Israel is guilty of occupation, apartheid and colonialism,

[palerider]

I am curious as to why you feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks. You could perhaps begin with a more substantial defence, ie. the human rights violations being a side effect in providing security for vulnerable Israeli civilians. That would be a good start.

Kindly point out any ad homenim attack I have made.

Clearly, Lilly Marlene and palerider miss WANT_FREE's objective in his post; to shed light on the human rights violations within the OPT….. not to incite interpretation of religious texts, as I am sure they are not theologians.

The original post in this thread is little more than anti semitic bloviation. And even a cursory reading of the post will reveal that I was not the one who brought the interpretation of religious texts into this discussion. The religious texts, however, are far more interesting thant the anti semitic rant that began the thread in the first place.

The fact is, as I pointed out initially, that arabs living within Israel, have far more human rights than they would have if living in their own respective countries.

course I understand that religion is variable when we discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but surely this discussion has gone astray... Stick to the facts and the reports, as I am sure we have all heard the curt replies once too many times.

Conversation tends to wander. If you don't like the direction this one has taken, you are free to start a new thread and discuss with the administration the possibility of deleting any post that doesn't strictly adhere to your original premise. Personally, I am not interested in discussing, in detail, the anti semitic post that began this thread.

Call everyone you want an anti-Semite (which apparently, for palerider, seems to include the UN, simply on the basis of its criticism of the state of Israel), but human rights violations still remain human rights violations, no matter how eloquently you reinterpret them.

Of course the UN is anti semitic. Care for some of the more blatant examples of anti semitic speech on the floor of the UN?

"Is it not the Jews who are exploiting the American people and trying to debase them?"- Libyan UN Representative Ali Treiki.

"The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity." -Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi before the 1984 UN Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance.A similar remark was made by the Syrian Ambassador at a 1991 meeting, who insisted Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzos.

(It should be noted that no effort was made by the UN to address these statements or correct those who made them.)

On March 11, 1997, the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission claimed the Israeli government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. (despite the efforts of Israel, the United States and others, this blood libel remains on the UN record.)

There are other examples:

In 1975, at the instigation of the Arab states and the Soviet Bloc, the Assembly approved Resolution 3379, which slandered Zionism by branding it a form of racism.

Bloc voting also made possible the establishment of the pro-PLO "Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People" in 1975. The panel became, in effect, part of the PLO propaganda apparatus, issuing stamps, organizing meetings, preparing films and draft resolutions in support of Palestinian "rights."

The Commission on Human Rights routinely adopts totally disproportionate resolutions concerning Israel. Of all condemnations of this agency, 26 percent refer to Israel alone, while rogue states such as Syria are never criticized.

For 52 years Israel has been the only UN member excluded from a regional group. Geographically, it belongs in the Asian Group; however, the Arab states have barred its membership. Without membership in a regional group, Israel cannot sit on the Security Council or other key UN bodies.

When I see anti semitism, I will point it out. Suggesting that simply crying anti semitism is some sort of dodge in the issue is a very poor tactic when the anti semitism is easily illustrated. Refer above. Over 25 % of the commission on human rights resolutions are against Israel. Are you going to try to defend the notion that Israel is committs over 25% of the human rights violations in the world?

If one were to call for the destruction of the state of Israel, yeah, that is anti Semitic. But it seems that now, a mere criticism of the Israeli state makes a person an anti-Semite.

Anti semitism need not be so blatant and the suggestion that loud and destructive rhetoric must be present in order for anti semitism to be present is anti semitic in itself.

 

[inbadfaith]

Firstly, an attempt to make one wrong right by another wrong is circular and unreasonable. It is like condemning the UN for being corrupt, and then having it defend itself by stating that the US government is more corrupt. It gets us nowhere. The issue at hand is the OPT.

Secondly, you seem to be fighting an invisible monster... I don't think anyone on this page posted anything about hating Jews, they simply criticise the Jewish STATE. I agree with you that many nations are anti-Semitic and it is resonant in your aforementioned texts, but I don’t see your point. Are you just going to condemn any remark as anti-Semitic?

Which leads me to the issue of ad hominem attacks… Rather than questioning or responding to the initial post, you seem to already have preconceived notions and prejudices against those who make criticisms. I did not read through all of your posts, but it seems unfair to disregard all that WANT_FREE has presented. If he were to be an anti-Semite, his points still remain valid.

Sure, you can call someone racist, but that doesn’t solve anything. I am sure the person already knows that they are indeed racist… but how about probing the cause of their racism? Why are people anti-Semitic in the first place? I am sure that you can understand WHY, even as an adamant Israel white knight.

Palerider, I am curious as to what you suggest.

Do you support the treatment of the Palestinians now? Do you agree with the building of the wall? Do you want an independent state of Palestine? How about a return to the 1967 borders? What do you think of lack of free movement, and how difficult it is to get into Palestine for outsiders?

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Greetings, inbadfaith -
I see that you mentioned something I said; I only had time to scan a part of your post quickly but would like to read it later ... right now I'm just stopping in here for a minute to post some stuff for palerider.

I don't feel that palerider is calling any poster an antisemite or a racist.

Look forward to talking to you,
Lilly

 

[Lilly Marlene]

palerider, here we are:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/index.cfm

In particular, please click on two headings:

* "Scriptures" (they have the verses and the "Three Oaths" but I don't know how to cut and paste pdf)
and
* "Rabbis and Sages".

Talk to you later,
Lilly

 

[inbadfaith]

Apologies, Lilly,


I did not call him a racist, I was using it as an example.


In his first post, he called the previous person an anti-Semite.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Apologies, Lilly,


I did not call him a racist, I was using it as an example.

Good evening inbadfaith,

I'm sorry, I didn't mean YOU were calling anyone a racist; I just meant I didn't think that palerider was calling any poster a racist or an antisemite.
Heh,
the confusion is probably owing to all of our being short one hour of sleep today !!

In his first post, he called the previous person an anti-Semite.

I think he was referring to the author John Dugard, rather than the poster who presented the material.

Even so, your point is well taken about exploring the basis for the antisemitism.
The only aspect of that on which I'd take issue is ...it is anti-Zionism rather than antisemitism.
Note:
if hostility towards the State of Israel were rooted in antisemitism, then the Neturei Karta one would be demonstrating virulent prejudice against themselves ...but what they are opposing is not Jews, but the State of Israel.
[please see the links on them which I posted for palerider].

Again I hope that is readable; I'm adversely affected by the "springing forward" so I should put myself to bed now.
Good night,
Lilly

 

[palerider]

Firstly, an attempt to make one wrong right by another wrong is circular and unreasonable. It is like condemning the UN for being corrupt, and then having it defend itself by stating that the US government is more corrupt. It gets us nowhere. The issue at hand is the OPT.

First, you were the one who, in an offhand way, suggested that it was laughable in some way that I might suppose that the UN was an anti semitic organization. It clearly is not laughable as they are. Remember that you brought the UN into this discussion.

Secondly, you seem to be fighting an invisible monster... I don't think anyone on this page posted anything about hating Jews, they simply criticise the Jewish STATE. I agree with you that many nations are anti-Semitic and it is resonant in your aforementioned texts, but I don’t see your point. Are you just going to condemn any remark as anti-Semitic?

The initial post in this thread references an article by one John Dugard who is well known for a long history of anti israel and anti anti semiticl positions. There are times when one is correct in pointing out anti semitism.

Which leads me to the issue of ad hominem attacks… Rather than questioning or responding to the initial post, you seem to already have preconceived notions and prejudices against those who make criticisms. I did not read through all of your posts, but it seems unfair to disregard all that WANT_FREE has presented. If he were to be an anti-Semite, his points still remain valid.

Pardon me. I was under the impression that in the company of intelligent people, that responding to Duggard's points one by one was not really necessary. If you require that I point out how wrong he is, then I will gladly accomodate you.

I addressed the issue of occupation already. Israel came to be on the "occupied" land as a result of being attacked. They withdrew from the vast majority of the land that they gained when they were attacked already and the ones who are complaining about the small sliver that they still hold have no claim on it at all as there has never existed a palestinian nation. They are simply arabs that happen to have been on land that changed hands during a military action. Had they chose to get along with the new landlords rather than declare war on the civilian population things would have went quite differently for them.

The bulk of his argument seems to revolve around the notion of Apartheid. I genuinely didn't think that there were people here who were unaware of know how wrong mr dugard was in that characterization.

The goal of the afrikaners in instituting apartheid was to eliminate the rights of black South-Africans by stripping them of citizenship in their own country.

This being said, one can not even begin to make the argument that Israel is engaging in anything even like apartheid. Mr dugard simply says it for effect and the anti israel factions let it stand and then catcall at anyone who points out his anti semitism. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza never were citizens of Israel, and as a group, expressed the political wish to remain citizens of Jordan and Egypt after the land they live on was won in war. One should properly note that both Jordan and Egypt have refused to take back those areas since they signed peace-treaties with Israel. One should also note that nearly twenty percent of the population of Israel proper are Arabs, who vote, sit in the Knesset, and have access to the same services and privileges as other citizens of Israel. Those would be the arabs that opted to get along with the new landlords as opposed to blowing up women and children on busses and in markets.

Sorry, I got off on a tangent there. Apartheid was instituted by the afrikaners by geographically separating black south africans from white south africans through the institution of Bantustans, which which were intended to eventually become permanent 'homelands' for the blacks outside of South-Africa and it was hoped that these would be acknowledged by the international community. For this reason, the black population was literally moved and blacks were permanently barred from many areas.

Israel has forced no citizens to move (except for Isralies who were taken from Gaza when Israel gave it to the Palestinians) and arab citizens of Israel continue to live exactly where they have since 1948. Except, of course for the Palestinians in the territories Their area is already internationally acknowledged as being separate - which is by their stated wish. One should also note that a very large portion of the Westbank is Judenrein, (literally "clensed of jews") as it became when Jordan seized the territory in 1948 - few of the Jews who lived there before the war have returned palestinian attitudes make it a bad plan to go back.

Mr dugard then goes on to rant about colonialism which I belive is covered under my explanation of his errors with regard to apartheid. It should be noted again, however, that those poor souls that he accuses Israel of separating have separated themselves by their wishes and by their actions. His characterization is patently anti semitic as what he says is only said for effect as there is no actual truth in it.

Then calling police actions, and the actions of the palestinians war crimes is another example of saying things simply for effect and his suggestion that Israel has fired more rockets into palestinian areas than the palastenians have fired into israel is a blatant lie.

I guess while I am at it, I should also point out that mr dugard identifies jews as a race. A racist act.

Sure, you can call someone racist, but that doesn’t solve anything. I am sure the person already knows that they are indeed racist… but how about probing the cause of their racism? Why are people anti-Semitic in the first place? I am sure that you can understand WHY, even as an adamant Israel white knight.

Mr duggard has a long and well known history of anti semitism. This is just one more rant on his part that has little, if any real truth in it. He speaks for effect and depends upon his anti semitic readers to defend him.

I agree that there is racism in that part of the world. The racists, however, are not Isralies. They attack when attacked, and when intelligence indicates imenent attack. Their attacks are based on a threat, or a percieved threat and not on the race or religion of those who represent the threat. The palestinians, and all anti israel arabs is clearly racist as their objection is based on nothing more than religion (which they characterize as race).

Palerider, I am curious as to what you suggest.

Do you support the treatment of the Palestinians now? Do you agree with the building of the wall? Do you want an independent state of Palestine? How about a return to the 1967 borders? What do you think of lack of free movement, and how difficult it is to get into Palestine for outsiders?

The "palestinians" are where they are now, and living in the conditions that they are living in by their own choice. Clearly arabs are welcome in Israel as they live peacefully within the cities and are very active within the government and actually hold office.

And no. I don't support an independent palestinian state. Unless of course, the jordanians would care to give back the portion of the palestinian mandate that they occupied. Are you aware that 80% of jordan consists of land that they drove the palestinians off of?

The wall? Of course I agree with it. It has achieved its stated purpose and was only built as a last resort. Suicide bombings have decreased sharply.

And the "palestinians" are unable to move freely as a result of their own actions.

 

[palerider]

palerider, here we are:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/index.cfm

In particular, please click on two headings:

* "Scriptures" (they have the verses and the "Three Oaths" but I don't know how to cut and paste pdf)
and
* "Rabbis and Sages".

Talk to you later,
Lilly

Thanks. As I pointed out earlier, these scriptures are to be read in the context of the return of Elijah. The prophecy at the end of Malachai states that upon the return of Elijah, Israel will either be reunited, or a curse will fall upon them. The didn't recognize Elijah when he returned and were therefore cursed.

These scriptures also speak to the land that God promised them. As I pointed out earlier, the land they are promised is considerably larger than the land they presently reside on. If you don't want to support Israel, or just don't like jews, that is fine, but don't try to use these scriptures as any sort of valid reasoning. They have been deliberately misinterpreted by a very small group for reasons that they aren't prepared to speak publicly.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Thanks. As I pointed out earlier, these scriptures are to be read in the context of the return of Elijah. The prophecy at the end of Malachai states that upon the return of Elijah, Israel will either be reunited, or a curse will fall upon them. The didn't recognize Elijah when he returned and were therefore cursed.

palerider, I'm guessing that when you refer to Elijah whom they didn't recognize, you mean John the Baptist (as per Christ's identification in the NT).
Please note:
at the time of John the Baptist, Israel did not NEED to be reunited; their Diaspora ("scattering") occurred a generation or two later in 70 AD.

These scriptures also speak to the land that God promised them. As I pointed out earlier, the land they are promised is considerably larger than the land they presently reside on.

1. The Ashkenazic Jews (who began to come to the area in significant numbers in the late nineteenth century with Theodore Hertzl and eventually founded the modern State of Israel) are not the same people to whom God in the Bible promised that land. They are Europeans, whose origins are in the Caucasus areas, and who converted to Judaism in a documented historical conversion initiated by their king.

2. What if another group of people had verses in their Holy Book which featured God giving them a large portion of North America as properly theirs, say Wyoming ?
How would we like it,
if they just started coming over and relocating anyone who lived in Wyoming, and instituting their own sovereign nation ?
How would we feel about a superpower if it began underwriting that ?

3. When you allude to the fact that the area was bigger than present day Israel, am I correct in guessing that you advocate further expansion for them ? If so, how do you think that is going to be received by Muslims in the Middle East ?

I felt it was very heartening when I read yesterday that Olmert is prepared to "treat seriously" the Saudi ideas for peace.
I'll try to keep up to date on that.

I also want to read - when I have more time - the second part of what you wrote to inbadfaith because it looks interesting.

If you don't want to support Israel, or just don't like jews, that is fine, but don't try to use these scriptures as any sort of valid reasoning.

Will you kindly not fling around insinuations that people might just "not like Jews" if they object to the actions of the State of Israel !
The very existence of the Neturei Karta shows the lame reasoning involved in that suggestion.

They have been deliberately misinterpreted by a very small group for reasons that they aren't prepared to speak publicly.

As I recall, they are not permitted many chances to speak publicly when any possibility of national exposure is involved ...
You know,
It sounds as though you are saying a group of Orthodox Jews has a covert agenda and a secret reason for opposing the State of Israel.
Will you please tell me what you suppose that would be ?
And
by the way, they are not so 'very small' a group either. If you went to the "Rabbis and Sages" section, you will have seen that it's been a substantial number throughout the last one hundred plus years who have spoken their opposition. Note that many held the title "Chief Rabbi" in European cities like Paris and Cologne.

Talk to you all later ...have a nice afternoon,
Lilly

 

[palerider]

palerider, I'm guessing that when you refer to Elijah whom they didn't recognize, you mean John the Baptist (as per Christ's identification in the NT).
Please note:
at the time of John the Baptist, Israel did not NEED to be reunited; their Diaspora ("scattering") occurred a generation or two later in 70 AD.

And exactly what is a generation in time to God?

1. The Ashkenazic Jews (who began to come to the area in significant numbers in the late nineteenth century with Theodore Hertzl and eventually founded the modern State of Israel) are not the same people to whom God in the Bible promised that land. They are Europeans, whose origins are in the Caucasus areas, and who converted to Judaism in a documented historical conversion initiated by their king.

I wasn't aware that God had said that only "these" jews are his chosen people but not "those" jews. Maybe I missed something?

2. What if another group of people had verses in their Holy Book which featured God giving them a large portion of North America as properly theirs, say Wyoming ?
How would we like it,

Personally, I wouldn't argue. Historically speaking, anyone who goes after Israel tends to end up on God's s*it list and in turn gets the crap kicked out of them.

if they just started coming over and relocating anyone who lived in Wyoming, and instituting their own sovereign nation ?

There has never been a nation of palestine, if that is what you are referring to. Prior to the establishment of the state of israel, there were never any people who even identified themselves as palestinians. And the only people that Israel has relocated have been the Isralies who were forcibly removed (when necessary) from Gaza.

3. When you allude to the fact that the area was bigger than present day Israel, am I correct in guessing that you advocate further expansion for them ? If so, how do you think that is going to be received by Muslims in the Middle East ?

Here is a map of the area with the land God has promised them colored yellow. If God himself gives it to them, I doubt that it matters how the muslims recieve it. They should probably count themselves lucky if they aren't killed to the last woman and child as happened so often in biblical times when God gave lands to his people.

Will you kindly not fling around insinuations that people might just "not like Jews" if they object to the actions of the State of Israel !
The very existence of the Neturei Karta shows the lame reasoning involved in that suggestion.

Perhaps if people began their complaints with an acknowledgement that Israel did not "start" this and in largest part reacts to violence against them perhaps it would not appear that they simply have an axe to grind with Israel. There are others who are far more guilty in the situation there than Israel.

It sounds as though you are saying a group of Orthodox Jews has a covert agenda and a secret reason for opposing the State of Israel.

Are small groups of Orthodox Jews immune to covert agendas?

Will you please tell me what you suppose that would be ?

I am not an orthodox jew and therefore not privy to any agenda they have covert or otherwise.

And by the way, they are not so 'very small' a group either. If you went to the "Rabbis and Sages" section, you will have seen that it's been a substantial number throughout the last one hundred plus years who have spoken their opposition. Note that many held the title "Chief Rabbi" in European cities like Paris and Cologne.

They are a small group. So small that they have never had even the smallest chance of gaining political power via election even in areas in which their numbers are greatest.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

And exactly what is a generation in time to God?

Alright, but the disparity is not just about generations; it is also that the verses at issue describe a scenario where they are already "scattered" [I'm referring to the verses dealing with the Three Oaths, and that].

I wasn't aware that God had said that only "these" jews are his chosen people but not "those" jews. Maybe I missed something?

Alright, then let's think about that for a moment. As we hear repeatedly, being Jewish is not a racial thing. Thus, anyone who converts to Judaism as a religion would be entitled to a place in Israel, according to the reasoning you seem to embrace.

How large an area would you need to accommodate everyone on the globe who is Jewish in that sense, if they should choose to go there ?

In fact, if I am not mistaken (and I might be) ...there is a tribe of Africans who self identify as one of the Lost Tribes of Israel, as well.

I am going to guess that you are not concerned with how large an area would be needed -
but just think about the implications of that !
In other words, expansion into as much land as it would take ...at the expense of other people.

Personally, I wouldn't argue. Historically speaking, anyone who goes after Israel tends to end up on God's s*it list and in turn gets the crap kicked out of them.

But my question was not about Israel. I was asking you, how would we like it if ANOTHER people's holy book featured their God giving them OUR land.

There has never been a nation of palestine, if that is what you are referring to. Prior to the establishment of the state of israel, there were never any people who even identified themselves as palestinians. And the only people that Israel has relocated have been the Isralies who were forcibly removed (when necessary) from Gaza.

1. There might not have been people who called themselves Palestinians, but there was a land called Palestine (see the Balfour Declaration).

2. And there were people in it. How can you assert that they were not relocated ...given that Israel has refused them "the right of return" ?
Why would they be seeking a "right of return" had they not been there in the first place ?

Palerider, I have read some of the writings of David Horowitz on this topic - in fact I read some of his book titled "Unholy Alliance" ...I like to look at both sides of a story whenever possible.

He says similar things to what you've written. I don't think he is willfully misrepresenting, but I think he is mistaken and I'll give you one reason why I think that.

After saying that no one was relocated, and that no one had any use for that land anyway except to pass through it on nomadic journeys ...he then mentions a little later in his book "the thousands who seek to return".

Why on earth do you think they are boiling mad - enough to sacrifice their lives and the lives of their children ? Do you suppose people could mobilize themselves to that degree, simply from the desire to take land that had not really ever been their home ?
Or,
do you suppose that is all from hatred of Jews because of religious differences ?

Here is a map of the area with the land God has promised them colored yellow. If God himself gives it to them, I doubt that it matters how the muslims recieve it. They should probably count themselves lucky if they aren't killed to the last woman and child as happened so often in biblical times when God gave lands to his people.

Thank you, that is instructive.

Now suppose that - in the Koran - Allah gave Arabs an identical percentage of land in the United States.
Substitute point for point the course of those who founded Israel ...coming here to our country and doing the exact same things.
I am sure you're going to object that we have a nation here so it would be different.
But the people who were in Palestine lived there too so it's NOT essentially different.
In fact,
It's a lot like what our ancestors did to the American Indians.
We were bastards to them; this was their home even if it was not a formally announced country.

We can't undo that now, but we can at least not support a similar injustice in the Middle East.

Honestly,
if it's true that God wants the Jewish People to have all of that land (because it's in the Bible), then the verses must also be true (also in the Bible) which say that God Himself will establish them on it and that they are not to use force.

Perhaps if people began their complaints with an acknowledgement that Israel did not "start" this and in largest part reacts to violence against them perhaps it would not appear that they simply have an axe to grind with Israel. There are others who are far more guilty in the situation there than Israel.

I think the founders of the State of Israel did start this ...but it's all spilt milk now just like our "Manifest Destiny" which did such harm to the Indians.
And IMO it's time to just do what's the least harmful for everybody involved.

According to the Bible, God loves everyone, even the Palestinians ...so the land should be divided fairly. And if the Likuddists think God wants them to have the whole thing, they should wait on God to give it to them, as He told them to.

 

[palerider]

Alright, but the disparity is not just about generations; it is also that the verses at issue describe a scenario where they are already "scattered" [I'm referring to the verses dealing with the Three Oaths, and that].

The verses refer to prophecy. Propheycy necessarily speaks to things that are yet to happen. That aside, the verses you pointed me to must be read in the context of the return of Elijah. Since Elijah already returned, they are meaningless. If you believe the bible, the next time we see Elijah, he will be accompanied by Moses and they will be preaching against the antichrist. If you don't believe the bible, then using scripture to defend your position is disingenuous.

Alright, then let's think about that for a moment. As we hear repeatedly, being Jewish is not a racial thing. Thus, anyone who converts to Judaism as a religion would be entitled to a place in Israel, according to the reasoning you seem to embrace.

How large an area would you need to accommodate everyone on the globe who is Jewish in that sense, if they should choose to go there ?

In fact, if I am not mistaken (and I might be) ...there is a tribe of Africans who self identify as one of the Lost Tribes of Israel, as well.

The indicated land on the map I provided should just about do it.

But my question was not about Israel. I was asking you, how would we like it if ANOTHER people's holy book featured their God giving them OUR land.

That would depend entirely on which book it was coming from and the history of what happens if a nation actively engages them in war. Besides, Israel has an historical claim on that land that goes back literally thousands of years.

1. There might not have been people who called themselves Palestinians, but there was a land called Palestine (see the Balfour Declaration).

There never was a palestine, and there never were palestinians. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn't capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. Do you ever wonder why all these "palestinians" suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war?

The first time the name palestine was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would cease to exist. From that time, the Romans declared that it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people that the jews conquered hundreds of years before. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power. The land was never known as palestine by the native people. The only historical references to it being known as palestine are to be found in Roman history.

There is no language known as palestinian. There is no distinct palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as palestine governed by palestinians. Palestinians are arabs, indistinguishable from lordanians (another recent invention), syrians, lebanese, iraqis, etc.

2. And there were people in it. How can you assert that they were not relocated ...given that Israel has refused them "the right of return" ? Why would they be seeking a "right of return" had they not been there in the first place ?

No one lived there permanantly and no one was displaced. The UN defines a palestinian refugee as one whose normal place of residence was the land that came to be known as palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. Since the land was only occupied occasionally by nomadic people, no one is actually a palestinian.

Between 1946 and 1958 there were about 120,000 people living in the area that is now all of israel and jordan. You do the math. Today, there are approximately 5 million "palestinians" claiming the right to return. Since there were only 120,000 living in the area that is now Israel and jordan, explain to me where all of these "palestinians" came from.

Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that covered the territories, the state of Israel and Jordan.Why on earth do you think they are boiling mad - enough to sacrifice their lives and the lives of their children ? Do you suppose people could mobilize themselves to that degree, simply from the desire to take land that had not really ever been their home ?[/quote]

They are boiling mad because jews live there. They didn't have any problem at all with the king of jordan kicking them off of 80% of the land that was given to them in the palestinian mandate.

Now suppose that - in the Koran - Allah gave Arabs an identical percentage of land in the United States.
Substitute point for point the course of those who founded Israel ...coming here to our country and doing the exact same things.

No comparison since there never was a country called palestine and never had been a palestinian language, or a palestinian government. Besides, islam has a long history of being an agressor and attacking other nations to claim their land and subdue the people who lived there. What do you think started the crusades?

Honestly,
if it's true that God wants the Jewish People to have all of that land (because it's in the Bible), then the verses must also be true (also in the Bible) which say that God Himself will establish them on it and that they are not to use force.

No argument there. When God gathers up the entire nation of israel, the state of Israel won't be large enough so at that time, the remainder of the promised land will be handed over to them.

According to the Bible, God loves everyone, even the Palestinians ...so the land should be divided fairly. And if the Likuddists think God wants them to have the whole thing, they should wait on God to give it to them, as He told them to.

I don't see Israel going after the entire block of real estate that God promised them. And if you have read the bible, you will see that God doesn't love everyone. Far from it. Ordering entire peoples killed to the last child and the livestock too is hardly the definition of love.

 

[adinas]

The only problem with colonialism

He also accuses Israel of carrying out illegal, colonial practises, saying...​

The only problem with colonialism is that it ENDED TO EARLY. Maybe if it lasted a couple of centuries more, the Arabs would have been civilized instead of murdering each other left and right and trying to figure out how to nuke the rest of us.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Well, I was almost finished with my reply (on which I had spent at least a half hour), then I hit some wrong key and the whole thing disappeared.

I'm now disgusted, and it's infernally hot here right now, so I guess I'll take that as a sign and just come back to this one later.
Regrettably, you're probably going to view the mishap as just one more item in the catalog of Divine indications of favor towards the State of Israel.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

New day; let's try this again !

The verses refer to prophecy. Propheycy necessarily speaks to things that are yet to happen. That aside, the verses you pointed me to must be read in the context of the return of Elijah. Since Elijah already returned, they are meaningless.

palerider, Jews don't necessarily agree that Elijah 'already returned'. Surely you can see how that changes things.
It is the beliefs of the Jews with which we are dealing here.

If you believe the bible, the next time we see Elijah, he will be accompanied by Moses and they will be preaching against the antichrist. If you don't believe the bible, then using scripture to defend your position is disingenuous.

THANK YOU.
This was my entire point if you recall: that it is disingenuous for those who founded the State of Israel to do so on the basis of Jewish scripture, because they don't believe the Bible. They are generally atheists (check that for yourself if you don't believe me) or at best some of them are agnostics.

Whether or not I myself believe the Bible has little to do with it, because I am not the one trying to justify the seizure of land based on it. Instead, I mentioned it strictly to tell you that the interpretation used by Netanyahu - and others like him - is bitterly contested by OTHER JEWS so it can scarcely be characterized as "anti-Semitic".

Generally I can say I don't believe some parts of the Bible
because if I did I would have to help people stone their children if those children talked to them insolently, I would have to stone gay people who acted out their desires, and so forth.

Additionally, as I'm sure you know, my religion (Catholic) does kind of ignore some parts of the Bible also; for example it is really not very 'millenial' and as a child in Catholic school I know we never even touched the book of Revelations except for the allusion in it to Mary (woman crowned with the sun and stars).

I am going to send this now before continuing just to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to me today as what did yesterday.