Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Ben Masada

The Pope Has a Problem in Rome

85 posts in this topic

Oh! So, you were in Israel, weren't you? I live in Israel for over 20 years and I have almost eyewitnessed what happens here. The Palestinian plight was created by their own Arab brothers who persuaded them to vacate the area and settle temporarily in refugee camps while they - several Arab countries - with their many times superior armies could push the Jews into the sea, so that the Palestinians, at their return, could take possession of the Jewish homes and lands. Big mistake!!! The Arabs with their armies got crushed. But they still succeeded to keep the Gaza strip and Samaria with East Jerusalem. Did they give those areas to the Palestinians? Of course not! Jordan and Egypt kept the hold of them. Good brotherhood! They kept the Palestinians in their camps to exploit the hypocritical feelings of the world. Then, the acts of terrorism started, whith Palestinians invading Jewish homes and shooting children in their own beds at night. Busses being exploded by them with massive deaths became the order of the day. Here, very close to me, a discoteque was bombed with 39 death casualties. I went there in Tel-Aviv right next day to see the human damage. What do you want us to do, to sit duck and get killed? The Holocaust is long gone. We have discovered a new method of survival: To fight force with superior force, especially in response to those who understand only force. Let this kind of life happen in America or any other country. I bet you will find only natural for them to defend themselves. But, it seems to me, Jews are not supposed to defend themselves but to die like Jesus. You might as well rethink those options.

Ben

I've made many of these same points with several here and they simply don't care, Ben. They do not believe Israel has a right to exist on any but the tiniest piece of land and when confronted with the fact that the Palestinians are sworn to never let a Jewish State exist at all, they simply ignore and deny. It's a waste of time arguing the point. I was raised a Christian and was never taught that God was finished with the Jews of Israel. To the contrary I was taught that they will rule from Jerusalem with the Savior when He returns. I know that you disagree with this but I wanted to correct the idea that all Christians are involved in "replacement" theology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cont.

During the Palestinian Arab Terror, while Jewish immigration and land purchases continued to alarm Arab nationalists, the violence was officially sparked of by the 16th Zionist Congress in Zurich in 1929. It was during this congress that the Jewish Agency (Jewish leadership in pre-state Palestine) literally transformed essentially into an Zionist organization.

One speech by Ze'ev Vladimir Jabotinsky (sometimes dubbed the "the Father of Jewish Terrorism") that threw the Arabs into panic, by stating directly that a national home meant - a Jewish state and that a Jewish majority can only be achieved by a "great colonizing masses". This convinced the Arabs of a worldwide conspiracy and a massive attack would be directed at them.

Days after the Zionist congress, Jabotinsky's followers held anti-Arab demonstrations in Jerusalem, loudly demanding ownership of the Western Wall, a religious shrine recognized by Jews and Arabs alike, and took an oath to defend it at all costs. Upon investigation by the British Shaw Commission, they found the main cause of the uprising was related to discontented landless Arab class created by Zionist expansion. The commission recommended that immigration be controlled to prevent the mass immigration of the 1920s and that the eviction of Arab tenants be rigidly checked until the land survey could be completed.

Several years later, another uprising occurred due to the mass immigration of unprecendented 145,000 Jews to Palestine after Hitler came to power. Palestinians argued only 12% of the immigrant Jews were from Germany the same basic proportion as before Hitler came to power. That the Zionist were not so much a humanitarian cause but an exploitation with Hitler being used as a pretext. (Remember, no body at this point anticipated the Holocaust.) They further observed that the British with a larger and richer country, had permitted fewer than 3,000 Jews during the same period. That Palestinians were forced to forego their own national independence just because Europe refused to help the Jews.

In response, the British High Commissioner attempted to institute a constitution and a democratizing representative council in Palestine. The Arabs were skeptical but accepting. The Jews rejected the effort. The Palestinians pressed for national sovereignty and a halt to Jewish immigration by organizing their own countrywide strike and boycott of Jewish goods that only heightened their own economic suffering.

Once Jewish went beyond the legal number permitted in 1936, the Palestinians broke into armed rebellion. The first weeks the Jews were the targets of atrocities then the next three years the British Army was the target. The British employed 18 battalions and two squadrons of RAF airplanes to bomb Palestinian villages, killing an estimated 5,000-10,000 people by 1939.

The 1937 Peel Commission concluded like other British Commission that the Zionist intent of the Jewish Agency was to establish a state, not merely a national home, this essentially was responsible for the Arab violence. The Commission saw no opportunity for an Arab-Jewish national reconciliation. The end of the British mandate and partitioning of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, was recommended by the commission. Both states would be required to make military alliances with Britain in conformity with British strategic interests.

The Palestinian Arabs rejected the proposal because it called for a Jewish state. The Jews were indecisive whether to hold out for all of Palestine or accept the Peel Commission's proposed borders as a first step in obtaining "Eretz Israel".

"The debate has not been for or against the indivisibility of Eretz Israel. No Zionist can forego the smallest portion of Eretz Israel. The debate was over which of two routes would lead quicker to the common goal." - David Ben-Gurion

But the onslaught of WWII, British strategic interests shifted in favour of the Palestinian Arabs. Britain now needed oil from surrounding Arab nations to conduct war and were required to reverse the hostility of the Arab world towards Britain's violent quashing of the Arab rebellion in Palestine. Britain remedied this chiefly with rejection of a Jewish state in Palestine. It was the Zionist's to finally find themselves undermined by Britain's geopolitical interests and its imperial power. Just like the Arabs had been by the Balfour Declaration. The lesson learned: British geopolitical interests were key to both's self determination.

Britain courting the Arab with the White Papers of 1939 which contained three major provisions.

1. A state of Palestine would be established in 10 years.

2. Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 over the next five years.

3. Land sales would be limited and be regulated by the British in order to mitigate the problem of "considerable landless Arab population."

The Arab had mixed reaction as they saw too much of Britain's influence and denied, on fundamental grounds, the right of Britain to dictate the terms of Palestinian Arab national sovereignty. The Jews decried betrayal with the appeasement of the Arabs. British Imperial power held sway over their rights as the indigeneous people of Palestine - the Jews, by promise of God; the Arabs, by virtue of millennial occupation - and British Imperial power was key to statehood.

More later...

Edited by Ambush Bug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of a passage in the New Testament ... who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 2 Thessalonians 2:4

You preach a dangerous and heretical message IMO.

Hey Bug, it happens that the reason you were reminded of 2 Thess. 2:4, after reading my post, was wrong. The Messiah is not God or supposed to be an object of worship. The Messiah in the original in Hebrew is also know as the anointed of the Lord. Now, if you read Habakkuk 3:13, it says in there, that the Lord comes forth to save His People; His anointed one. Therefore, the Messiah. As you can see, the pretense here is not mine but Scriptural. If there is any heresy in this message, turn your arrows to the Word of God and not to me.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the jews have a problem in israel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arab grievances are numerous.

I know, the Jews also had many. Since we were aware that it was hopeless to settle them with Gentiles on the other side of the bargain, they took advantage

of the wars of agression started by the Arabs and decided to settle their own grievances.

The Arabs were promised independent self-determination when in 1915, the British made declarations to Sharif Hussein of Mecca that as a reward for Arab rebellion against, and help in defeat of, the Ottoman Empire in World War I. Britain would stimulate national independence in the whole Arab-speaking world. It is called the Hussein-MacMahon Agreement. Because of this MacMahon-Hussein Agreement, the Arabs rebelled and attacked Ottoman forces in support of the Allies (led by Sharif Hussein's second son, Feisal, subsequent king of Iraq, and by T. E. Lawrence).

But then, Britain turned around in 1916, entered into a British-French agreement, the Sykes-Picot Agreement,half a year after the Hussein-MacMahon Agreement. By this new agreement the whole Arab world north of the present-day Saudi Arabia was to be divided (after World World I) into French and British zones of control, theoretically in the context of an Arab confederation. Under this agreement, Britain would DIRECTLY control present-day Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, and southern Palestine while France would directly control southern Turkey, Syria, and northern Palestine. However, because of competing Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic interests in Palestine, the Sykes-Picot Agreement devolved into a compromise in which Britain, France, Russia, and Italy would jointly share in a Allied Condominium over Palestine. The Jews under this agreement in Palestine were to have have the same civil, religious, and political rights as other groups. But neither the Zionists or the Palestinian Arabs want that but each wanted its own independent state. The start of Arab grievances.

When the Arab world learned about this European Condominium agreement in the winter of 1917-18 about post-war control of Arab territory which contradicted with the Hussein-MacMahon agreement the response was shock.

But Britain regarded an international sharing regime unacceptable because Britain wanted to have an exclusive and permanent garrison in Palestine after the war in order to protect the Suez Canal and its air routes to India. The Zionist held the answer with a Jewish state imposed upon Palestine. Britain intention was to keep the Palestine boiling pot in order to justify its means. A marriage of Zionist and British interests occurred, and what materialized out of this is the 1917 Balfour Declaration, a second shock to, and betrayal of, the Arabs after the Sykes-Picot Agreement (the Sykes-Picot Agreement was held secret to the Arabs UNTIL after the Turks were defeated in World War I).

Additionally, Balfour stated, "In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country."

To placate the shock of the Arabs, the British and French issued a misleading, mollifying declaration (on November 18th) affirming "the setting up of national governments and administrations that shall derive their authority from the free excercise of the initiative and choice of the indigeneous population."

King Hussein only accepted the Balfour Declaration as a humanitarian gesture towards the Zionists never beleiving it would conflict with the Palestinian Arab self-determination.

Prince Feisal, second son of Sharif Hussein and leader of the Arab rebellion against the Ottoman Turks, even signed a formal agreement on January 4, 1919, that a "Zionist Jews" enclave would be guaranteed in Palestine as long as the Arab tenant farmers would be safeguarded on their plots and assisted in their economic development AND provided that the Arabs obtain their independence.

But Chaim Weizmann backed out. Choosing instead a Jewish state under British imperialism rather than share a common cause with the Arabs. At that point, Feisal terminated any relations with the Zionists and regarded the "Jewish National Home" as a mere subprovince within a larger Arab kingdom.

The following year, 1920 Feisal assumed the kingship of Syria, in conflict with Britain's ally, France. When Feisal's older brother, Abdullah, threatened to defend him against the French, Britain chose to make Abdullah amir of Transjordan east of the Jordan and installed Feisal as a puppet king in Iraq. Palestine was thereby separated from Transjordan by the stroke of Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill's pen.

Meanwhile, Britain desired the need of "force of arms" to justify their presence as a military buffer - all the while with one eye watching the Suez Canal and the other countering French influence in Syria. A Jewish state or "home" offered such a justification.

Enter the League of Nations Mandate System in 1922, a mandate was to facilitate the self government of the territory's inhabitants, a mandate was to be temporary, a mandate was accountable to the League. Each mandate was ranked by their degree of readiness to assume self government, i.e., statehood. All Class "A" territories were Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine. All Class "A" territories with the exception of Palestine did, in fact, become states when the mandate powers withdrew.

1. The Arabs outright rejected the mandate system outright. They demanded an independent state with a democratic, parliamentary form of government.

2. Additionally, Britain insisted that the Balfour Declaration be introduced into the text of the mandate. In other words, if the Arabs accepted the mandate they accepted the British imposed constitution of the Balfour Declaration too. But the Arabs opposed the mandate and all its British imposed constitutions including the Balfour Declaration.

3. The Jews would not accept the concept of a democratic self-government in Palestine while 90% of the population was not Jewish. It would only be acceptable upon massive Jewish immigration with removal of Muslim and Christian populations.

4. A Jewish national home meant a state existing for the Jews, as Arabs suspected, and that violated Article 2 of the mandate requirements to -- "safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

A Jewish state simply conflicted with the WHOLE PURPOSE of the mandate system, i.e. the establishment of democratic self-government by an indigeneous population.

But this contradiction would not be the collapse of the mandate. No doubt there was conflict between Arab nationalists and Jewish immigration and land purchases the very thing the British anticipated. The real reason behind the collapse of the mandate would be violence against British authorities first by the Arabs in the 30s then by the Zionist in the 40s, something the British failed to anticipate.

The Zionist knew in order to have their state, it would require people and territory but they had neither in Palestine. If the Jewish state were to come into existance by fiat it would be unable to rule over a vast Muslim and Christian population that together virtually own all the land of Palestine. Thus the mandate ambigiously supported Jewish immigration.

From 1917 to 1935, the Jewish population rose from about 60,000 to over 400,000. 60,000 alone in 1935. To accomodate this influx, the Jewish Agency and the Jewish labor organization ("Histadrut") boycotted Arab labor. Another Arab grievance.

The land purchased by the Jews was not vast (7.6% by 1949) but the land was the most fertile as well as being strategically chosen to comprise the nucleus for a Jewish nation. This resulted in the mounting social problems with the enlarging population of landless Palestinians (30% of the rural population by 1930). Arab nationalists could not stop land sales and mistrust and fear of British authority resulted in the British unable to protect the Arabs from evictions and resulted in failures to make appeals. Another Arab grievance.

More later, I am tired of typing.

The Palestinians arent occupiers they can be traced back to prehistoric times in the region. The Jews held Jerusalem for around 500 years of which 410 years from the reign of King David to the divided Kingdom of Judea, but the Muslims held Jerusalem for over 1,200 years. The Jews did not return to Israel/Palestine in the 4th Century once the Roman Empire collapsed. Why didnt they return in the 4th Century C.E? ... because they didnt want to or chose not to.

Maybe because the Third and Fouth Geneva Conventions were written in 1929 and 1949 respectively. Because the UN wasnt created until 1945.

Gaza was occupied by Egypt from 1948 til 1967, West Bank has been occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. HOWEVER the West Bank has been occupied by Israel since 1967 that 45 years. The longest occupation in the world. The problems lies in Israel and proposals which are never fair such as the Camp David Accords in 2000.

Magnific piece of history in this post of yours, Ambush Bug. You must be reading from a very good book as I am familiar with the whole issue. As I can see, the Arabs did have quite a few grievances. The Jews also had many of their own, but they decided to set most of theirs by themselves because they had learned not to trust the Gentiles who were handling the issue on the end side of the bargain. So, they took advantage of the Arab's belligerence in their method to solve their grievances and we, the Jews, surfaced up on the other side with a good measure of success.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made many of these same points with several here and they simply don't care, Ben. They do not believe Israel has a right to exist on any but the tiniest piece of land and when confronted with the fact that the Palestinians are sworn to never let a Jewish State exist at all, they simply ignore and deny. It's a waste of time arguing the point. I was raised a Christian and was never taught that God was finished with the Jews of Israel. To the contrary I was taught that they will rule from Jerusalem with the Savior when He returns. I know that you disagree with this but I wanted to correct the idea that all Christians are involved in "replacement" theology.

Thanks 'And Then', that's indeed comforting. Here, at my working place, in a dialogue with a Palestinian, I ended the dialogue when I asked, "Would you please be specific and tell me what you mean by Palestine?" His immediate reply was: "Well, all that you guys call 'The Land of Israel.'" "Well, my friend," I said, "You are going to fight for it. Then, it will be yours." He said, "You bet on that." See what I mean? There is no hope of compromise. And we are reelecting BB again to make sure they will stop dreaming.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the jews have a problem in israel...

Yes Cenobite, I agree with you. Tell something new. When the exile in Babylon ended and the Jews returned to the Land of Israel, the problem was almost the same with the Samaritans brought from Assyria to replace the Ten Tribes. IMHO, the Jews finally solved that problem because they had spent only 70 years in exile. This time we have spent almost 2000 years. As a result of such a long time, we have brought too much of the Diaspora with us. But we will succeed, I hope.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magnific piece of history in this post of yours, Ambush Bug. You must be reading from a very good book as I am familiar with the whole issue. As I can see, the Arabs did have quite a few grievances. The Jews also had many of their own, but they decided to set most of theirs by themselves because they had learned not to trust the Gentiles who were handling the issue on the end side of the bargain. So, they took advantage of the Arab's belligerence in their method to solve their grievances and we, the Jews, surfaced up on the other side with a good measure of success.

Ben

Some of what you say is pretty accurate but I am barely brushing the surface, I mean there was even collusion between Israel or rather David Ben-Gerion and King Abdullah of Transjordan, a secret pact of non-aggression in order to divide up ALL of Palestine between themselves (the Jews and Transjordan) and that Transjordan would not invade any territory earmarked by the UN for the Jewish state.

Now, Transjordan could have played a significant role in the 1948 war as they had 4,500-5,000 soldiers well-trained by the British Army. Transjordan ALONE possessed the only significant Arab army before the conflict. Transjordan by the way did fulfill that pact but David Ben-Gurion didnt fulfill that pact as Jewish forces aggressively invaded and annexed portions of territory earmarked for the Palestinian state, the same territory that Transjordan was expected to annex. Ben-Gurion's acceptance of the UN partition plan and his pact with Transjordan were iterim devices, tactical steps towards gaining all of Palestine.

"Establish a Jewish state at once, even if it is not in the whole land. The rest will come in the course of time. It must come." David Ben-Gurion

My sources: Collusion Across The Jordan by Avi Shlaim and The Birth Of Israel by Simha Flapan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We did agree to work towards a Palestinian nation in 1977. They rejected again. We changed our minds. Let the conflict continue until they get strong enough and take what they want by force, which is the whole Land of Israel.

Ben

The 1907 Hague International Convention prohibits an occupying power from confiscating land, property, food and water resources - Israel pipes 80% of the West Bank water to Israel and the Jewish Settlers - and the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupier from establishing any settlements for its population in occupied territory.

In 1977, Menachem Begin was elected prime minister of Israel. Begin was a former guerilla fighter and terrorist and Eretz Israel hawk.

Begin only promised to negotiate autonomy for the Palestinians but never agreed to the autonomy for the Palestinians. Meanwhile there were no Palestinian elections, no self-governing authority, and no withdrawal of any Israeli forces. Begin opposed Palestinian self-rule. His proposals were limited autonomy with refusal of Palestinian voters in East Jerusalem (West Bank) as Begin an Eretz Israel hardliner considered all of Jerusalem to be Israeli. And refusal of Palestinians in exile to vote. Israel refused to include an ability to draft laws in this autonomy. A sovereign Palestinian state was never proposed by Israel.

"Under no conditions will a Palestinian state emerge... the autonomy agreed upon at Camp David means neither sovereignty nor self-determination... at the end of the transition period, set down in the Camp David agreements, Israel will raise its claim, and act to realize its right of sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip." - Prime Minister Menachem Begin

Begin used the Sinai as a bargaining chip, feeling that UN242 was now satisfied in that now the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights were now not required. Nothing in these accords precluded the creeping annexation of the West Bank and Gaza through settlement expansion.

Over the next several years, under Prime Minister Menachem Begin, the West Bank settlements doubled, the Jewish population in the West Bank tripled and increased five fold the number of Jewish settlers inserted, provocatively, into densely packed traditional Palestinian centers.

Also Begin sought to change the legal status of the territories by imposing Israeli law even though it was illegal to do so under the Hague International Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

How?

In spite that in 1979 the Israeli Supreme Court ruled against expropriation of private lands for settlement purposes, Agriculture Minister Ariel Sharon and IDF Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan circumvented the Supreme Court by simply claiming areas were closed for "security" reasons. Nonetheless, the Jewish National Fund raised money for land purchases in the West Bank and other occupied territories.

After 1979, legal restrictions on Jewish land acquisition in the West Bank were effectively removed, giving the government the authority to seize virtually any area it considered desirable for settlements.

Israel applied Jewish law to settlers in the occupied territories; incorporated settlements into regional councils based on Israeli municipal law; and opened Israeli courts in the settlements; and by effectively annexing occupied East Jerusalem by making Jerusalem the capital of Israel.

Begin set the precedent for all future prime ministers as Israel gained greater percentages of West Bank territory for exclusive control:

1983 - 35% of West Bank under exclusive Israeli control

1988 - 50% of West Bank under exclusive Israeli control

1994 - 64%-70% of West Bank under exclusive Israeli control

while 80% of water from the West Bank is piped exclusively to Israel and Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

The transparency of your post I bolded as I believe you are aware of the transparancy or flimsy wording you used in your post.

Edited by Ambush Bug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of what you say is pretty accurate but I am barely brushing the surface, I mean there was even collusion between Israel or rather David Ben-Gerion and King Abdullah of Transjordan, a secret pact of non-aggression in order to divide up ALL of Palestine between themselves (the Jews and Transjordan) and that Transjordan would not invade any territory earmarked by the UN for the Jewish state.

Now, Transjordan could have played a significant role in the 1948 war as they had 4,500-5,000 soldiers well-trained by the British Army. Transjordan ALONE possessed the only significant Arab army before the conflict. Transjordan by the way did fulfill that pact but David Ben-Gurion didnt fulfill that pact as Jewish forces aggressively invaded and annexed portions of territory earmarked for the Palestinian state, the same territory that Transjordan was expected to annex. Ben-Gurion's acceptance of the UN partition plan and his pact with Transjordan were iterim devices, tactical steps towards gaining all of Palestine.

"Establish a Jewish state at once, even if it is not in the whole land. The rest will come in the course of time. It must come." David Ben-Gurion

My sources: Collusion Across The Jordan by Avi Shlaim and The Birth Of Israel by Simha Flapan.

Yes, I agree with you on that one too. BTW, I can see why Ben Gurion could not make good on that agreement with king Abdullah, and proclaimed the State as fast as he could in what we could get at first, albeit with the doors open for further acquisitions, which we were sure would come with new Arab attempts to drawn the Jews into the sea. They came and we got what we aimed for. But we let them take the blame to have striked first. I think our mistake was to prevent ourselves from pushing them all into the Transjordan side of the River, considering that their reason to attack was to force us into the sea. Besides, we should have taken advantage of the situation and destroyed the Dome of the Rock too. Now, we have to deal with this thorn on our flesh.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1907 Hague International Convention prohibits an occupying power from confiscating land, property, food and water resources - Israel pipes 80% of the West Bank water to Israel and the Jewish Settlers - and the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupier from establishing any settlements for its population in occupied territory.

In 1977, Menachem Begin was elected prime minister of Israel. Begin was a former guerilla fighter and terrorist and Eretz Israel hawk.

Begin only promised to negotiate autonomy for the Palestinians but never agreed to the autonomy for the Palestinians. Meanwhile there were no Palestinian elections, no self-governing authority, and no withdrawal of any Israeli forces. Begin opposed Palestinian self-rule. His proposals were limited autonomy with refusal of Palestinian voters in East Jerusalem (West Bank) as Begin an Eretz Israel hardliner considered all of Jerusalem to be Israeli. And refusal of Palestinians in exile to vote. Israel refused to include an ability to draft laws in this autonomy. A sovereign Palestinian state was never proposed by Israel.

"Under no conditions will a Palestinian state emerge... the autonomy agreed upon at Camp David means neither sovereignty nor self-determination... at the end of the transition period, set down in the Camp David agreements, Israel will raise its claim, and act to realize its right of sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip." - Prime Minister Menachem Begin

Begin used the Sinai as a bargaining chip, feeling that UN242 was now satisfied in that now the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights were now not required. Nothing in these accords precluded the creeping annexation of the West Bank and Gaza through settlement expansion.

Over the next several years, under Prime Minister Menachem Begin, the West Bank settlements doubled, the Jewish population in the West Bank tripled and increased five fold the number of Jewish settlers inserted, provocatively, into densely packed traditional Palestinian centers.

Also Begin sought to change the legal status of the territories by imposing Israeli law even though it was illegal to do so under the Hague International Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

How?

In spite that in 1979 the Israeli Supreme Court ruled against expropriation of private lands for settlement purposes, Agriculture Minister Ariel Sharon and IDF Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan circumvented the Supreme Court by simply claiming areas were closed for "security" reasons. Nonetheless, the Jewish National Fund raised money for land purchases in the West Bank and other occupied territories.

After 1979, legal restrictions on Jewish land acquisition in the West Bank were effectively removed, giving the government the authority to seize virtually any area it considered desirable for settlements.

Israel applied Jewish law to settlers in the occupied territories; incorporated settlements into regional councils based on Israeli municipal law; and opened Israeli courts in the settlements; and by effectively annexing occupied East Jerusalem by making Jerusalem the capital of Israel.

Begin set the precedent for all future prime ministers as Israel gained greater percentages of West Bank territory for exclusive control:

1983 - 35% of West Bank under exclusive Israeli control

1988 - 50% of West Bank under exclusive Israeli control

1994 - 64%-70% of West Bank under exclusive Israeli control

while 80% of water from the West Bank is piped exclusively to Israel and Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

The transparency of your post I bolded as I believe you are aware of the transparancy or flimsy wording you used in your post.

Ambush, I love to read your posts. Sometimes I read them more than once, albeit being familiar to me already. But if you are trying to make me understand what in your opinion, we should do and what we should not, too bad for the time. I do not believe or adopt the idea that we are occupiers of anyone's land. On the contrary, as we returned to the Land of Israel after exile, we found it occupied by Arabs. Therefore, they are the occupiers and not us. We offered them the chance to live together. They rejected the offer. They want us out? Too bad! We now want them out too. Let the conflict go on. There is no growth in inertia. Muscles isually go flab for lack of exercise.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ambush, I love to read your posts. Sometimes I read them more than once, albeit being familiar to me already. But if you are trying to make me understand what in your opinion, we should do and what we should not, too bad for the time. I do not believe or adopt the idea that we are occupiers of anyone's land. On the contrary, as we returned to the Land of Israel after exile, we found it occupied by Arabs. Therefore, they are the occupiers and not us. We offered them the chance to live together. They rejected the offer. They want us out? Too bad! We now want them out too. Let the conflict go on. There is no growth in inertia. Muscles isually go flab for lack of exercise.

Ben

Thank you for the compliment.

But you are wrong, when Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion addressed the Israeli Knesset on 11th of October 1961 "... push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive." It was a complete distortion and fabrication. No one whether historians, academicists, whomever has yet to cite David Ben-Gurion's source. NO ONE. No Arab can be found quoted as saying "... push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive." Or anything similar to that. It was a propaganda piece, an outright lie.

But the Arabs arent occupiers, they possessed Jerusalem for nearly 1,300 years. The Canaanites possessed Jerusalem for 2,000 years prior to the Davidic Kingdom. The Jews possessed Jerusalem for 500 years in comparision. Who is occupying who?

The Arab Palestinians arent johnnies come lately btw, their ancestry in Palestine dates back to prehistoric times. They are Arabicized native peoples.

Why didnt the Jews return to Palestine when the Roman Empire collapsed in the 4th C.E.? No, they chose 16 centuries later to create a Jewish state.

Edited by Ambush Bug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with you on that one too. BTW, I can see why Ben Gurion could not make good on that agreement with king Abdullah, and proclaimed the State as fast as he could in what we could get at first, albeit with the doors open for further acquisitions, which we were sure would come with new Arab attempts to drawn the Jews into the sea. They came and we got what we aimed for. But we let them take the blame to have striked first. I think our mistake was to prevent ourselves from pushing them all into the Transjordan side of the River, considering that their reason to attack was to force us into the sea. Besides, we should have taken advantage of the situation and destroyed the Dome of the Rock too. Now, we have to deal with this thorn on our flesh.

Ben

Wow, spoken like a genuine dyed in the blood Zionist.

And why did David Ben-Gurion suddenly resign on June 16th 1963? And what did President Kennedy demand of him in letter sent via a cable to the US embassy on the 15th a day previously to be delivered to Ben-Gurion? ... proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Israel was not developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona reactor facility. David Ben-Gurion's answer, I never got the letter before I resigned. Well, this wasnt the first correspondence Kennedy sent to Ben-Gurion that was on the subject of Israel, Dimona, and nuclear weapon development.

Edited by Ambush Bug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you are wrong, when Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion addressed the Israeli Knesset on 11th of October 1961 "... push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive." It was a complete distortion and fabrication. No one whether historians, academicists, whomever has yet to cite David Ben-Gurion's source. NO ONE. No Arab can be found quoted as saying "... push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive." Or anything similar to that. It was a propaganda piece, an outright lie.

I don't have to look for verification of the Arab intention to get rid of the Jews out of the Middle East, I had it "viva-voce" from a Palestinian the other day here in a face-to-face dialogue, when I said that the place belongs to the stronger, he said that "Allah hu-Achbah," that day will come when they will be strong enough to push the Jews into the sea. I said, be my guest.

But the Arabs arent occupiers, they possessed Jerusalem for nearly 1,300 years. The Canaanites possessed Jerusalem for 2,000 years prior to the Davidic Kingdom. The Jews possessed Jerusalem for 500 years in comparision. Who is occupying who?

Now, you are the one terribly wrong. I have said before and I say again with History as my witness that Arabs started occupation of the Land of Israel in the 7th Century. Then, years later, with the rate of births, they started being known as Palestinians. The People of Israel has been in the Land of Israel since Joshua conquered the Land in 1451 BCE. Never mind that the Land had been promised to Abraham and his descendants forever, according to Genesis 13:15, which is clarified in Genesis 15:13 as the descendants of Abraham who became slaves in Egypt for 400 years, which, needless to mention, the text is talking about the Israelites.

The Arab Palestinians arent johnnies come lately btw, their ancestry in Palestine dates back to prehistoric times. They are Arabicized native peoples.

Palestine did not exist until the name was changed by Emperor Hadrian in the 2nd Century.

Why didnt the Jews return to Palestine when the Roman Empire collapsed in the 4th C.E.? No, they chose 16 centuries later to create a Jewish state.

I'll tell you why. When Cyrus proclaimed the return of the Jews to Israel, it was before the 70 years had passed. For some reason, according to Jeremiah 25:11,12, 70 years had to be fulfilled for the Jews to return, and 56 years had still to be fulfilled. The same thing with this last exile. The time was not ripe at the fall of Rome. IMHO, that time came with the end of WW1. Herzl had started to inspire the People to return to the Land of Israel, but they had got used to the fake peace in Germany and were hard to move. It had to take a Holocaust to wake them up. That's the mysterious part with regards to the end of exiles as Israel is concerned. It does not matter when the time came for us to return from exile. We returned, we claimed our Land back, we offered the chance to live together, they refused and became their fault to live today the way they do. Let their oil-rich brothers find a solution for them. We are back to stay

and that's where we will.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, spoken like a genuine dyed in the blood Zionist.

And why did David Ben-Gurion suddenly resign on June 16th 1963? And what did President Kennedy demand of him in letter sent via a cable to the US embassy on the 15th a day previously to be delivered to Ben-Gurion? ... proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Israel was not developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona reactor facility. David Ben-Gurion's answer, I never got the letter before I resigned. Well, this wasnt the first correspondence Kennedy sent to Ben-Gurion that was on the subject of Israel, Dimona, and nuclear weapon development.

So what? There is no secret about it. We have it. And we will make sure that insane guy in Iran won't get it; just as we did in Iraq.

Today, the world is glad we did it.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have to look for verification of the Arab intention to get rid of the Jews out of the Middle East, I had it "viva-voce" from a Palestinian the other day here in a face-to-face dialogue, when I said that the place belongs to the stronger, he said that "Allah hu-Achbah," that day will come when they will be strong enough to push the Jews into the sea. I said, be my guest.

Thanks to David Ben-Gurion people still quote it ignorantly today.

Now, you are the one terribly wrong. I have said before and I say again with History as my witness that Arabs started occupation of the Land of Israel in the 7th Century. Then, years later, with the rate of births, they started being known as Palestinians. The People of Israel has been in the Land of Israel since Joshua conquered the Land in 1451 BCE. Never mind that the Land had been promised to Abraham and his descendants forever, according to Genesis 13:15, which is clarified in Genesis 15:13 as the descendants of Abraham who became slaves in Egypt for 400 years, which, needless to mention, the text is talking about the Israelites.

The Jews and Palestinian Arabs both have been inhabiting that same piece of land for thousands of years. Look, when the Muslims took Palestine in the 7th century they didnt dispossess the peoples already living there but Arabicized them and even intermarried with them. Is not Ishmael also a descendent of Abraham? Everyone is so intermixed these days, who cares?

And what exactly does Genesis 15:18 imply? Hmmm.... I guess God never fulfilled His promise... because no Jewish nation ruled from the River of Egypt to the River Euphrates have they? That would make God a liar unless He meant all descendants of Abraham.

Palestine did not exist until the name was changed by Emperor Hadrian in the 2nd Century.

Well, what do we call it historically... there were so many tribal states and names... Palestine is convenient thank you very much.

I'll tell you why. When Cyrus proclaimed the return of the Jews to Israel, it was before the 70 years had passed. For some reason, according to Jeremiah 25:11,12, 70 years had to be fulfilled for the Jews to return, and 56 years had still to be fulfilled. The same thing with this last exile. The time was not ripe at the fall of Rome. IMHO, that time came with the end of WW1. Herzl had started to inspire the People to return to the Land of Israel, but they had got used to the fake peace in Germany and were hard to move. It had to take a Holocaust to wake them up. That's the mysterious part with regards to the end of exiles as Israel is concerned. It does not matter when the time came for us to return from exile. We returned, we claimed our Land back, we offered the chance to live together, they refused and became their fault to live today the way they do. Let their oil-rich brothers find a solution for them. We are back to stay

and that's where we will.

Ben

What do you mean the time was not right after the fall of Rome... it is so plain and simple... the Jews never wanted to return to Palestine in 1,600 years.

No that is where you are wrong... the Arab Palestinians were never consulted before the Balfour Declaration was drawn up. And the only reason the Balfour Declaration was drawn because Britain indebted itself to the Zionists for not only recruiting American Jewry to lobby US to enter into WWI but also because the Balfour Declaration opened the door for the justification of British MILITARY occupancy in Palestine.

How long have the Jews ruled Israel independently in Palestine throughout all of history (excluding the State of Israel today), um, what 150-200 years? Well guess what, the Muslims ruled it almost continuously for almost 1,300 years from the 7th century C.E. to the 20th century C.E. Hmmm... wow when one does the math???

Independent Jewish rule of Palestine = 150-200 years

Independent Muslim rule of Palestine = 1,277 years

And the Canaanites ruled Jerusalem itself for at least 2,000 years as it is known to predate King David by as much years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what? There is no secret about it. We have it. And we will make sure that insane guy in Iran won't get it; just as we did in Iraq.

Today, the world is glad we did it.

Ben

Yeah, but Israel's stance is quite vague with this official quote, "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. Israel supports a Middle East free of all weapons of mass destruction following the attainment of peace."

What does introduce mean? Experts say it means that Israel will not openly test a weapon or declare publicly that it has one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My answer is based on the part of the learnt Jews who are on the growth from superstition into reality. The prophecies about a coming Messiah is not of an individual but of the collective in the People of Israel, aka, the Jewish People. An individual is born, lives his span of life, and eventually dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. Read Jeremiah 31:35-37. What is part of the Jewish dream, as the Messiah is concerned, is of a messianic era when the Jewish place and role in the world is acknowledged by al nations.

Ben

That doesn't really seem sound to me. It is obvious that those who wrote down many of the Hebrew Scriptures believed that the Messiah would be a literal person. After 2,000 years of not having their own land, I can understand why some Jews would try to refine the Messianic prophecies. The Jeremiah prophecy you mentioned wasn't in context to the Messiah, but the people. It is clear from many Scriptures that the Messiah would come and deliver His people a new covenant. Am I to believe now that the recipients are also the providers of the new covenant? That is close to Pharisaic theology, wouldn't you say?

Obviously, I believe that Jesus is and has always been the Messiah. It is Jewish prophecy that the Messiah would enter the second temple and that it's glory would be greater than Solomon's temple. We both know that Herod, who lavished the temple, was not the Messiah. Seeing that the temple was destroyed and the only one who both claimed to be the Messiah and prophesied the temple's destruction, wouldn't it be better to say that Jesus, who resurrected, is the Messiah than to say that the people who asked the Romans to occupy their land in the first place were both the providers and recipients of the new covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks to David Ben-Gurion people still quote it ignorantly today.

It was an ignorant Arab who quoted it to me.

The Jews and Palestinian Arabs both have been inhabiting that same piece of land for thousands of years. Look, when the Muslims took Palestine in the 7th century they didnt dispossess the peoples already living there but Arabicized them and even intermarried with them. Is not Ishmael also a descendent of Abraham? Everyone is so intermixed these days, who cares?

Yes, Ishmael was also a descendant of Abraham, "BUT, My Covenant, said the Lord, I will maintain with Isaac" ...and not with Ishmael. (Gen. 17:21) Then, if you read further in Genesis 21:10, Abraham was demanded to "Drive Hagar and Ishmael out because he could not share the inheritance of the Land with Isaac the son of Sarah, aka, the Jews.

And what exactly does Genesis 15:18 imply? Hmmm.... I guess God never fulfilled His promise... because no Jewish nation ruled from the River of Egypt to the River Euphrates have they? That would make God a liar unless He meant all descendants of Abraham.

Genesis 15:18 inplies the Divine promise that has not been fulfilled YET. It does not mean at all that God has been proved a liar. The descendants of Abraham through Isaac are still around, aren't they? So, that conclusion about God is not becoming.

Well, what do we call it historically... there were so many tribal states and names... Palestine is convenient thank you very much.

It just happened that "Palestina" was the name given in honor to the Roman Emperor's wife. Nothing related to a specific people.

What do you mean the time was not right after the fall of Rome... it is so plain and simple... the Jews never wanted to return to Palestine in 1,600 years.

Perhaps you will not understand, the prophetic tone here that, no matter what, a prophecy is not over until it is fulfilled. The fact that only very few of the Jews decided to return, was also prophesyed in Isaiah 10:22. "Although the Jews were like the sand of the sea, only a small remnant of them would return."

From Babylon only 42,360 returned with Ezra in the first Aliyah. (Ezra 2:64) After the present exile, which ended soon after WW1 very few indeed returned

because Herzl was not charismatic enough; but the process has been continuous to this very day. So much so that we still have more Jews abroad than here in Israel. But we are already a majority of more than six million Israelis in the hope that an added two million join us from USA, God willing!

No that is where you are wrong... the Arab Palestinians were never consulted before the Balfour Declaration was drawn up. And the only reason the Balfour Declaration was drawn because Britain indebted itself to the Zionists for not only recruiting American Jewry to lobby US to enter into WWI but also because the Balfour Declaration opened the door for the justification of British MILITARY occupancy in Palestine.

Political balderdash!

How long have the Jews ruled Israel independently in Palestine throughout all of history (excluding the State of Israel today), um, what 150-200 years? Well guess what, the Muslims ruled it almost continuously for almost 1,300 years from the 7th century C.E. to the 20th century C.E. Hmmm... wow when one does the math???

Many different peoples have ruled that enclave in the Middle East which has never ceased to be called the Land of Israel for the Jews, and Palestine because of Hadrian, the Roman Emperor, but it has never been an independent State governed by none. There has never been an independent country called Palestine in the History of the world. Therefore, Palestinians have never governed that region as an independent entity for a single day. Since you cannot prove with the opposite of what I am saying, the math was not that hard to figure.

Independent Jewish rule of Palestine = 150-200 years

Independent Muslim rule of Palestine = 1,277 years

Mere verbal juggling that means nothing.

And the Canaanites ruled Jerusalem itself for at least 2,000 years as it is known to predate King David by as much years.

If you take that route, what was there before the "big bang?" The atheists do not know. Where are the Canaanites? Let them come to claim Jerusalem from David. What are the Palestinians talking about? They have been there from yesterday. The Jews from the day before. Those who were there before the Jews, do not exist anymore.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but Israel's stance is quite vague with this official quote, "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. Israel supports a Middle East free of all weapons of mass destruction following the attainment of peace."

What does introduce mean? Experts say it means that Israel will not openly test a weapon or declare publicly that it has one.

I think we should stop here with the political part of this thread. Not too wise for me to continue. I could slip and talk too much for my own personal harm. Therefore, back to the problem the Pope has in Rome. Theology is safer. Thank you.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't really seem sound to me. It is obvious that those who wrote down many of the Hebrew Scriptures believed that the Messiah would be a literal person.

Judaism is a progressive way of life. Would you please quote to me where in the Jewish Scriptures an individual Messiah is implied? True that still many individual Jews believe in an individual Messiah; but this thrend is disappearing as we learn better.

After 2,000 years of not having their own land, I can understand why some Jews would try to refine the Messianic prophecies. The Jeremiah prophecy you mentioned wasn't in context to the Messiah, but the people.

You are right; the People-Messiah. If you read Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; His anointed one." That's what the word Messiah means in the original in Hebrew; God's anointed one.

It is clear from many Scriptures that the Messiah would come and deliver His people a new covenant. Am I to believe now that the recipients are also the providers of the new covenant? That is close to Pharisaic theology, wouldn't you say?

All covenants have been made by man with God and not by God with man. To claim the other way around is only the Jewish way to make the statement holy.

Obviously, I believe that Jesus is and has always been the Messiah.

Jesus has been dead for 2,000 years. The Messiah cannot die. He was part of the Messiah during the 33 years he lived here on earth. That's all.

It is Jewish prophecy that the Messiah would enter the second temple and that it's glory would be greater than Solomon's temple.

Right! The Messiah did live long enough to enter the second Temple with the return of the Jewish People from exile in Babylon.

We both know that Herod, who lavished the temple, was not the Messiah. Seeing that the temple was destroyed and the only one who both claimed to be the Messiah and prophesied the temple's destruction, wouldn't it be better to say that Jesus, who resurrected, is the Messiah than to say that the people who asked the Romans to occupy their land in the first place were both the providers and recipients of the new covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31?

Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, and he never resurrected. Paul himself confessed to his disciple Timothy that it was according to his - Paul's gospel - that Jesus was the Messiah and that he had resurrected. (2 Tim. 2:8) This happened about 35 years after Jesus had been gone. The Jews of then never asked the Romans to occupy their land. They made an agreement with the Romans in order to prevent a second war front to make it harder on them with the Greeks. The Romans had become too powerful and the Jews knew it. (I Mac. 12:16-18)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was an ignorant Arab who quoted it to me.

Well you just remember, David Ben-Gurion said it first in 1961 before the Knesset and nobody said it before him. It is a propaganda tool he fabricated himself.

Yes, Ishmael was also a descendant of Abraham, "BUT, My Covenant, said the Lord, I will maintain with Isaac" ...and not with Ishmael. (Gen. 17:21) Then, if you read further in Genesis 21:10, Abraham was demanded to "Drive Hagar and Ishmael out because he could not share the inheritance of the Land with Isaac the son of Sarah, aka, the Jews.

Yeah, how many times have the Jews been driven out... and why did God drive the Jews out? Hmmm.

Genesis 15:18 inplies the Divine promise that has not been fulfilled YET. It does not mean at all that God has been proved a liar. The descendants of Abraham through Isaac are still around, aren't they? So, that conclusion about God is not becoming.

Do you think Israel can expand from the River Nile to the River Euphrates? I would like to see them try. In fact, Jews arent like the sands of the sea you know but the descendants of Abraham sure are.

It just happened that "Palestina" was the name given in honor to the Roman Emperor's wife. Nothing related to a specific people.

Whatever. I thought Palestine was Philistia in the Roman tongue. Whatever. It dont really matter.

Perhaps you will not understand, the prophetic tone here that, no matter what, a prophecy is not over until it is fulfilled. The fact that only very few of the Jews decided to return, was also prophesyed in Isaiah 10:22. "Although the Jews were like the sand of the sea, only a small remnant of them would return."

From Babylon only 42,360 returned with Ezra in the first Aliyah. (Ezra 2:64) After the present exile, which ended soon after WW1 very few indeed returned

because Herzl was not charismatic enough; but the process has been continuous to this very day. So much so that we still have more Jews abroad than here in Israel. But we are already a majority of more than six million Israelis in the hope that an added two million join us from USA, God willing!

Right, that is why Jews are beginning to emigrate out of Israel in record numbers. Aliyah ... right ... a secular Zionist pipedream that is quickly logjammed at its mouth due to its discriminations, occupations, illegal settlements, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing.

[media=]

[/media]

Political balderdash!

It is true, Arab Palestinians werent aware of the Balfour Declaration until it was too late. Britain and the Zionists never once consulted the Arab Palestinians about this development it was the second massive shock after the Arabs had just learned about the Sykes-Picot Agreement made on May 16th 1916. Britian promised the Arab independence, self-determination, and sovereignty if they would assist in fighting the Turks an obligation that the Arabs did fulfill.

Many different peoples have ruled that enclave in the Middle East which has never ceased to be called the Land of Israel for the Jews, and Palestine because of Hadrian, the Roman Emperor, but it has never been an independent State governed by none. There has never been an independent country called Palestine in the History of the world. Therefore, Palestinians have never governed that region as an independent entity for a single day. Since you cannot prove with the opposite of what I am saying, the math was not that hard to figure.

But the Palestinians are arabicized Canaanites, Philistines, and Hebrews. No matter the Arab Muslims still ruled that land nearly continuously for 1,300 years. It took two World Wars and a complete shift of the geopolitical strata by super powers to change that.

Mere verbal juggling that means nothing.

Verbal juggling? 1,300 is a long, long, long, loooonnnngggg time. 150-200 years is younger than the United States.

If you take that route, what was there before the "big bang?" The atheists do not know. Where are the Canaanites? Let them come to claim Jerusalem from David. What are the Palestinians talking about? They have been there from yesterday. The Jews from the day before. Those who were there before the Jews, do not exist anymore.

Ben

The Palestinians were there the day before the Jews. The Palestinians are the Canaanites and Palestinians and Hebrews. The "pure" Arabs are the Bedouins not the Palestinians.

Edited by Ambush Bug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on the disproportionate emigration from Israel compared to the immigration to Israel:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you just remember, David Ben-Gurion said it first in 1961 before the Knesset and nobody said it before him. It is a propaganda tool he fabricated himself.

Yeah, how many times have the Jews been driven out... and why did God drive the Jews out? Hmmm.

Do you think Israel can expand from the River Nile to the River Euphrates? I would like to see them try. In fact, Jews arent like the sands of the sea you know but the descendants of Abraham sure are.

Whatever. I thought Palestine was Philistia in the Roman tongue. Whatever. It dont really matter.

Right, that is why Jews are beginning to emigrate out of Israel in record numbers. Aliyah ... right ... a secular Zionist pipedream that is quickly logjammed at its mouth due to its discriminations, occupations, illegal settlements, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing.

It is true, Arab Palestinians werent aware of the Balfour Declaration until it was too late. Britain and the Zionists never once consulted the Arab Palestinians about this development it was the second massive shock after the Arabs had just learned about the Sykes-Picot Agreement made on May 16th 1916. Britian promised the Arab independence, self-determination, and sovereignty if they would assist in fighting the Turks an obligation that the Arabs did fulfill.

But the Palestinians are arabicized Canaanites, Philistines, and Hebrews. No matter the Arab Muslims still ruled that land nearly continuously for 1,300 years. It took two World Wars and a complete shift of the geopolitical strata by super powers to change that.

Verbal juggling? 1,300 is a long, long, long, loooonnnngggg time. 150-200 years is younger than the United States.

The Palestinians were there the day before the Jews. The Palestinians are the Canaanites and Palestinians and Hebrews. The "pure" Arabs are the Bedouins not the Palestinians.

Sorry Ambush, if you meant to be serious at the beginning of this discussion, you have lost that mood. I think we are just wasting each other's time.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Ambush, if you meant to be serious at the beginning of this discussion, you have lost that mood. I think we are just wasting each other's time.

Ben

What did I post that came across as not being serious or lost that mood? What mood?

I am simply stating facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.