Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
jeem

Genocide by Israel

501 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

and then

I'll answer again - they could start with going back to the borders of the UN Partition Plan. The Jews were refugees at the time, when have refugees ever been able to take land from the people already there?

I don't know the answer to your question and it IS a fair one. The UN approved the action so far as I know. I don't think that after nearly 70 years it can just be rescinded. And the truth is that 181 (I think) offered BOTH groups a state at the same time. The Palestinians rejected it - never ever, remember? So what we have is one group who gained land and wanted more - the Jews. Another group who didn't want to give up anything (understandable) and the approach of the Palestinians for all the time since has been to stand firm and demand what they consider to be their rights. So far I think we'll be on the same page of music.

The feud being what it is and lasting as long as it has - hundreds of years - the only outcome is bound to be violence. On the whole I'd say the international community seemed to have dropped the ball on this one but NOW we have a situation that has simmered and grown and affects the entire planet due to the Israeli nukes. No matter who might cast them as the cause of all the ills of the region they STILL possess nukes and have a right to SURVIVE in this world as much as any other people or group - I hope we can agree on that point as well. Their insecurity might be forgiven by reasonable people considering they have enemies who have several times tried to cleanse the world of them AND a modern group (s) that still want to do so and are very vocal about it. The Israelis are not innocent lambs in all this, to be sure. They are using all the turmoil to continue expanding their holdings and the Palestinians and others are playing into this by continually attacking them. It's at this point that many pro Palestinians will say - But if they stop fighting the Zionists will just speed up the takeover" I support Israel as much or more than anyone I know but but even I would speak out against them if they took advantage when they could have peace instead of conflict. The problem here is the Palestinians have never really tried. The reason for this isn't a sinister all encompassing hatred of every single Palestinian for every single Jew. The reason is political leaders in the Palestinian movement who cynically use hatred of Jews to maintain their position - somewhat similar to the race hustlers in this country though far more virulent.

So we sit on opposite sides and call out vile names and threats and curses and the problem grows ever worse - just waiting on a match. Meanwhile the Islamists who have power very disproportionate to their numbers are using this conflict as the fuel and cover for their own designs in the world. Are we having fun yet?

I know people here think of me as a crank or an idiot due to my belief in biblical scripture - no harm, no foul. But if a person takes even a short time to read them it becomes apparent that ALL these things were warned of in advance - and they are all headed to a really bad outcome and there really isn't any way to stop them. I think the whole situation is about humanity being taught a lesson. Just my 2c

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
green_dude777

I'll take it that from Jeem's latest flurry of posts, lacking a reply to me, that he is not interested in answering. So I'll use yours as a proxy. I preach this tidbit of history all the time.

Massacres have occurred on both sides, but those are hardly *genocide*. Genghis Khan was said to commit genocide on an entire city, but in the end he saved the other cities in the region and the economic infrastructure and the culture went on. Given the known facts, I would have to say that the Palestinians started it, but today that is only history. It is neither here nor there. Genocide is more like Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, or even Nazi Germany. Ethnic cleansing is not necessarily genocide. Genocide just gets lumped in with EC. EC is a long accepted means to simply remove an unwanted population. It is violent but not necessarily deadly. Just about every nation currently and in history has done it. Islam does it with Dhimmi. Jordan did it during Black September. Lebanon does it with their Palestinians. Saddam was doing it to the Shiites and Kurds. The US did it with the Native American. Russia did it to the Jews (Ukraine). Turks tried it on the Armenians. The list is endless, but my favorite is the Alhambra Decree. Spain simply gave all non Catholics a simple choice, convert, leave, or die. Many of the Jews converted but secretively kept elements of Judaism in their lives. The New World gave them an opportunity for a new life and one can see the Jewish influence in the American Southwest in the Hispanic culture here.

How many of those Palestinians had legal title to the lands they squatted on? The Palestinian is a fairly young culture. It is a conglomeration of semi-nomadic herding tribes. Before the 1920s, a Palestinian identified themselves not as a Palestinian but by the tribe they were from. When they migrated into the region, they were not the rightful owners but the rightful owners did not have the means or the will to evict these squatters. Likewise, most of these squatters where unable to purchase the land. So that's how it stayed until the Ottoman Empire lost the region to the British. The British attempted to return legal rights back to the original owners and for the vast majority of indigenous peoples, they were successful. Where they couldn't return the land was Palestine. The land was owned by absentee owners that couldn't be found or no deeds were kept or deeds were forgeries. Because of this, there was no independent government and the region became unorganized. There was no prevalent indigenous direction. As all the other states around were becoming their own countries, Palestine remained a backwater. So the question arose as to what to do with the land. That's where the Balfour Declaration came about.

In 1909, Zionists seeking a homeland, with financial backing were able to purchase from the legal absentee owners, 200,000 acres in the Jezreel Valley. The Jews acting well within their legal rights removed the squatters from the land. I'm sure this is the reason for the first raid against the Jews. In time Jews legally bought more land or eventually took land from those that attacked them. That is a legal form of transferring land. Most of this land probably didn't belong to the attackers in the first place and this instituted the Palestinian tactic of attacking from land not theirs or civilian areas. Was there land taken away from legal Palestinian owners? It probably was, but in this chaos, how are you going to tell? This is where Palestinians with legal deeds didn't bother to be concerned with their neighbor's legitimacy. And because of that, they got burned. But there's at least some of the population of Palestinian land owners that have become Israeli citizens.

That's gotten off the track a bit but it provides the historical background to prove that genocide is not being committed by either side. It's a land of conflict and as long as the world stays out, it will solve itself naturally.

I do disagree with your assessment that "EC is a long accepted means to simply remove an unwanted population." Slavery was once an accepted means for cheap labor, doesn't make it ethical, or in religious terms, moral.

I do not disagree with the historical content of your post. I must ask, do you think the UN Partition Plan was fair? If so, do you think it is fair that Israel has taken more land by force than what was given to them?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
green_dude777

The Palestinian were squatters. Refugees and Squatters. The UN partition is unfeasible.

http://upload.wikime...rsions_1947.jpg

This is really a joke. What nation could ever exist this way? No nation can exist in 3 separate, non continuous pieces. There is no way to defend that and it is a primary tenet of Zionism not to be beholding to any other entity for security. By accommodating this plan opens the way for pogroms or worse. Then what is the point of a Jewish state?

Disregard the one question in my previous post, you answered it here. I agree with you that it wasn't a fair plan... But when you say "What nation could ever exist this way? No nation can exist in 3 separate, non continuous pieces." are you saying that on behalf of the Israelis, the Palestinians, or both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
green_dude777

I don't know the answer to your question and it IS a fair one. The UN approved the action so far as I know. I don't think that after nearly 70 years it can just be rescinded. And the truth is that 181 (I think) offered BOTH groups a state at the same time. The Palestinians rejected it - never ever, remember? So what we have is one group who gained land and wanted more - the Jews. Another group who didn't want to give up anything (understandable) and the approach of the Palestinians for all the time since has been to stand firm and demand what they consider to be their rights. So far I think we'll be on the same page of music.

The feud being what it is and lasting as long as it has - hundreds of years - the only outcome is bound to be violence. On the whole I'd say the international community seemed to have dropped the ball on this one but NOW we have a situation that has simmered and grown and affects the entire planet due to the Israeli nukes. No matter who might cast them as the cause of all the ills of the region they STILL possess nukes and have a right to SURVIVE in this world as much as any other people or group - I hope we can agree on that point as well. Their insecurity might be forgiven by reasonable people considering they have enemies who have several times tried to cleanse the world of them AND a modern group (s) that still want to do so and are very vocal about it. The Israelis are not innocent lambs in all this, to be sure. They are using all the turmoil to continue expanding their holdings and the Palestinians and others are playing into this by continually attacking them. It's at this point that many pro Palestinians will say - But if they stop fighting the Zionists will just speed up the takeover" I support Israel as much or more than anyone I know but but even I would speak out against them if they took advantage when they could have peace instead of conflict. The problem here is the Palestinians have never really tried. The reason for this isn't a sinister all encompassing hatred of every single Palestinian for every single Jew. The reason is political leaders in the Palestinian movement who cynically use hatred of Jews to maintain their position - somewhat similar to the race hustlers in this country though far more virulent.

So we sit on opposite sides and call out vile names and threats and curses and the problem grows ever worse - just waiting on a match. Meanwhile the Islamists who have power very disproportionate to their numbers are using this conflict as the fuel and cover for their own designs in the world. Are we having fun yet?

I know people here think of me as a crank or an idiot due to my belief in biblical scripture - no harm, no foul. But if a person takes even a short time to read them it becomes apparent that ALL these things were warned of in advance - and they are all headed to a really bad outcome and there really isn't any way to stop them. I think the whole situation is about humanity being taught a lesson. Just my 2c

Now we're having a discussion :tu:

I can't speak for anyone but myself, I don't think you're a 'crank or an idiot' due to your belief in scripture. I just don't think belief should be used for legal actions, beliefs should be kept personal and only apply to yourself and those who share the belief. The Jews want to follow the Torah, good for them, just don't expect non Jews to obey the laws of the Torah. The Muslims want to follow the laws of the Koran, good for them, just don't expect non Muslims to obey the laws of the Koran, and so forth.

This is what is frustrating; you see the crap both sides pull, but support one side blindly. I just don't share the sentiment. I'm actually the opposite; I'll come down on my own blood more than a stranger for the same transgression, as I know my own blood knows better.

As far as prophecy, these fall into beliefs, not fact. No one has accurately predicted anything from prophecy, everything is after the fact. We see the same things with other 'prophets' that aren't from the Old or New Testament. About 10 years ago, the 'thing' was Nostradamus and his 'prophecies'.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Now we're having a discussion :tu:

I can't speak for anyone but myself, I don't think you're a 'crank or an idiot' due to your belief in scripture. I just don't think belief should be used for legal actions, beliefs should be kept personal and only apply to yourself and those who share the belief. The Jews want to follow the Torah, good for them, just don't expect non Jews to obey the laws of the Torah. The Muslims want to follow the laws of the Koran, good for them, just don't expect non Muslims to obey the laws of the Koran, and so forth.

This is what is frustrating; you see the crap both sides pull, but support one side blindly. I just don't share the sentiment. I'm actually the opposite; I'll come down on my own blood more than a stranger for the same transgression, as I know my own blood knows better.

As far as prophecy, these fall into beliefs, not fact. No one has accurately predicted anything from prophecy, everything is after the fact. We see the same things with other 'prophets' that aren't from the Old or New Testament. About 10 years ago, the 'thing' was Nostradamus and his 'prophecies'.

Actually there were more than a hundred references to the first coming of Messiah - Jesus - but I understand that those who cannot believe will deny. It is my belief that within the next year or two - and possibly much sooner, Israel will be attacked by every neighbor that borders them - ala 1967. And at some point not too distant future the city of Damascus Syria will be rendered uninhabitable overnight. These are prophetic scriptures that have not come to pass yet. If you see them you can decide if you believe THEN or whether they, also, are spurious. But before you decide I'd suggest actually studying the word and commentaries. It will be important to you at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
green_dude777

Actually there were more than a hundred references to the first coming of Messiah - Jesus - but I understand that those who cannot believe will deny. It is my belief that within the next year or two - and possibly much sooner, Israel will be attacked by every neighbor that borders them - ala 1967. And at some point not too distant future the city of Damascus Syria will be rendered uninhabitable overnight. These are prophetic scriptures that have not come to pass yet. If you see them you can decide if you believe THEN or whether they, also, are spurious. But before you decide I'd suggest actually studying the word and commentaries. It will be important to you at that time.

Well, what I find ironic, is that the Jewish people who prophesied those hundred references, didn't think JC was the Messiah. It was a small minority of low educated and poor, who followed and believed in JC. A lot of the reason for that was probably the fact that the temples didn't cater to these people at all, often treating them terribly or as sub human. JC stood by the common man, a true revolutionary. This is why I like JC the man.

I'm very familiar with the whole book (the Bible), especially the 'doomsday' prophecies. The actual study and understanding of the book is what drove me away. I actually lean towards the idea that Revelations was political satire. I mean, look what the Romans were capable of the time.

I respect the fact that you actually read your book, I don't believe most who proclaim this stuff actually do read their Bible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

I do disagree with your assessment that "EC is a long accepted means to simply remove an unwanted population." Slavery was once an accepted means for cheap labor, doesn't make it ethical, or in religious terms, moral.

Slavery was a way of life until perhaps the 1700s. Even today it goes on. And I’m not saying that I approve of it. In today’s post industrial culture, slavery is unnecessary. In the terms of ethics or morals, the institution of slavery was both. It was ethical and moral to use the human resource of captives rather than killing them. Even Jesus didn’t try to cause the slaves to revolt. He said that we all need to learn to live within our own circumstance. Learn how to be happy whether you are a slave or free.

I do not disagree with the historical content of your post. I must ask, do you think the UN Partition Plan was fair? If so, do you think it is fair that Israel has taken more land by force than what was given to them?

Disregard the one question in my previous post, you answered it here. I agree with you that it wasn't a fair plan... But when you say "What nation could ever exist this way? No nation can exist in 3 separate, non continuous pieces." are you saying that on behalf of the Israelis, the Palestinians, or both?

I won’t disregard but I will expand on it. It is an unfair deal for both. Land is more than just a possession. It is an identity; it is a source of wealth. There is no clear identity with this arrangement. This has become more about security than fairness. The only real solution is winner take all. Yes, Israel has a closer tie to the land because of historical reasons and the promise of GOD. But that isn’t the reason that the Jews should have the whole pie. It does go back to the tie with the land. Under Jewish management the land produces far more than under Palestinian. The mentality of the Palestinian is still semi-nomadic. It is the reason that they did not more actively pursue land ownership. The Jews are one with the land. The Palestinian is not. The land will be nothing more than a *common* to them. This is in reference to this post:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=258748

The world trying to apply a false sense of fairness does a disservice to the situation. It is a competition between two people for the right of the land and there can only be one winner. The Palestinian has never shown the same commitment to the land that the Jews have. The Palestinian was given several opportunities for side-by-side statehood with Israel and they have walked away every time. If the Palestinian feels that they are being treated unfairly, it is their fault. Again, they have not gotten beyond their semi-nomadic mindset. They are not ready for land ownership. Even their Muslim brothers do not look favorably on them. In the Arab collective, they are still viewed as semi-nomadic herders; the bottom of the rung in Arab culture. The only place that has turned around a favorable Palestinian coexistence is in Jordan, where the Queen is Palestinian.

Edited by RavenHawk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
green_dude777

Slavery was a way of life until perhaps the 1700s. Even today it goes on. And I’m not saying that I approve of it. In today’s post industrial culture, slavery is unnecessary. In the terms of ethics or morals, the institution of slavery was both. It was ethical and moral to use the human resource of captives rather than killing them. Even Jesus didn’t try to cause the slaves to revolt. He said that we all need to learn to live within our own circumstance. Learn how to be happy whether you are a slave or free.

I won’t disregard but I will expand on it. It is an unfair deal for both. Land is more than just a possession. It is an identity; it is a source of wealth. There is no clear identity with this arrangement. This has become more about security than fairness. The only real solution is winner take all. Yes, Israel has a closer tie to the land because of historical reasons and the promise of GOD. But that isn’t the reason that the Jews should have the whole pie. It does go back to the tie with the land. Under Jewish management the land produces far more than under Palestinian. The mentality of the Palestinian is still semi-nomadic. It is the reason that they did not more actively pursue land ownership. The Jews are one with the land. The Palestinian is not. The land will be nothing more than a *common* to them. This is in reference to this post:

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=258748

The world trying to apply a false sense of fairness does a disservice to the situation. It is a competition between two people for the right of the land and there can only be one winner. The Palestinian has never shown the same commitment to the land that the Jews have. The Palestinian was given several opportunities for side-by-side statehood with Israel and they have walked away every time. If the Palestinian feels that they are being treated unfairly, it is their fault. Again, they have not gotten beyond their semi-nomadic mindset. They are not ready for land ownership. Even their Muslim brothers do not look favorably on them. In the Arab collective, they are still viewed as semi-nomadic herders; the bottom of the rung in Arab culture. The only place that has turned around a favorable Palestinian coexistence is in Jordan, where the Queen is Palestinian.

We were doing so good too... the above in bold should have no merit, the 'promise' from god is a belief, and the historical reasons I think have long expired, unless you plan on forfeiting your plot for those who occupied it 2,000 years ago.

I brought up slavery as a counter point to "EC is a long accepted means to simply remove an unwanted population.", which I took as a justification for ethnic cleansing. It now appears that you are justifying slavery in the pre-modern world, yet isn't the whole theme of 'Jewish suffering' rooted in their days as slaves? (Which current findings are suggesting they weren't) I honestly don't know how to respond to that, you said "I’m not saying that I approve of it", yet the following sentences seem to try and justify the act (slavery). There were forward thinkers then, I believe old Alexander was able to conquer people without making them slaves. I'll stand by this; slavery, like ethnic cleansing, was as unethical/immoral then as it is now.

I agree with you that it was an unfair plan for both. But your elaboration of what land is, I think is looking through rose colored glasses. (I can't watch your video at the moment, but I am a fan of Stossel.) This 'tie' with the land, sounds a lot like something the British, and later Americans, would have used to justify pushing Native Americans off their land, and onto reservations. Because one will profit off the land, and the other just uses it as a settlement, we should award it to the former? As far as Palestinians not building since the Partition plan, I liken it to someone stepping on your throat, but then telling everyone else "he likes it, or he would say he doesn't".

"It is a competition between two people for the right of the land and there can only be one winner" This competition only started in the last century because of the world trying to instill 'fairness', the biggest problem was that who determined what was fair or not only had the Jews fairness in mind. The several opportunities for side by side statehood is null when we both have agreed that the original Partition Plan was unfair for both, and we both agree with at least one of the reasons why; "No nation can exist in 3 separate, non continuous pieces" I also don't see the that this not being able to live 'side by side' as solely the fault of Palestinians. For a long time, the thought in America was that the 'savage' Natives couldn't live side by side with the 'upright' white man. Of course we don't think that was the fault of the Natives today, it was the fault of racist white men from Europe treating them as sub humans. They were nomadic, didn't wear the European style of clothes, had 'weird' rituals, smoked, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Good on you green_dude for exposing someone enough to actually justify that "the Jews should have the whole pie." Not only does it reflect no differentiation of Israel from "the Jews", it reflects reality that Israel is swallowing the remaining pieces of Palestine.

Though based on previous posts, Ravenhawk believes that ethnic cleansing is an historical and thus acceptable fact of life.

But, Israel "wants peace", uh huh. The truth of what Israel wants is what it's doing, and the proof of what it's doing is on the map.

Palestinian-Loss-of-Land-Map-2010.jpg

Palestinians can't even want to do what Israel is doing every day and that excuse alone, for Palestinians to even "want" justice, is enough for some to deny them liberty and human rights.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Good on you green_dude for exposing someone enough to actually justify that "the Jews should have the whole pie." Not only does it reflect no differentiation of Israel from "the Jews", it reflects reality that Israel is swallowing the remaining pieces of Palestine.

Though based on previous posts, Ravenhawk believes that ethnic cleansing is an historical and thus acceptable fact of life.

But, Israel "wants peace", uh huh. The truth of what Israel wants is what it's doing, and the proof of what it's doing is on the map.

Palestinian-Loss-of-Land-Map-2010.jpg

Palestinians can't even want to do what Israel is doing every day and that excuse alone, for Palestinians to even "want" justice, is enough for some to deny them liberty and human rights.

So your point seems to be that Israel is illegitimate. The change in the map between '46 and '47 is a decision of the world body at the time. The other changes came in greatest part due to the Surrounding nations making war and trying to destroy the Jews. Granted, the same UN said that no country could "grow" through warfare but when a people are restricted to such a small area and are being attacked on all sides it is insanity to just cease fire and walk back to the starting point to wait until the enemy rests, replenishes and attacks again. And you do not mention the fact that the difference between map 2 and map 4 is caused by the Palestinians REFUSING to take what was offered. They lost a tremendous amount because they simply would/will not countenance a Jewish state in Palestine. Some day they will lose it ALL because of this attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

menewzz.gif

Just thought I'd offer a map that gives a little more context to the sizes we are talking about. Egypt, Jordan and Syria are primarily where these people were from prior to settling in Palestine. Each had control of parts of Palestine for many years and NO one NOT ONCE said anything about them being mistreated or stolen from. The difference in territory is VAST and the truth which I keep saying and WILL keep repeating is that it is not the size of the Jewish state that is the issue. It is the EXISTENCE of the Jewish state that is the issue. There will never be peace between these two peoples before Christ returns.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
buckskin scout

I'll take it that from Jeem's latest flurry of posts, lacking a reply to me, that he is not interested in answering. So I'll use yours as a proxy. I preach this tidbit of history all the time.

Massacres have occurred on both sides, but those are hardly *genocide*. Genghis Khan was said to commit genocide on an entire city, but in the end he saved the other cities in the region and the economic infrastructure and the culture went on. Given the known facts, I would have to say that the Palestinians started it, but today that is only history. It is neither here nor there. Genocide is more like Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, or even Nazi Germany. Ethnic cleansing is not necessarily genocide. Genocide just gets lumped in with EC. EC is a long accepted means to simply remove an unwanted population. It is violent but not necessarily deadly. Just about every nation currently and in history has done it. Islam does it with Dhimmi. Jordan did it during Black September. Lebanon does it with their Palestinians. Saddam was doing it to the Shiites and Kurds. The US did it with the Native American. Russia did it to the Jews (Ukraine). Turks tried it on the Armenians. The list is endless, but my favorite is the Alhambra Decree. Spain simply gave all non Catholics a simple choice, convert, leave, or die. Many of the Jews converted but secretively kept elements of Judaism in their lives. The New World gave them an opportunity for a new life and one can see the Jewish influence in the American Southwest in the Hispanic culture here.

How many of those Palestinians had legal title to the lands they squatted on? The Palestinian is a fairly young culture. It is a conglomeration of semi-nomadic herding tribes. Before the 1920s, a Palestinian identified themselves not as a Palestinian but by the tribe they were from. When they migrated into the region, they were not the rightful owners but the rightful owners did not have the means or the will to evict these squatters. Likewise, most of these squatters where unable to purchase the land. So that's how it stayed until the Ottoman Empire lost the region to the British. The British attempted to return legal rights back to the original owners and for the vast majority of indigenous peoples, they were successful. Where they couldn't return the land was Palestine. The land was owned by absentee owners that couldn't be found or no deeds were kept or deeds were forgeries. Because of this, there was no independent government and the region became unorganized. There was no prevalent indigenous direction. As all the other states around were becoming their own countries, Palestine remained a backwater. So the question arose as to what to do with the land. That's where the Balfour Declaration came about.

In 1909, Zionists seeking a homeland, with financial backing were able to purchase from the legal absentee owners, 200,000 acres in the Jezreel Valley. The Jews acting well within their legal rights removed the squatters from the land. I'm sure this is the reason for the first raid against the Jews. In time Jews legally bought more land or eventually took land from those that attacked them. That is a legal form of transferring land. Most of this land probably didn't belong to the attackers in the first place and this instituted the Palestinian tactic of attacking from land not theirs or civilian areas. Was there land taken away from legal Palestinian owners? It probably was, but in this chaos, how are you going to tell? This is where Palestinians with legal deeds didn't bother to be concerned with their neighbor's legitimacy. And because of that, they got burned. But there's at least some of the population of Palestinian land owners that have become Israeli citizens.

That's gotten off the track a bit but it provides the historical background to prove that genocide is not being committed by either side. It's a land of conflict and as long as the world stays out, it will solve itself naturally.

The Israelites always shared the land with its neighboring tribes.

According to the Scriptures, Israelites had an hegemony over that land for approximately 300 years that is from King David to the Divided Kingdoms.

300 years way back in 1000 BCE - 700 BCE, for Crissakes! That was over 3000 years ago! Geezus!

Can you imagine if the Greeks approached the United Nations and stated they wanted Constantinople back or the Irish approached the the UN and stated they wanted France back?

Its the same principle. However, in light of the 20th Century, dispossession is unheardof under the Geneva Conventions.

And it does not matter, genetics have traced the Palestinians back to before the Jewish hegemony and geneticists have concluded the Palestinians have Israelite ancestry too.

EDIT: Lemme make myself clearer, the Israelites hegemony over Palestine lasted 300 years approximately 3000 years ago. And they didn't even have self-rule for the entirety of that 300 years either being ruled by other neighboring powers during its apostate decline.

Edited by GoSC
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
buckskin scout

Actually there were more than a hundred references to the first coming of Messiah - Jesus - but I understand that those who cannot believe will deny. It is my belief that within the next year or two - and possibly much sooner, Israel will be attacked by every neighbor that borders them - ala 1967. And at some point not too distant future the city of Damascus Syria will be rendered uninhabitable overnight. These are prophetic scriptures that have not come to pass yet. If you see them you can decide if you believe THEN or whether they, also, are spurious. But before you decide I'd suggest actually studying the word and commentaries. It will be important to you at that time.

That was already fulfilled when the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser attacked Damascus and sacked it.

So the king of Assyria listened to him; and the king of Assyria went up against Damascus and captured it, and carried the people of it away into exile to Kir, and put Rezin to death.

2 Kings 16:9

"For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. Isaiah 7:16

for before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father ' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria." Isaiah 8:4

Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria (744-727 BC)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Rome still lays claim after the bang up job in 70CE ... the reason they went back was they wanted it back ... not for Israel ... but for the Holy Roman Empire ... Constantinople not Istanbul ...

~

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
buckskin scout

Slavery was a way of life until perhaps the 1700s. Even today it goes on. And I’m not saying that I approve of it. In today’s post industrial culture, slavery is unnecessary. In the terms of ethics or morals, the institution of slavery was both. It was ethical and moral to use the human resource of captives rather than killing them. Even Jesus didn’t try to cause the slaves to revolt. He said that we all need to learn to live within our own circumstance. Learn how to be happy whether you are a slave or free.

I won’t disregard but I will expand on it. It is an unfair deal for both. Land is more than just a possession. It is an identity; it is a source of wealth. There is no clear identity with this arrangement. This has become more about security than fairness. The only real solution is winner take all. Yes, Israel has a closer tie to the land because of historical reasons and the promise of GOD. But that isn’t the reason that the Jews should have the whole pie. It does go back to the tie with the land. Under Jewish management the land produces far more than under Palestinian. The mentality of the Palestinian is still semi-nomadic. It is the reason that they did not more actively pursue land ownership. The Jews are one with the land. The Palestinian is not. The land will be nothing more than a *common* to them. This is in reference to this post:

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=258748

The world trying to apply a false sense of fairness does a disservice to the situation. It is a competition between two people for the right of the land and there can only be one winner. The Palestinian has never shown the same commitment to the land that the Jews have. The Palestinian was given several opportunities for side-by-side statehood with Israel and they have walked away every time. If the Palestinian feels that they are being treated unfairly, it is their fault. Again, they have not gotten beyond their semi-nomadic mindset. They are not ready for land ownership. Even their Muslim brothers do not look favorably on them. In the Arab collective, they are still viewed as semi-nomadic herders; the bottom of the rung in Arab culture. The only place that has turned around a favorable Palestinian coexistence is in Jordan, where the Queen is Palestinian.

You are so thoroughly indoctrinated with myths dude.

The Palestinians were the natural inhabitants of the land, get over it.

90-95% of Palestine was their's under Mandate policy. It was Britain that broke the Mandate policy by incorporating their Balfour Declaration which defied Mandate Policy

The UN gave 56% of Palestine to the Zionists. And it was the most fertile land. The best land.

Here is a blog loaded with quotes that population transfer was part of the Zionist agenda long, long before Israel became a state:

Zionism and the Arabs of Palestine.

The ideological basis of Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing of Arabs in Palestine.

The root cause of the Israel-Palestine conflict lays squarely at the feet of Zionist colonialism and those European and western powers who have empowered and enabled the Zionist State of Israel to oppress the Arabs of Palestine. This oppression has provoked a people (previously enjoying good relations with Jews throughout the Arab world) to violence against the tyranny of the Zionist State of Israel. Unfortunately some Arabs have (in their despair and sense of powerlessness) resorted to acts of terrorism, just as the Zionists had done during the British Mandate period when they felt overwhelmed by those more powerful than them. However, the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs have resisted the Zionist State in a dignified and peaceful manner.

http://craignielsen....s-of-palestine/

Edited by Saru
Edited massive copy and paste job
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

What solution do you offer, GoSC? If one accepts every point you make and admits every crime, sin, etc... What must be done to bring justice? The nation of Israel has existed for about 66 years. About 7 million souls live, work and call home there on that land. Obviously those people aren't just going away. Let's assume that the Jews of Israel, approximately 80% of the population, are willing to share the tiny piece of land and refrain from new building of settlements. They stop using checkpoints and even bring down the barrier/wall. IF at that time the Palestinians still keep attacking with rockets and begin to use homicide bombs again (IF), then what?

This is a reasonable question and I would appreciate a reasonable answer please.

I ask it because I really think peace is not possible in less than a generation due to the teaching of hatred to the Palestinian children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

What solution do you offer, GoSC? If one accepts every point you make and admits every crime, sin, etc... What must be done to bring justice? The nation of Israel has existed for about 66 years. About 7 million souls live, work and call home there on that land. Obviously those people aren't just going away. Let's assume that the Jews of Israel, approximately 80% of the population, are willing to share the tiny piece of land and refrain from new building of settlements. They stop using checkpoints and even bring down the barrier/wall. IF at that time the Palestinians still keep attacking with rockets and begin to use homicide bombs again (IF), then what?

Unless it's state sanctioned, it's not "The Palestinians". It's a group of individuals who will be acting against the law that would pretty obviously already be in place.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

So your point seems to be that Israel is illegitimate. The change in the map between '46 and '47 is a decision of the world body at the time. The other changes came in greatest part due to the Surrounding nations making war and trying to destroy the Jews.

Israel was the first aggressor.Since !947 they attacked Jordan,Lebanon,Syria,Egypt and continuously attacking Palestine with a motive to wipe them out.Npt to mention they bombed Iraq.If you look for trouble you will get trouble.

Granted, the same UN said that no country could "grow" through warfare but when a people are restricted to such a small area and are being attacked on all sides it is insanity to just cease fire and walk back to the starting point to wait until the enemy rests, replenishes and attacks again.

A lame excuse for supporting aggression and genocide.

And you do not mention the fact that the difference between map 2 and map 4 is caused by the Palestinians REFUSING to take what was offered. They lost a tremendous amount because they simply would/will not countenance a Jewish state in Palestine. Some day they will lose it ALL because of this attitude.

The offering was not proper.You give me a gift and you cannot claim it later.The Zionist would make settlement ,destroy Palestinian house and even claim the land later.

Edited by jeem
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

menewzz.gif

Just thought I'd offer a map that gives a little more context to the sizes we are talking about. Egypt, Jordan and Syria are primarily where these people were from prior to settling in Palestine. Each had control of parts of Palestine for many years and NO one NOT ONCE said anything about them being mistreated or stolen from. The difference in territory is VAST and the truth which I keep saying and WILL keep repeating is that it is not the size of the Jewish state that is the issue. It is the EXISTENCE of the Jewish state that is the issue. There will never be peace between these two peoples before Christ returns.

menewzz.gif

Just thought I'd offer a map that gives a little more context to the sizes we are talking about. Egypt, Jordan and Syria are primarily where these people were from prior to settling in Palestine. Each had control of parts of Palestine for many years and NO one NOT ONCE said anything about them being mistreated or stolen from. The difference in territory is VAST and the truth which I keep saying and WILL keep repeating is that it is not the size of the Jewish state that is the issue. It is the EXISTENCE of the Jewish state that is the issue. There will never be peace between these two peoples before Christ returns.

Those nation did not violate Palestinian right like the Zionist.You should understand when people want freedom.People or a race want freedom when their rights are violated by the state.The Zionist want the Palestinian out of their homeland and so they start resisting

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

So Israel is illegitimate and cannot exist as a state of any size. Just so I understand your stance. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

So Israel is illegitimate and cannot exist as a state of any size. Just so I understand your stance. Thank you.

You misunderstand my stance .You are welcome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

You misunderstand my stance .You are welcome

I understand you perfectly Jeem. I have asked you several times a direct question about Israel being allowed to exist as a Jewish state in Palestine and you will not give a clear answer - it's a simple question.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

So your point seems to be that Israel is illegitimate. The change in the map between '46 and '47 is a decision of the world body at the time. The other changes came in greatest part due to the Surrounding nations making war and trying to destroy the Jews. Granted, the same UN said that no country could "grow" through warfare but when a people are restricted to such a small area and are being attacked on all sides it is insanity to just cease fire and walk back to the starting point to wait until the enemy rests, replenishes and attacks again. And you do not mention the fact that the difference between map 2 and map 4 is caused by the Palestinians REFUSING to take what was offered. They lost a tremendous amount because they simply would/will not countenance a Jewish state in Palestine. Some day they will lose it ALL because of this attitude.

I'm not questioning the creation or legitimacy of Israel. Palestinians refusing to take what was offered wasn't the problem. It was not being allowed to return home.

I agree some day they will lose it all; the map proves that well enough. "Because of this attitude." Like it's not because of Israel's policies it's because of the Palestinians' attitude. If one is to be a Palestinian, they must have silent and submissive personalities about becoming refugees, their houses being bulldozed, their trees being uprooted, their farms razed, fishermen getting shot at, hospitals and police stations getting bombed, teenagers arrested and tortured in prison, not allowed to rebuild, not allowed rifles and shotguns and pistols, cut off from trade with the outside world, cut into pieces by "Jewish Only" roads they're not allowed to use...

Yeah, the American people especially the republicans would be running around with their hair on fire if all that were being done to them by Obama. It's rainbow fairies and sugarplum dreams in the US right now compared to what's going on in the occupied territories.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

I'm not questioning the creation or legitimacy of Israel. Palestinians refusing to take what was offered wasn't the problem. It was not being allowed to return home.

I agree some day they will lose it all; the map proves that well enough. "Because of this attitude." Like it's not because of Israel's policies it's because of the Palestinians' attitude. If one is to be a Palestinian, they must have silent and submissive personalities about becoming refugees, their houses being bulldozed, their trees being uprooted, their farms razed, fishermen getting shot at, hospitals and police stations getting bombed, teenagers arrested and tortured in prison, not allowed to rebuild, not allowed rifles and shotguns and pistols, cut off from trade with the outside world, cut into pieces by "Jewish Only" roads they're not allowed to use...

Yeah, the American people especially the republicans would be running around with their hair on fire if all that were being done to them by Obama. It's rainbow fairies and sugarplum dreams in the US right now compared to what's going on in the occupied territories.

You know very well that right of return would mean the end of the state of Israel as a Jewish state. it would make the Jews of Israel dhimmi in their own country. Never going to happen Yam.You want them to have the land back that was given to Israel and that also isn't going to happen. But there COULD be an accommodation where each got a share if they could compromise. Neither want to do so. But I believe the settlement issue could be corralled if the Palis even made a goodwill attempt to stop shooting. They won't because the scum that leads them wants to hold onto power at all costs. So on and on it goes and where it stops EVERYBODY knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

You know very well that right of return would mean the end of the state of Israel as a Jewish state.

No I do not know any such thing. But what you're also implying is that this wasn't the "Land without a People for a People without a Land" the propaganda tells us it was.

But I believe the settlement issue could be corralled if the Palis even made a goodwill attempt to stop shooting.

Where are all these shootings in the West Bank at this year? What basis do you deny a goodwill attempt to stop shooting? How long does the Palestinian-only no-shooting thing have to last before they get enough political cred for you to agree with me on the settlements?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.