking them out (after beheading hundreds). Nonetheless, even
though Jews lived and farmed that part of the Hijaz for at least 5
centuries before Muhammad, I will nonetheless concede it as being Arab
land and not Jewish land. Can Arabs do the same and concede Israel as
being Jewish land?

Quote:

Many tribal lands

are conquered by large empires, but have gotten their independence
since.

And far more have not.

Which have not? Oh yeah, Kurdistan which is still under the control of
two Arab, one Turkish and one Iranian country.
Yes there are many people who do not have their own independent state,
Including the Lakota Indians, who recently seceded from the United
States to the notice of NOBODY else in the country :)

Quote:

The major difference between the Jewish case and that of most
other small conquered peoples, is that the Jews went into exile but
managed to preserve their identity and never gave up their claim to
their homeland,

And neither have the American Indians or Maori - to name but two.

And I fully support them. In the US I have understood since childhood
that I am living on Indian land. I cannot speak for New Zealanders
about how they feel occupyng Maori lands. But if the INdians come to
power and take back the country, I won't take up arms against them.
My country may be America, but my homeland is Israel, and I never
confuse the two. America is the homeland of its indigenous peoples,
and everyone else is either the descendent of settlers, or a recent
settler himself.

Quote:

and indeed enshrined it as the second major part of
its tribal religion. Also, thanks to the Jewish legal system, they
managed to even prosper in exile in many cases. But with most other
cases, the locals were either assimilated or killed off or both. In
America, the remnants of many native "Indian" nations languish in
miniscule parts of their ancient land we call "reservations" and some
only prosper slightly due to gambling and no cigarette taxes.

2) The Jews had originally stolen the land from the indigenous
inhabitants after their trek from Egypt.

The Canaanites, who preceded the Hebrews by some 1,000 years, had
destroyed the earlier inhabitants before them. They too were not
indigenous.

So tel me does that justify that Palestine is a Jewish "tribal land" -
I think not.

Many recent archaeologists now believe that the Hebrews were mostly
Canaanites who came to believe in this new religion, just as Mormons
came to believe what they believe, and wrote their own holy book.
Hebrew is the only extant Canaanite language. Perhaps Abraham garnered
a lot of Canaanite followers?

Quote:

To me "indigenous" means the FIRST or EARLIEST people who
had inhabited the land. Neither the Canaanites, Hebrews nor Arabs fit
that bill. And the Canaanites were a collection of city states often
warring with each other, and often under Egyptian or Hittite rule. In
fact, Abraham bought his burial lands from Hittites.
But the Canaanites practiced infanticide, a fact that was confirmed by
archaeology both in Israel, and especially in Carthage (North Africa)
where many of the Canaanites fled to create that powerful ancient city
state.

3) After the fall of the Ottoman Empire WW1 the British held the
"mandate" over Palestine,

The British defeated the Ottomans, who had aligned themselves with the
German and Austro-HUmgarian empires, and as such, Britain had the
right to do as it wished with the conquered lands of the Ottoman
empire.

Then why did the Jews not respect that right and upset the
negotiations by taking the law into their own hands?

They didn't. Read the Feisal-Weizmann agreement January 3, 1919. They
agreed to support each other's claims at the Paris Peace Conference.
Learn some real history for a change.

Quote:

That's like saying the UN had no internationally recognized legal
rights because when it was formed in 1945, most states were still
under colonial rule. In any case, prior to the creation of the League
of Nations, the only law was might makes right: You conquered it, you
owned it. The League decided who got their own independent countries,
and who didn't. The Kurds, for example, didn't. Eventually, the Arabs
got 21 countries. And if they had only gotten one huge country, say a
Caliphate, they then would have had only one vote in the League or the
UN.

Quote:

The Mandate to administer Palestine was given to
Britain, for the purpose of helping resurrect the Jewish homeland.
Now you are contradicting yourself (above).

Where and how am I contradicting myself?

Quote:

Nobody took anything by force. Israel's right as the Jewish homeland
and as a Jewish state was enshrined by the League of Nations and
subsequently, in much smaller form, the Jewish state. The Arabs tried
to FORCE a reversal of these decisions by violence and their defeat
created two refugee problems, the "Palestinian" one, and the Jewish
refugee problem of the 850,000 Jews who subsequently fled or were
forced out of the Arab countries.

Quote:

You're going to teach ME the history of that period? That's
pathetically unfunny.

Quote:

Quote wiki:
After 1945 the United Kingdom became embroiled in an increasingly
violent conflict with the Jews.[49] In 1947, the British government
withdrew from commitment to the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was
unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.[50]
The newly-created United Nations approved the UN Partition Plan
(United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947,
dividing the country into two states, one Arab and one Jewish.
Jerusalem was to be designated an international city – a corpus
separatum – administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.
[51] The Jewish community accepted the plan,[52] but the Arab League
and Arab Higher Committee rejected it.[53]

So?

Quote:

Regardless, the State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948, one
day before the expiry of the British Mandate for Palestine.[54],

So?

Quote:

This shows that Jews disregarded the mandate and the plan for peace
and took matters into its own hands to impose a Jewish state even
though Jews only represented 33% of the population, despite massive
attempts to swamp the land with immigrants to increase it from 11% in
1922.

What a distortion of history. The Arabs rejected the UN's proposal and
the Jews accepted. Then the Arabs attacked the UN authorized Jewish
state. As for "massive attempts to swamp the land with immigrants
since 1922," while I agree that too few Jews took up the challenge,
and many who did returned to Europe due to the poverty and hardship
and Arab violence they found there. Most later died at the hands of
the Nazis. But, the fact is that between 1918 and 1948, the Arab
population more than doubled thanks to investments, jobs, and health
services provided by the Jewish funded health services that were
opened to Arabs. And since 1948, the Arab population that has remained
in Israel went from some 140,000 to nearly 1.4 million, or grew ten
times in 60 years! Let's look at the facts. Prior to 1948, there were
1.2 million Arabs living west of the Jordan river. Today, more than
that number live inside Israel, and an additional 4 million live in
the West Bank and Gaza. Or, over 5.2 million Arabs live in what was
Mandatory Palestine in 1947. By contrast, some 1 million Jews lived in
the Arab and Muslim countries in 1947. How many Jews still live in the
Arab and other Muslim countries today? Less than 50,000 if you include
Iran. So, in summation, whereas the Arab population of western
Palestine grew 4-5 times, from 1.2M to 5.2M, the Jewish population of
Muslim countries declined from 1 million to less than 50,000, or by
over 95%. So who is guilty of ethnic cleansing? If you gave those
hard facts and figures to a impartial Martian from outer space, he'd
say the Arabs are full of shit, and it's obvious that it's the Jews
who were ethnically cleansed.

Quote:

The land was alloted to become the Jewish

homeland again, but the terrorist Arab leadership, mainly under the
rule of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini, started a
campaign of terror and "resistance" from 1920 onwards, as soon as the
League had decided in favor of the Jews.

The League held no legal credibility. Never did.

Well certainly not to Islamofascists or Neo Nazis. Since 1937 the
Fuehrer and the Mufti created an Arab-Aryan alliance that has been
solid for over 70 years.

Quote:

But just before WWII began,

when Britain decided to reverse its policy, in order to keep oil
supplies flowing from Iraq to Haifa, and closed Palestine to Jewish
immigration,

Lie: Jewish population rose from 11% to 33% from 1922 to 1945.

The British White Paper of 1939 limited Jewish immigration to 15,000 a
year for 5 years (total 75,000),. after which the Arabs would be the
ones who would decide whether or not more Jews would be allowed in.
That's when the Irgun went to work on the British. And rightfully so.
It was a blatant violation of the League of Nations Mandate. At that
point, Britain became no longer an administrator of the Mandate, but
an occupier of Jewish soil and so the Jewish resistance eventually
drove out 100,000 British troops by the end of 1947.

Quote:

only then did some underground Jews start their own

program of resistance and terror - two decades after the Mufti had
already done so.

As Palestine was 89% Arab one would imagine that the Arabs had every
right to resist British rule

Legally they had NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER regardless of their percentage.
That's like saying that Italian or Jewish neighborhoods had the right
to bomb Blacks from the South who moved into "their" neighborhoods.
The fact that my Brooklyn neighborhood had been 75% Jewish and 15%
Italian for many decades did not give us the right to vandalize, rob
or kill Blacks coming in from North Carolina. SO these Arabs and
others who were living in that desolate corner of the Ottoman empire
on ancient Jewish lands had NOT A SINGLE RIGHT IN THE WORLD to resist
in any way Jews coming in to resettle their homeland as authorized by
the LoN. Not one inch of privately owned Arab property was ever taken
from anyone UNTIL the Arabs stated the war in late 1947. Once the war
was on, then anything goes in love and war.

Quote:

. In fat they had more right to do so than
the Jews who were still a minority long after 1948. You can't justify
Jews' terrorism of the 1940s and condemn Arabic terrorism of the 1920
and 30s

Oh yes I can. That's like saying, you can't set fires to stop
wildfires in the forest. Ask a firefighter if that is true. You stop
forest fires by starting small manageable fires to burn off areas so
that the large fire can't feed off of it. If water doesn't work, then
you have to fight fire with fire. JEws did everything legally by the
book.But when that failed and there was no other recourse, finally
some turned to using the methods they learned from the Arabs, who
always resort to violence first. WIth the Arabs it's the opposite.
When all violence fails, finally they turn to HUDNAS or ceasefires.
After three or four failed wars against Israel, Sadat finally came to
the conclusion that recognizing ISrael and making peace was the only
way EGypt was ever going to get some land back.

Quote:

Perhaps there weren't I don't know. I'm not an expert in the
anthropology or history of southern Africa.
I do know Israel, however.

Quote:

By contrast, there is not a shred of

Arabic to be found in the Land of Israel prior to the Arab conquests
of the 7th century. There is an enormous amount of evidence of Hebrew
and Jewish presence long before Muhammad was even born.

I have to say - so fucking what! The progenitors of Moslims were there
before Mohammed, just as the Caananites were there before the Jews.
The entire claim of the Jews is based on a fantasy of a land promised
by a fantasy being.

Not my claim. I base it on the legal ruling of the League of Nations
Council ratified at the San Remo Conferences of 1920 and 1922. If
there is also some God who gave it to us in ancient times, that's a
bonus. The Japanese claim they descended from some Sun god I think.
Who knows, who cares? Israel is Jewish land, not Arab land, end of
story.

Quote:

6) Until these simple facts are recognised there will be no peace in
the ME.

Until 56 Muslim states, and the world at large, fully recognizes and
respects Jewish rights to ancient Jewish lands, there will be no peace
in the ME.

This will never happen as too much blood has been split. When the US
fades as a world power the Jewish state will fall to the Arabs once
again.
I give them 100 years max.

The last great Islamofascist hope, that if America falls, Israel
naturally falls with it Smile

HA! Rome fell. The Arab Empire and the
Ottoman empires fell. And they were around a lot longer than America.
But the Jewish nation is still here. And it has other allies besides
America. India also has a problem with Islamofascist terrorists, and
its ties to Israel are growing as a result. China too is on the rise,
and loves Israeli technology too. Don't hold your breath, or tell your
grandchildren to either. Israel will go when the whole planet goes.
Not one day sooner.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

David Hume
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: The Jewish claim to Isreal in Perspective.

On Jul 7, 4:09 pm, jgarbuz <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 7, 9:30 am, David Hume <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 7, 1:49 pm,jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:

1) Before 1948 there had been no Jewish state in the region since
before the time of emperor Hadrian, and then only a client state of
the Roman Empire.

True. That doesn't mean it ceased to be Jewish land.

Sadly the same can be said of Palestinians who have bee dispossessed.

Same is true of the Jews of Arabia who founded Medina (Yathrib) and
were dispossessed by Muhammad.They come from Judea some 500 years
before Muhammad was born, but that did not stop him from dispossessing
and kicking them out (after beheading hundreds). Nonetheless, even
though Jews lived and farmed that part of the Hijaz for at least 5
centuries before Muhammad, I will nonetheless concede it as being Arab
land and not Jewish land. Can Arabs do the same and concede Israel as
being Jewish land?

One evil excuses and valorises another. We should not expect Jews to
behave any better than Islam or Christendom when it comes to conquest,
prejudice and oppression. After all you have only to open the pages of
the Old Testament upon which all 3 main religions are based to see
that God's love is wrathful and terrible to behold. I just thought
that as you are a man or woman of the 21st century then you might have
grown up a little and not seen fit to protect and apologize for these
evils.

Quote:

Many tribal lands

are conquered by large empires, but have gotten their independence
since.

And far more have not.

Which have not? Oh yeah, Kurdistan which is still under the control of
two Arab, one Turkish and one Iranian country.
Yes there are many people who do not have their own independent state,
Including the Lakota Indians, who recently seceded from the United
States to the notice of NOBODY else in the country :)

The major difference between the Jewish case and that of most
other small conquered peoples, is that the Jews went into exile but
managed to preserve their identity and never gave up their claim to
their homeland,
And neither have the American Indians or Maori - to name but two.

And I fully support them. In the US I have understood since childhood
that I am living on Indian land. I cannot speak for New Zealanders
about how they feel occupyng Maori lands. But if the INdians come to
power and take back the country, I won't take up arms against them.
My country may be America, but my homeland is Israel, and I never
confuse the two. America is the homeland of its indigenous peoples,
and everyone else is either the descendent of settlers, or a recent
settler himself.

and indeed enshrined it as the second major part of
its tribal religion. Also, thanks to the Jewish legal system, they
managed to even prosper in exile in many cases. But with most other
cases, the locals were either assimilated or killed off or both. In
America, the remnants of many native "Indian" nations languish in
miniscule parts of their ancient land we call "reservations" and some
only prosper slightly due to gambling and no cigarette taxes.

2) The Jews had originally stolen the land from the indigenous
inhabitants after their trek from Egypt.

The Canaanites, who preceded the Hebrews by some 1,000 years, had
destroyed the earlier inhabitants before them. They too were not
indigenous.

So tel me does that justify that Palestine is a Jewish "tribal land" -
I think not.

Many recent archaeologists now believe that the Hebrews were mostly
Canaanites who came to believe in this new religion, just as Mormons
came to believe what they believe, and wrote their own holy book.
Hebrew is the only extant Canaanite language. Perhaps Abraham garnered
a lot of Canaanite followers?

Um - they would say that wouldn't they? think the reference to
Mormons is confused the parallel would be to suggest that Indians had
become Mormons - they have not!

Quote:

In 1948 Jews took control by a coup one day before the British mandate
was over and without the blessing of the British as the Argreement had
not been settled.

Quote:

But the League of Nations was created in 1919, and it was
decided to return the land to the Jewish people while giving non-Jews
full civic and religious rights in what was intended to become the
Jewish National Home.
The League of Nations had no Internationally recognized legal right to
do that, as it excluded from its number all the opposing interests in
this matter.

That's like saying the UN had no internationally recognized legal
rights because when it was formed in 1945

You are being an ignorant twat now. The League of Nations had no legal
status, was not even recognised by the USA and included NO Arab states
in its foundation. Palestine in particular had no representative
becasue Britain was arrogant enough to think it represented Palestine
due to the Mandate. Any agreements formed concerning Palestine/Isreal
were exactly like being charged with a crime without being present at
your own court case.

, most states were still

Quote:

under colonial rule. In any case, prior to the creation of the League
of Nations, the only law was might makes right: You conquered it, you
owned it. The League decided who got their own independent countries,
and who didn't. The Kurds, for example, didn't. Eventually, the Arabs
got 21 countries. And if they had only gotten one huge country, say a
Caliphate, they then would have had only one vote in the League or the
UN.

Yes and what a cock up it was. cite Kuwait, Iran, Iraq. British
Cartography was not a science equipped to decide upon cultural
boundaries, as the continued strife of the Middle East has shown.

Quote:

The Mandate to administer Palestine was given to
Britain, for the purpose of helping resurrect the Jewish homeland.
Now you are contradicting yourself (above).

Where and how am I contradicting myself?

You stated the the British "could do what they wanted with it". Well
the conditions for the Jewish homeland for Isreal had not been decided
or agreed upon by 1948. The Jewish terrorists under Moshe Dyan etal
seized control. As they represented a minority problems were sure to
follow.

Quote:

But

immediately upon this, eastern Palestine was turned into an Arab
state, under the rule of an emir from Mecca, Abdullah, and was renamed
Transjordan. So that larger part of Palestine was taken away from
Jewish settlement, and given to the Arabs to rule.

and with the holocaust in mind was seeking
ways to peacefully establish a homeland for Jews.

YOu mean right after WWI, in 1920, the European powers already
anticipated the rise of Hitler and the genocide of the Jews of Europe?
Arab nonsense. Talk about historical revisionism.

No, you dolt! - I am talking about the Jews throwing away any chance
of a peacful settlement by taking Israel by force with terrorism. 1948

Nobody took anything by force. Israel's right as the Jewish homeland
and as a Jewish state was enshrined by the League of Nations and
subsequently, in much smaller form, the Jewish state. The Arabs tried
to FORCE a reversal of these decisions by violence and their defeat
created two refugee problems, the "Palestinian" one, and the Jewish
refugee problem of the 850,000 Jews who subsequently fled or were
forced out of the Arab countries.

Jews seized control one day before the Mandate was up. get over it
sweetie!

Quote:

However....
4) A Jewish terrorist organisation took the law into its own hands and
seized the land from the Palestinians, on the eve of the ending of the
mandate.

Total ahistorical bullshit.
I think you owe it to yourself to read the history of this moment, as
you are sorely confused.

You're going to teach ME the history of that period? That's
pathetically unfunny.

Quote wiki:
After 1945 the United Kingdom became embroiled in an increasingly
violent conflict with the Jews.[49] In 1947, the British government
withdrew from commitment to the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was
unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.[50]
The newly-created United Nations approved the UN Partition Plan
(United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947,
dividing the country into two states, one Arab and one Jewish.
Jerusalem was to be designated an international city – a corpus
separatum – administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.
[51] The Jewish community accepted the plan,[52] but the Arab League
and Arab Higher Committee rejected it.[53]

So?

So, put you brain back in!

Quote:

Regardless, the State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948, one
day before the expiry of the British Mandate for Palestine.[54],

So?

SO, put your fucking brain back in!

Quote:

No -its your Jewish prejudiced reading of history which is a fault
here. You can find these %ages from Wiki and many other places.

The Arabs rejected the UN's proposal and

Quote:

the Jews accepted.

Oh - so that's okay is it? The fact that the Arabs rejected it is
clearly of no consequence to you as a Jew - afterall they are only
semi-human!

Then the Arabs attacked the UN authorized Jewish

Quote:

state. As for "massive attempts to swamp the land with immigrants
since 1922," while I agree that too few Jews took up the challenge,
and many who did returned to Europe due to the poverty and hardship
and Arab violence they found there. Most later died at the hands of
the Nazis. But, the fact is that between 1918 and 1948, the Arab
population more than doubled thanks to investments, jobs, and health
services provided by the Jewish funded health services that were
opened to Arabs. And since 1948, the Arab population that has remained
in Israel went from some 140,000 to nearly 1.4 million, or grew ten
times in 60 years! Let's look at the facts. Prior to 1948, there were
1.2 million Arabs living west of the Jordan river. Today, more than
that number live inside Israel, and an additional 4 million live in
the West Bank and Gaza. Or, over 5.2 million Arabs live in what was
Mandatory Palestine in 1947. By contrast, some 1 million Jews lived in
the Arab and Muslim countries in 1947. How many Jews still live in the
Arab and other Muslim countries today? Less than 50,000 if you include
Iran. So, in summation, whereas the Arab population of western
Palestine grew 4-5 times, from 1.2M to 5.2M, the Jewish population of
Muslim countries declined from 1 million to less than 50,000, or by
over 95%. So who is guilty of ethnic cleansing? If you gave those
hard facts and figures to a ...

You can make up as many figured on the spot as you like - it won't
change the fact that the Israel was not an authorised move.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

jgarbuz
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: Re: The Jewish claim to Isreal in Perspective.

On Jul 10, 9:22 am, David Hume <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 7, 4:09 pm,jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:

On Jul 7, 9:30 am, David Hume <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 7, 1:49 pm,jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:

1) Before 1948 there had been no Jewish state in the region since
before the time of emperor Hadrian, and then only a client state of
the Roman Empire.

True. That doesn't mean it ceased to be Jewish land.

Sadly the same can be said of Palestinians who have bee dispossessed.

Same is true of the Jews of Arabia who founded Medina (Yathrib) and
were dispossessed by Muhammad.They come from Judea some 500 years
before Muhammad was born, but that did not stop him from dispossessing
and kicking them out (after beheading hundreds). Nonetheless, even
though Jews lived and farmed that part of the Hijaz for at least 5
centuries before Muhammad, I will nonetheless concede it as being Arab
land and not Jewish land. Can Arabs do the same and concede Israel as
being Jewish land?

One evil excuses and valorises another. We should not expect Jews to
behave any better than Islam or Christendom when it comes to conquest,

Oh, but Jews have acted MUCH MUCH MUCH better. Jews have NEVER claimed
any other land as their own.
Only the Land of Israel and nobody else's land. Islam claims, under
its doctrine of Dar al Islam versus Dar al Harb that every land MUST
eventually submit and come under the banner of the only true faith,
Islam. Islam means "submission." Christendom was also expansionist,
claiming that no one could come to the Father but through the Son, and
anyone who demurred was damned to hell. But I agree, that when it
comes to the conquest of OUR tiny land, then no mercy be shown to
those who resist. But we have shown mercy. We did not exterminate the
Palestinians. THere are even nearly 5 times as many Arabs in
"Palestine" as there was in 1947. So, like Saul who refused to follow
the command of the prophet Samuel to exterminate the Amalekites, and
thereby lost his dynasty to King David whom Samuel chose in his stead
to do the dirty work, and who united the tribes into one kingdom after
finishing off the Philistines , so Israel today is paying the price
for not wiping out the Palestinian Arabs in 1948. By being merciful to
our mortal enemies, we only destroy ourselves.

Quote:

prejudice and oppression. After all you have only to open the pages of
the Old Testament upon which all 3 main religions are based to see
that God's love is wrathful and terrible to behold. I just thought
that as you are a man or woman of the 21st century then you might have
grown up a little and not seen fit to protect and apologize for these
evils.

They were not evils. The Amalekites were ordered to be destroyed
(though Saul failed to fully carry out the command) because they would
never cease to war against the Jewish people, and they spread their
antisemtic blood thoughout much of the world And the Canaanites were
ordered to be destroyed (though they too weren't) because of their
practice of infanticide, or child sacrifice. This fact has been
confirmed by archaeological discoveries both in Israel, and even more
widespread in the area of Tunisia that was once Carthage. The
Carthaginians were descendents of Canaanites who had fled Canaan, and
some 800 urns with sacrificed babies were dug up there. So, yes, our
"Old Testament" does demand that evil be crushed.

Quote:

Many tribal lands

are conquered by large empires, but have gotten their independence
since.

And far more have not.

Which have not? Oh yeah, Kurdistan which is still under the control of
two Arab, one Turkish and one Iranian country.
Yes there are many people who do not have their own independent state,
Including the Lakota Indians, who recently seceded from the United
States to the notice of NOBODY else in the country :)

The major difference between the Jewish case and that of most
other small conquered peoples, is that the Jews went into exile but
managed to preserve their identity and never gave up their claim to
their homeland,

And neither have the American Indians or Maori - to name but two.

And I fully support them. In the US I have understood since childhood
that I am living on Indian land. I cannot speak for New Zealanders
about how they feel occupyng Maori lands. But if the INdians come to
power and take back the country, I won't take up arms against them.
My country may be America, but my homeland is Israel, and I never
confuse the two. America is the homeland of its indigenous peoples,
and everyone else is either the descendent of settlers, or a recent
settler himself.

and indeed enshrined it as the second major part of
its tribal religion. Also, thanks to the Jewish legal system, they
managed to even prosper in exile in many cases. But with most other
cases, the locals were either assimilated or killed off or both. In
America, the remnants of many native "Indian" nations languish in
miniscule parts of their ancient land we call "reservations" and some
only prosper slightly due to gambling and no cigarette taxes.

2) The Jews had originally stolen the land from the indigenous
inhabitants after their trek from Egypt.

The Canaanites, who preceded the Hebrews by some 1,000 years, had
destroyed the earlier inhabitants before them. They too were not
indigenous.

So tel me does that justify that Palestine is a Jewish "tribal land" -
I think not.

Many recent archaeologists now believe that the Hebrews were mostly
Canaanites who came to believe in this new religion, just as Mormons
came to believe what they believe, and wrote their own holy book.
Hebrew is the only extant Canaanite language. Perhaps Abraham garnered
a lot of Canaanite followers?

Um - they would say that wouldn't they? think the reference to
Mormons is confused the parallel would be to suggest that Indians had
become Mormons - they have not!

What is meant that many Hebrews may actually have been Canaanites who
came to have a different faith than the majority.

Quote:

Haven't a clue as to what you're talking about and I am SURE you
definitely don't.

Quote:

But the League of Nations was created in 1919, and it was
decided to return the land to the Jewish people while giving non-Jews
full civic and religious rights in what was intended to become the
Jewish National Home.

The League of Nations had no Internationally recognized legal right to
do that, as it excluded from its number all the opposing interests in
this matter.

That's like saying the UN had no internationally recognized legal
rights because when it was formed in 1945

You are being an ignorant twat now. The League of Nations had no legal
status, was not even recognised by the USA and included NO Arab states
in its foundation.

You're an ignorant cunt. The League of Nations was founded by Britain,
France, Italy, Japan and others, and did come to have Arab member
states in it later on, in the 1930s, when there were Arab states.
Saudi ARabia became a member. Ethiopia was a member. But the
Conservative Republican- controlled US Congress chose not to ratify
Liberal Democrat Wilson's "baby" and so the treaty was not ratified
and the US did not join. And there were no Arab states in 1919 stupid.
All 22 million Arabs up to that time had been under the dominion of
the Turkish Ottoman Empire. There was no "Palestine." There was no
Iraq. There was no Transjordan. All those and more were creations of
the League of Nations.

Quote:

Palestine in particular had no representative
becasue Britain was arrogant enough to think it represented Palestine
due to the Mandate.

There were no "Palestinians" in 1920. The only people who called
themselves Palestinians were the Jewish settlers there. The Arabs
called themselves Arabs. Or, they called themselves Southern Syrians
(Al Shams) as "Palestine" had been a part of the Syrian province for a
long period of time. But in actuality there was no district or
province (Sanjak or Wilayet) called "Palestine" for 400 years under
the rule of the Ottoman empire. The area was divided into a number of
different districts. In the north Haifa and Acre were in the Sanjak
of Acre. The center was in the sanjak of Nablus. Jerusalem and Gaza,
Beersheba etc, were part of the Sanjak of Jerusalem. What later became
"Jordan" was divided into the Sanjak of Hauran and Sanjaq of Maan.,
the latter being part of the Wilayet of Syria. IN plain language,
under the 400 years of Ottoman rule prior to WWI, there was no such
unified area called "Palestine" in that empire.

Quote:

Any agreements formed concerning Palestine/Isreal
were exactly like being charged with a crime without being present at
your own court case.

They had no case. Period. They had as much case for an independent
state as the Jews once had in Brooklyn.

Quote:

, most states were still

under colonial rule. In any case, prior to the creation of the League
of Nations, the only law was might makes right: You conquered it, you
owned it. The League decided who got their own independent countries,
and who didn't. The Kurds, for example, didn't. Eventually, the Arabs
got 21 countries. And if they had only gotten one huge country, say a
Caliphate, they then would have had only one vote in the League or the
UN.

Yes and what a cock up it was. cite Kuwait, Iran, Iraq. British
Cartography was not a science equipped to decide upon cultural
boundaries, as the continued strife of the Middle East has shown.

That may be true, that the British and the League made mistakes in
their trying to create nation-states in the Middle East and Africa
(and Europe too), which lumped together different tribes and
ethnicities that were not crazy about each other. Yugoslavia in Europe
was a perfect case too. Nobody was satisfied at the time that the
League of Nations had done a great job. But in the wake of the breakup
of empires during WWI, and having promised many groups independence
and territory, it soon became obvious that it was too large and
complex a job for any bunch of well intentioned humans to do. Nothing
done could satisfy everybody. They tried their best, but their best
was obviously far from perfect. In recent decades Yugoslavia has
disintegrated into 6 states. The Czechs and Slovaks have parted ways.
And the USSR disintegrated into some 17 states, and there are still
groups (especially Muslim ones) that militate for independence.
Chechnya is the most obvious but not only case.
The tectonic plates are constantly moving, and earthquakes erupt from
time to time.

Quote:

Of course that was the way things were done before President Wilson
came up with his genius ideas of "self-determination" and the creation
of a League of Nations. Actually, Britain and France were not crazy
about the idea, but Wilson was determined. Ironically, he could not
get it passed in Congress and died a sick man as a result.

Quote:

Well
the conditions for the Jewish homeland for Isreal had not been decided
or agreed upon by 1948. The Jewish terrorists under Moshe Dyan etal
seized control. As they represented a minority problems were sure to
follow.

You are talking pure shit with no connection to history whatsoever.
WHy not discuss what you know about, like UFOs maybe? Please, if you
don't study history seriously, don't make it up as you go along Smile

If
you don't know what you're talking about, don' t talk. Or talk to
other fools instead.

Quote:

Just plain nonsense. Britain said it was going to roll down the Union
Jack and leave on May 14th, 1948, and the Jews and Arabs could do what
they want. The Jews declared a state, and the Arabs went to war to
crush it rather than creating one of their own next door for the
"Palestinians."

Quote:

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

David Hume
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: Re: The Jewish claim to Isreal in Perspective.

On Jul 10, 6:38 pm, jgarbuz <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 10, 9:22 am, David Hume <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 7, 4:09 pm,jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:30 am, David Hume <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 7, 1:49 pm,jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:

1) Before 1948 there had been no Jewish state in the region since
before the time of emperor Hadrian, and then only a client state of
the Roman Empire.

True. That doesn't mean it ceased to be Jewish land.

Sadly the same can be said of Palestinians who have bee dispossessed.

Same is true of the Jews of Arabia who founded Medina (Yathrib) and
were dispossessed by Muhammad.They come from Judea some 500 years
before Muhammad was born, but that did not stop him from dispossessing
and kicking them out (after beheading hundreds). Nonetheless, even
though Jews lived and farmed that part of the Hijaz for at least 5
centuries before Muhammad, I will nonetheless concede it as being Arab
land and not Jewish land. Can Arabs do the same and concede Israel as
being Jewish land?

One evil excuses and valorises another. We should not expect Jews to
behave any better than Islam or Christendom when it comes to conquest,

Oh, but Jews have acted MUCH MUCH MUCH better. Jews have NEVER claimed
any other land as their own.

Oh for fucks sake - Stop bleating! You are beginning to sound utterly
absurd!
Open Exodus you idiot! There is plenty of violence, rape and mayhem.
Indeed god more than encourages Jews to rape, murder, take the women
of their enemies, kill their children, take land by force and
ethnically cleanse them.
The bible is a record of Jews claiming a land other than their own,
and this land is claimed in blood and suffering.

We all know this well enough. The European empires had a copy of it in
one hand and a sword in another as it subdued the rest of the planet
in the name of your god.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

jgarbuz
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:28 am Post subject: Re: The Jewish claim to Isreal in Perspective.

On Jul 10, 7:32 pm, David Hume <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 10, 6:38 pm,jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 9:22 am, David Hume <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 7, 4:09 pm,jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:30 am, David Hume <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 7, 1:49 pm,jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:

1) Before 1948 there had been no Jewish state in the region since
before the time of emperor Hadrian, and then only a client state of
the Roman Empire.

True. That doesn't mean it ceased to be Jewish land.

Sadly the same can be said of Palestinians who have bee dispossessed.

Same is true of the Jews of Arabia who founded Medina (Yathrib) and
were dispossessed by Muhammad.They come from Judea some 500 years
before Muhammad was born, but that did not stop him from dispossessing
and kicking them out (after beheading hundreds). Nonetheless, even
though Jews lived and farmed that part of the Hijaz for at least 5
centuries before Muhammad, I will nonetheless concede it as being Arab
land and not Jewish land. Can Arabs do the same and concede Israel as
being Jewish land?

One evil excuses and valorises another. We should not expect Jews to
behave any better than Islam or Christendom when it comes to conquest,

Oh, but Jews have acted MUCH MUCH MUCH better. Jews have NEVER claimed
any other land as their own.

Oh for fucks sake - Stop bleating! You are beginning to sound utterly
absurd!

You're absurd. You bleat like a lost goat.

Quote:

Open Exodus you idiot! There is plenty of violence, rape and mayhem.
Indeed god more than encourages Jews to rape, murder, take the women
of their enemies, kill their children, take land by force and
ethnically cleanse them.

So what? You find the same kind of stuff in the Iliad and the Odyssey
and many other mythological books of the Gentile tribes and their
gods. So what if our epics and stories have that stuff? They are all
just old tribal stories. Why do you make a big deal about it?

Quote:

The bible is a record of Jews claiming a land other than their own,
and this land is claimed in blood and suffering.

The "Bible" is a collection of epics, stories, lore and laws of my
ancient ancestors. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Quote:

We all know this well enough. The European empires had a copy of it in
one hand and a sword in another as it subdued the rest of the planet
in the name of your god.

What's that got to do with my people? We didn't conquer the Americas.
If the Gentiles want to carry around and enjoy our ancient literature,
it's okay with me. But don't hold me responsible for what others do
with it. The Arabs had a copy f the Koran on their end of their swords
too. What's your point?

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

David Hume
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: Re: The Jewish claim to Isreal in Perspective.

On Jul 11, 1:28 am, jgarbuz <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 10, 7:32 pm, David Hume <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 6:38 pm,jgarbu