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

THat's the thing ... 'may be' ... the learned and leaders of the faith you believe in do not agree ... and the sad thing is you drag JC's good name through all of this ...

GOd does not need to 'show' anything ... YWYH ... JC ... Allah SWT .... The Heavenly Emperors ... Zeus .... Jupiter ...

As a believer you just need to believe ... and not be dictating what a divinity can, should or must do ... which is 'blasphemous'

~

I do not recall "dictating" anything. The statements I have made have been about the word of God from the bible. I certainly make no claim as a prophet, nor did I write any of it. But when the text clearly states a thing then I believe it will happen just that way. And on the contrary to your statement that God does not NEED to show anything - he said the following (Jesus) in John 13:19 -

He knew the Jews of that day required proofs. Of course he also said to Thomas "Blessed is he who believes without seeing" so I guess you have a point too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Israelis are oppressor,illegal land taker up from Europe.

The Jews are indeed land grabbers, but they have done it legally. Oppressors? They are just returning in kind. Fighting fire with fire.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

The Achtiname of Muhammad

Thanks for the historical context. Isn’t this a typical Mohammed con job? For years I had always wondered who in today’s world Mohammed is most like. After having 5 years of Obama, it’s real easy to tell that Obama is more like Mohammed rather than Mandela. Mohammed must have had similar charisma. I can hear him now, “if you like your pogroms, you can keep your pogroms.” Let’s look a little closer to what was promised. It’s those things that allow participation in society as a full citizen. That’s taxes and service. This promise is a statement of Dhimmitude by subjugating a population under Muslim rule. It forces a people to be a kept people. This is a form of control or even ethnic cleansing. The intent is to slowly drive out the faith from a people and replace it with Islam. I have no problem with the mechanism but I would rather be on the side that is implementing it.

People of the Book are still sinners in their belief. The Jews have *corrupted* the word and the Christians follow Jesus. And here’s the clever part. Mohammed overlays Islamic history on top of Jewish and claims that the Jews got it wrong. Not that Yahweh does not exist, basically hijacking the faith. With Christianity, he doesn’t deny that Jesus existed just that he is a major prophet named Issa and not the son of GOD. This way, Mohammed can appear as a father figure to guide these sinners back to the true faith. As far as the Achtiname of Muhammad goes, that is only a bait ‘n switch. Sounds like a certain POTUS uh? There is the Treaty of Hudaibiya in which Mohammed made a treaty with Mecca and then later took the city by surprise saying that they had violated the treaty. This laid the ground work for how Islam grew. With the People of the Book, it never stopped pogroms from occurring. Whenever the Jewish population began to get too large, the Muslims could say that they were proselytizing (threatening the Ummah) and beat them back and then say but the Achtiname of Muhammad is still good because you are still sinners. For Christians, they will never be equals to Muslims primarily in order to do that, the Muslims would have to share authority with Jesus and that is a major sin in Islam. That can never happen. The Muslim has to be the dominant party in this *relationship*.

This is the MO of Islam throughout the ages. It has never changed and it never will.

You make enemies of one and then you curse and demonise them for facing you as an opponent ... you need to believe in monsters so that monsters such as yourself is allowed free reign on this world ....

This is what I feel that Yamato, Ninjadude, etc do to me. They curse me for my thoughts and then demonize me when I stand up to them. Are you one?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Thanks for the historical context. Isn't this a typical Mohammed con job? For years I had always wondered who in today's world Mohammed is most like. After having 5 years of Obama, it's real easy to tell that Obama is more like Mohammed rather than Mandela. Mohammed must have had similar charisma. I can hear him now, "if you like your pogroms, you can keep your pogroms." Let's look a little closer to what was promised. It's those things that allow participation in society as a full citizen. That's taxes and service. This promise is a statement of Dhimmitude by subjugating a population under Muslim rule. It forces a people to be a kept people. This is a form of control or even ethnic cleansing. The intent is to slowly drive out the faith from a people and replace it with Islam. I have no problem with the mechanism but I would rather be on the side that is implementing it.

Con job ? HOw so ? YOu are using 20th century spin to justify and incriminate your discrimination towards the facts thus stated as in a 'HIstorical' context ...

You claim "freedom" to worship ... why not extend the courtesy ?

'This promise is a statement of Dhimmitude by subjugating a population under Muslim rule.'

This bears the ugly hallmark of an empty and prejudiced Rhetoric ...

Allport's Scale is a measure of the manifestation of prejudice in a society. It is also referred to as Allport's Scale of Prejudice and Discrimination or Allport's Scale of Prejudice. It was devised by psychologist Gordon Allport in 1954.[1][2]

The scale

Allport’s Scale of Prejudice goes from 1 – 5.

1. Antilocution: Antilocution means a majority group freely make jokes about a minority group. Speech is in terms of negative stereotypes and negative images.[2] This is also called hate speech.[3] It is commonly seen as harmless by the majority. Antilocution itself may not be harmful, but it sets the stage for more severe outlets for prejudice. (e.g. Ethnic jokes)

2. Avoidance: Members of the majority group actively avoid people in a minority group.[2] No direct harm may be intended, but harm is done through isolation. (e.g. Social exclusion)

3. Discrimination: Minority group is discriminated against by denying them opportunities and services and so putting prejudice into action.[2] Behaviors have the specific goal of harming the minority group by preventing them from achieving goals, getting education or jobs, etc. The majority group is actively trying to harm the minority. (e.g. Jim Crow laws, Apartheid, Koreans in Japan)

4. Physical Attack: The majority group vandalize, burn or destroy minority group property and carry out violent attacks on individuals or groups.[2] Physical harm is done to members of the minority group. Examples are lynchings of blacks, pogroms against Jews in Europe and British Loyalists in the 1700s.

5. Extermination: The majority group seeks extermination or removal of the minority group.[2] They attempt to eliminate either the entire or a large fraction of a group of people (e.g., Indian Wars to remove Native Americans, American lynchings, Final Solution to the "Jewish Question" in Germany, the Rwandan Genocide, and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia).

This scale should not be confused with the Religious Orientation Scale of Allport and Ross (1967) which is a measure of the maturity of an individual's religious conviction.

People of the Book are still sinners in their belief. The Jews have *corrupted* the word and the Christians follow Jesus. And here's the clever part. Mohammed overlays Islamic history on top of Jewish and claims that the Jews got it wrong. Not that Yahweh does not exist, basically hijacking the faith. With Christianity, he doesn't deny that Jesus existed just that he is a major prophet named Issa and not the son of GOD. This way, Mohammed can appear as a father figure to guide these sinners back to the true faith. As far as the Achtiname of Muhammad goes, that is only a bait 'n switch. Sounds like a certain POTUS uh? There is the Treaty of Hudaibiya in which Mohammed made a treaty with Mecca and then later took the city by surprise saying that they had violated the treaty. This laid the ground work for how Islam grew. With the People of the Book, it never stopped pogroms from occurring. Whenever the Jewish population began to get too large, the Muslims could say that they were proselytizing (threatening the Ummah) and beat them back and then say but the Achtiname of Muhammad is still good because you are still sinners. For Christians, they will never be equals to Muslims primarily in order to do that, the Muslims would have to share authority with Jesus and that is a major sin in Islam. That can never happen. The Muslim has to be the dominant party in this *relationship*.

This is the MO of Islam throughout the ages. It has never changed and it never will.

The very first line of this claim is already so wrong I don't even know where to begin with the rest of the paragraph ... what I understand is your 'facts' on the Faith of the Believers is already so entrenched in a corrupted state with such a chauvinistic opinionated bias that I wonder where you get it all from ... be so kind as to state some sources for reference ? Or is it your personal opinion stated here ?

All I can do is to perhaps suggest a reading of :

First published 2007 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

1 2007

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

War and peace in the ancient world/edited by Kurt A. Raaflaub.

p. cm.—(The ancient world—comparative histories)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-4525-1 (hardback: alk. paper)

ISBN-10: 1-4051-4525-0 (hardback: alk. paper)

ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-4526-8 (pbk.: alk. paper)

ISBN-10: 1-4051-4526-9 (pbk.: alk. paper)

1. Military history, Ancient. I. Raaflaub, Kurt A. II. Series.

U29.W3475 2007

303.6’60901—dc22

2006009425

Don't worry ... its not a book on 'religion'

This is what I feel that Yamato, Ninjadude, etc do to me. They curse me for my thoughts and then demonize me when I stand up to them. Are you one?

You didn't get the 'meaning' ... naturally since you read it with a bias mind ...

Psychology of religion consists of the application of psychological methods and interpretive frameworks to religious traditions, as well as to both religious and irreligious individuals. The science attempts to accurately describe the details, origins, and uses of religious beliefs and behaviors. Although the psychology of religion first arose as a self-conscious discipline as recently as the late 19th century, all three of these tasks have a history going back many centuries before that.[1]

~ edit : added links

Edited by third_eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

I do not recall "dictating" anything. The statements I have made have been about the word of God from the bible. I certainly make no claim as a prophet, nor did I write any of it. But when the text clearly states a thing then I believe it will happen just that way. And on the contrary to your statement that God does not NEED to show anything - he said the following (Jesus) in John 13:19 -

He knew the Jews of that day required proofs. Of course he also said to Thomas "Blessed is he who believes without seeing" so I guess you have a point too.

Far be it for me to correct you on your faith but in reference to the passage that you quoted :

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 19. - I tell you from henceforth - ἀπ' ἄρτι of Matthew 26:64 corresponds with Luke 22:69, ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν; the word also implies that our Lord would again recur to the subject. This is the true meaning of ἀπάρτι in the New Testament (John 1:52; 14:7; Matthew 23:39 - before it come to pass, that ye may believe when it is come to pass, that I am; i.e. I am what I have said, none the less, but all the more, the Son of God (cf. Isaiah 43:11-13; John 8:24, 28, 58). It is more than the words will bear to make the ἐγώ εϊμι, the equivalent of a Divine claim to equality with Jehovah; but "all that I have said of myself, and all you have admitted to be true." It is not a promise of continual prevision of events, but a startling proof that in this case our Lord had completely fathomed the mind of Judas, and was communicative of what he saw there to the rest of the disciples, so that when the tragedy should be consummated, this peculiarity, instead of shaking their faith in him, will prove that he was taken by no surprise, and throughout his great career was what he said he was.

bold and italics mine ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Con job ? HOw so ? YOu are using 20th century spin to justify and incriminate your discrimination towards the facts thus stated as in a 'HIstorical' context ...

You claim "freedom" to worship ... why not extend the courtesy ?

'This promise is a statement of Dhimmitude by subjugating a population under Muslim rule.'

This bears the ugly hallmark of an empty and prejudiced Rhetoric ...

The very first line of this claim is already so wrong I don't even know where to begin with the rest of the paragraph ... what I understand is your 'facts' on the Faith of the Believers is already so entrenched in a corrupted state with such a chauvinistic opinionated bias that I wonder where you get it all from ... be so kind as to state some sources for reference ? Or is it your personal opinion stated here ?

All I can do is to perhaps suggest a reading of :

Don't worry ... its not a book on 'religion'

You didn't get the 'meaning' ... naturally since you read it with a bias mind ...

~

I have often heard Muslims say that the bible has been "corrupted or changed" and therefore is not worthy of following. They also find it anathema to think of worshipping Jesus because "god has no son". I'm not sure where he got anything wrong in the "first line" but then I guess I'm "biased" also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

I have often heard Muslims say that the bible has been "corrupted or changed" and therefore is not worthy of following. They also find it anathema to think of worshipping Jesus because "god has no son". I'm not sure where he got anything wrong in the "first line" but then I guess I'm "biased" also.

So the Muslims do not believe JC is son of GOd as in begotten of the flesh ... because GOd is not of the flesh ... neither do the 'people of the book' ... fact is neither do I ... but that don't encourage us to disrespect JC in any way ... but then again ... this is not for this thread ... start one ...

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Far be it for me to correct you on your faith but in reference to the passage that you quoted :

bold and italics mine ....

He spoke of what was to be did he not? You can minimize it as something akin to a mind reading trick but the point is the same - he gave knowledge of an event beforehand and did so to PROVE that he was who he said he was. I realize that most in this world do not accept him for what he said of himself. This is why we learn in Revelation 1:7 that ""Look, he is coming with the clouds," and "every eye will see him, even those who pierced him"; and all peoples on earth "will mourn because of him." So shall it be! Amen.

I am no scholar but I have long felt that they will mourn because they will be broken hearted more so than fearful. They will finally realize that the love that he offered was real and they rejected it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

He spoke of what was to be did he not? You can minimize it as something akin to a mind reading trick but the point is the same - he gave knowledge of an event beforehand and did so to PROVE that he was who he said he was. I realize that most in this world do not accept him for what he said of himself. This is why we learn in Revelation 1:7 that ""Look, he is coming with the clouds," and "every eye will see him, even those who pierced him"; and all peoples on earth "will mourn because of him." So shall it be! Amen.

I am no scholar but I have long felt that they will mourn because they will be broken hearted more so than fearful. They will finally realize that the love that he offered was real and they rejected it.

This is where you confuse a big part of the point I'm trying to get across to you ... it is 'not what he (JC) said of himself' ... it is what the followers today says of Him ...

again this is getting way off track ... open a thread ...

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
buckskin scout

I've already answered this to some degree but it doesn't hurt to repeat it. They didn't always but they tried. And they would have if it wasn't for the actions of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. He shared Hitler's ideal of the "Final Solution".

Incorrect, though the Grand Mufti is responsible for multiple incitements of the Arabs against the Jews. But the whole conflict really began over land and labour and the Arabs feeling politically threatened by the Zionists ... for good reason.

“Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880’s...when [they] purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it.” Don Peretz, “The Arab-Israeli Dispute.”

“[During the Middle Ages,] North Africa and the Arab Middle East became places of refuge and a haven for the persecuted Jews of Spain and elsewhere...In the Holy Land...they lived together in [relative] harmony, a harmony only disrupted when the Zionists began to claim that Palestine was the ‘rightful’ possession of the ‘Jewish people’ to the exclusion of its Moslem and Christian inhabitants.” Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

“Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination.” Zionist writer Ahad Ha’am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

“An article by Yitzhak Epstein, published in Hashiloah in 1907...called for a new Zionist policy towards the Arabs after 30 years of settlement activity...Like Ahad-Ha’am in 1891, Epstein claims that no good land is vacant, so Jewish settlement meant Arab dispossession...Epstein’s solution to the problem, so that a new “Jewish question” may be avoided, is the creation of a bi-national, non-exclusive program of settlement and development. Purchasing land should not involve the dispossession of poor sharecroppers. It should mean creating a joint farming community, where the Arabs will enjoy modern technology. Schools, hospitals and libraries should be non-exclusivist and education bilingual...The vision of non-exclusivist, peaceful cooperation to replace the practice of dispossession found few takers. Epstein was maligned and scorned for his faintheartedness.” Israeli author, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, “Original Sins.”

“The aim of the [Jewish National] Fund was ‘to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.’...As early as 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha’am wrote that the Arabs “understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at’...[Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated] ‘We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly’...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund’s request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs.” John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”

In 1919, the American King-Crane Commission spent six weeks in Syria and Palestine, interviewing delegations and reading petitions. Their report stated, “The commissioners began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favor...The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conferences with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase...

“If [the] principle [of self-determination] is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine’s population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine — nearly nine-tenths of the whole — are emphatically against the entire Zionist program.. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted...No British officers, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms.The officers generally thought that a force of not less than fifty thousand soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program...The initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a ‘right’ to Palestine based on occupation of two thousand years ago, can barely be seriously considered.” Quoted in “The Israel-Arab Reader” ed. Laquer and Rubin.

“Zionist land policy was incorporated in the Constitution of the Jewish Agency for Palestine...’land is to be acquired as Jewish property and..the title to the lands acquired is to be taken in the name of the Jewish National Fund, to the end that the same shall be held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people.’ The provision goes to stipulate that ‘the Agency shall promote agricultural colonization based on Jewish labor’...The effect of this Zionist colonization policy on the Arabs was that land acquired by Jews became extra-territorialized. It ceased to be land from which the Arabs could ever hope to gain any advantage...

“The Zionists made no secret of their intentions, for as early as 1921, Dr. Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, boldly told the Court of Inquiry, ‘there can be only one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.’ He then asked that only Jews should be allowed to bear arms.” Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

“Clearly, the last thing the Zionists really wanted was that all the inhabitants of Palestine should have an equal say in running the country... [Chaim] Weizmann had impressed on Churchill that representative government would have spelled the end of the [Jewish] National Home in Palestine... [Churchill declared,] ‘The present form of government will continue for many years. Step by step we shall develop representative institutions leading to full self-government, but our children’s children will have passed away before that is accomplished.’” David Hirst, “The Gun and the Olive Branch.”

“Even if nobody lost their land, the [Zionist] program was unjust in principle because it denied majority political rights... Zionism, in principle, could not allow the natives to exercise their political rights because it would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise.” Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, “Original Sins.”

“In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt... David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that ‘in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,’ but he urged, ‘let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.’ The truth was that ‘politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside’... The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality.” Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”

“Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.” Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in “A Land of Two Peoples” ed. Mendes-Flohr.

For a Jew that is very powerful in their faith. But that isn't enough to solidify the claim. Please read the entire post, then you won't stick your foot in your mouth. But where else would the Jew have a Homeland? That is the most logical place. And the opportunity presented itself when the land became unorganized territory in the 1920s. It was a Homeland made to order.

And? Your point? Hegemony and self rule in this case is not as important as the fact that for about 1500 years (2000 years ago), they were in the land. After the Jewish Diaspora and destruction of the culture, the Romans called it Syria Palaestina. The populations that filled the land were transient. Palestine was a place to go to but not stay. After ancient Israel, the region has never seen the same level of culture until modern Israel. 19th Century Palestine was indeed beautiful and agrarian, a backwater full of peasants and shepherds. Many places like the al-Aqsa mosque were neglected. But Modern Israel has brought new life to the desert. It is modern and an economic power. It is no longer that backwater where people went to disappear.

The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years). The mythic “land without people for a people without land” was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. The Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314.”

“Britain’s high commissioner for Palestine, John Chancellor, recommended total suspension of Jewish immigration and land purchase to protect Arab agriculture. He said ‘all cultivable land was occupied; that no cultivable land now in possession of the indigenous population could be sold to Jews without creating a class of landless Arab cultivators’...The Colonial Office rejected the recommendation.” John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
buckskin scout

The Palestinian are immigrants, wanderers, shepherds up from Yemen and Saudi Arabia as well as Syrians that were displaced by Kurds.

You are incorrect, centuries before the Arabs conquered Palestine (634-640), conversions of Jews to Christianity helped reduce the population that identified itself as Jewish. The descendants of these converts are still perhaps among the Christian and Muslim Arabs of Palestine whose roots go back to the Canaanites. These Arabs' Palestinian roots would obviously be as old as those of the Jews. Except for perhaps a few Jews whose ancestors may have lived continuously in Palestine, these Arabs' Palestinian roots would be much more continuous than those of all Jews. When Palestine fell under Muslim rule, Palestine was slowly Arabized culturally, religiously and to some extent ethnically. Arab tribes gradually immigrated into Palestine from Arabia but the indigeneous people were allowed to remain. Eventually many of these two groups presumably intermarried. Therefore many, if not virtually all, present-day Palestinian Arabs presumably include in their ancestry people who undoubtedly includes Arabized Jews, who converted to Islam. Through them this ancestry probably reaches back into the Canaanites. To say that today's Palestinian Arabs have been there only since the seventh century is to oversimplify an ethnic blending that probably extends from pre-Abrahamic Canaanites times to the 20th century.

Maybe 90-95% of Palestinians didn't have proper deeds. If that much of it belonged to them then why did the Palestinians seek to put a stop to Jews legally buying land from the rightful land owners in 1936?

“[The Ottoman Land Code of 1858] required the registration in the name of individual owners of agricultural land, most of which had never previously been registered and which had formerly been treated according to traditional forms of land tenure, in the hill areas of Palestine generally masha’a, or communal usufruct. The new law meant that for the first time a peasant could be deprived not of title to his land, which he had rarely held before, but rather of the right to live on it, cultivate it and pass it on to his heirs, which had formerly been inalienable...Under the provisions of the 1858 law, communal rights of tenure were often ignored...Instead, members of the upper classes, adept at manipulating or circumventing the legal process, registered large areas of land as theirs...The fellahin [peasants] naturally considered the land to be theirs, and often discovered that they had ceased to be the legal owners only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord...Not only was the land being purchased; its Arab cultivators were being dispossessed and replaced by foreigners who had overt political objectives in Palestine.” Rashid Khalidi, “Blaming The Victims,” ed. Said and Hitchens

“The aim of the [Jewish National] Fund was ‘to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.’...As early as 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha’am wrote that the Arabs “understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at’...[Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated] ‘We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly’...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund’s request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs.” John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”

The UN didn't really *GIVE* the land to the Jews. All the partition plans took into consideration where the majority of each lived. Jews had been buying up all the good land. Why couldn't the Palestinian do the same? That implies that the Palestinians didn't own the land in the first place. But with that said, isn't about half of the Jewish land, the Negev? Whose bright idea was it to give the desert to the Jews?

In 1948, at the moment that Israel declared itself a state, it legally owned a little more than 6 percent of the land of Palestine...After 1940, when the mandatory authority restricted Jewish land ownership to specific zones inside Palestine, there continued to be illegal buying (and selling) within the 65 percent of the total area restricted to Arabs.

Thus when the partition plan was announced in 1947 it included land held illegally by Jews, which was incorporated as a fait accompli inside the borders of the Jewish state. And after Israel announced its statehood, an impressive series of laws legally assimilated huge tracts of Arab land (whose proprietors had become refugees, and were pronounced ‘absentee landlords’ in order to expropriate their lands and prevent their return under any circumstances).” Edward Said, “The Question of Palestine.”

Many of the quotes were taken from this page The Origin Of The Palestinian-Israel Conflict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
buckskin scout

Thank you for a straight answer. I respect that you feel very strongly about this just as I do. I think that your expectations are unrealistic and time will show that to be true. I believe Israel will once again trade territory for peace and once again their enemies in Palestine will begin attacking them as soon as they have secured the new territory. According to your feelings about the situation, these Palestinians have a right to behave in this way but their right and their ability to ever have any real peace are going to be incompatible.

Israel has never ever traded for a sovereign self-governing and self-determining Palestinian state. Israel continues its expansionist and 19th colonialist agenda by creating facts -- building settlements on occupied Palestinian land. To continue building settlements is no peaceful overture but of conquest.

God never tolerated immoral social injustices with Biblical Israel and why would he make an exception now, with a secular Jewish state?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Israel has never ever traded for a sovereign self-governing and self-determining Palestinian state. Israel continues its expansionist and 19th colonialist agenda by creating facts -- building settlements on occupied Palestinian land. To continue building settlements is no peaceful overture but of conquest.

God never tolerated immoral social injustices with Biblical Israel and why would he make an exception now, with a secular Jewish state?

Yet it seems he not only is allowing it he is blessing it. Your version of God is one who behaves in a way that suits your concept of morality - as though he must obey your version of it. I don't say that to insult you just to clarify the way you appear to me. God is sovereign and can do as he pleases. The justice you seem to seek is the removal of the state of Israel. My understanding is that Israel will indeed be invaded and controlled by foreign forces for a brief period during the tribulation. Many will die. But the people of Israel will never wholly be removed from the land again - ever. And when the Lord does return he will repay those who have taken from and attempted to slander and steal from his chosen. NOT because they are morally superior - he is no respecter of persons - but because they dare to abuse what he himself sanctified. If I am correct in my belief then on that day those who stood against the Jews of Israel (not necessarily the state I think) will be greatly ashamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
buckskin scout

Yet it seems he not only is allowing it he is blessing it. Your version of God is one who behaves in a way that suits your concept of morality - as though he must obey your version of it. I don't say that to insult you just to clarify the way you appear to me. God is sovereign and can do as he pleases. The justice you seem to seek is the removal of the state of Israel. My understanding is that Israel will indeed be invaded and controlled by foreign forces for a brief period during the tribulation. Many will die. But the people of Israel will never wholly be removed from the land again - ever. And when the Lord does return he will repay those who have taken from and attempted to slander and steal from his chosen. NOT because they are morally superior - he is no respecter of persons - but because they dare to abuse what he himself sanctified. If I am correct in my belief then on that day those who stood against the Jews of Israel (not necessarily the state I think) will be greatly ashamed.

According to biblegateway.com, there is not one single verse that refers to the Jews as God's chosen in the New Testament but rather:

Romans 10:11-13

11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Colossians 3:11-13

11 a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

12 So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you.

1 Peter 2:9-10

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

11 Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul. 12 Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.

Galatians 3:27-29

27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato
My understanding is that Israel will indeed be invaded and controlled by foreign forces for a brief period during the tribulation. Many will die.

Then for the love of all that is Semitic, stop supporting Zionist policies of immigration and settlement or it resultingly means that you support the mass extermination of the Jews of Israel.

They're fine in the US, Iran, and all around the world; they don't need to burn in a million degree heat from your mushroom cloud over some hilltop in Megiddo.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Incorrect, though the Grand Mufti is responsible for multiple incitements of the Arabs against the Jews. But the whole conflict really began over land and labour and the Arabs feeling politically threatened by the Zionists ... for good reason.

“Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880’s...when [they] purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it.” Don Peretz, “The Arab-Israeli Dispute.”

“[During the Middle Ages,] North Africa and the Arab Middle East became places of refuge and a haven for the persecuted Jews of Spain and elsewhere...In the Holy Land...they lived together in [relative] harmony, a harmony only disrupted when the Zionists began to claim that Palestine was the ‘rightful’ possession of the ‘Jewish people’ to the exclusion of its Moslem and Christian inhabitants.” Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

“Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination.” Zionist writer Ahad Ha’am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

“An article by Yitzhak Epstein, published in Hashiloah in 1907...called for a new Zionist policy towards the Arabs after 30 years of settlement activity...Like Ahad-Ha’am in 1891, Epstein claims that no good land is vacant, so Jewish settlement meant Arab dispossession...Epstein’s solution to the problem, so that a new “Jewish question” may be avoided, is the creation of a bi-national, non-exclusive program of settlement and development. Purchasing land should not involve the dispossession of poor sharecroppers. It should mean creating a joint farming community, where the Arabs will enjoy modern technology. Schools, hospitals and libraries should be non-exclusivist and education bilingual...The vision of non-exclusivist, peaceful cooperation to replace the practice of dispossession found few takers. Epstein was maligned and scorned for his faintheartedness.” Israeli author, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, “Original Sins.”

“The aim of the [Jewish National] Fund was ‘to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.’...As early as 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha’am wrote that the Arabs “understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at’...[Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated] ‘We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly’...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund’s request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs.” John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”

In 1919, the American King-Crane Commission spent six weeks in Syria and Palestine, interviewing delegations and reading petitions. Their report stated, “The commissioners began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favor...The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conferences with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase...

“If [the] principle [of self-determination] is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine’s population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine — nearly nine-tenths of the whole — are emphatically against the entire Zionist program.. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted...No British officers, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms.The officers generally thought that a force of not less than fifty thousand soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program...The initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a ‘right’ to Palestine based on occupation of two thousand years ago, can barely be seriously considered.” Quoted in “The Israel-Arab Reader” ed. Laquer and Rubin.

“Zionist land policy was incorporated in the Constitution of the Jewish Agency for Palestine...’land is to be acquired as Jewish property and..the title to the lands acquired is to be taken in the name of the Jewish National Fund, to the end that the same shall be held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people.’ The provision goes to stipulate that ‘the Agency shall promote agricultural colonization based on Jewish labor’...The effect of this Zionist colonization policy on the Arabs was that land acquired by Jews became extra-territorialized. It ceased to be land from which the Arabs could ever hope to gain any advantage...

“The Zionists made no secret of their intentions, for as early as 1921, Dr. Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, boldly told the Court of Inquiry, ‘there can be only one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.’ He then asked that only Jews should be allowed to bear arms.” Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

“Clearly, the last thing the Zionists really wanted was that all the inhabitants of Palestine should have an equal say in running the country... [Chaim] Weizmann had impressed on Churchill that representative government would have spelled the end of the [Jewish] National Home in Palestine... [Churchill declared,] ‘The present form of government will continue for many years. Step by step we shall develop representative institutions leading to full self-government, but our children’s children will have passed away before that is accomplished.’” David Hirst, “The Gun and the Olive Branch.”

“Even if nobody lost their land, the [Zionist] program was unjust in principle because it denied majority political rights... Zionism, in principle, could not allow the natives to exercise their political rights because it would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise.” Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, “Original Sins.”

“In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt... David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that ‘in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,’ but he urged, ‘let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.’ The truth was that ‘politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside’... The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality.” Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”

“Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.” Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in “A Land of Two Peoples” ed. Mendes-Flohr.

The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years). The mythic “land without people for a people without land” was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. The Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314.”

“Britain’s high commissioner for Palestine, John Chancellor, recommended total suspension of Jewish immigration and land purchase to protect Arab agriculture. He said ‘all cultivable land was occupied; that no cultivable land now in possession of the indigenous population could be sold to Jews without creating a class of landless Arab cultivators’...The Colonial Office rejected the recommendation.” John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”

Indeed, bastardizing an ancient religion thousands of years old into a hypernationalistic political movement of the 20th century is a dizzy affair as full of holes as the West Bank.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Then for the love of all that is Semitic, stop supporting Zionist policies of immigration and settlement or it resultingly means that you support the mass extermination of the Jews of Israel.

They're fine in the US, Iran, and all around the world; they don't need to burn in a million degree heat from your mushroom cloud over some hilltop in Megiddo.

You continually, intentionally misrepresent me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

The Jews are indeed land grabbers, but they have done it legally. Oppressors? They are just returning in kind. Fighting fire with fire.

Not even a decent lie.Returning in kind?They are the one who starts throwing fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

I have often heard Muslims say that the bible has been "corrupted or changed" and therefore is not worthy of following. They also find it anathema to think of worshipping Jesus because "god has no son". I'm not sure where he got anything wrong in the "first line" but then I guess I'm "biased" also.

It is true that the holy Bible has changed according to Muslims belief.But the second part you got it wrong.The real thing is when the holy Quran was brought by prophet Mohammed (Sm) the Bible was canceled.

Edited by jeem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

You continually, intentionally misrepresent me.

I strongly doubt it.You continuously post hatred speech against Muslim.Your belief may allow you to support Israel.But does it allow you to hate Muslim?

I believe it is not written in bible to support mass extermination/genocide.

Edited by jeem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

I strongly doubt it.You continuously post hatred speech against Muslim.Your belief may allow you to support Israel.But does it allow you to hate Muslim?

I believe it is not written in bible to support mass extermination/genocide.

If there is mass extermination Jeem then all those dead bodies have to be buried somewhere. You DO realize that just saying something over and over doesn't make it real, right? Where (which posts) did I say I hate Muslims? That I think they should die? If telling the truth by citing verses from the Qur'an is considered by you to be hatred speech then I find that remarkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

If there is mass extermination Jeem then all those dead bodies have to be buried somewhere. You DO realize that just saying something over and over doesn't make it real, right? Where (which posts) did I say I hate Muslims? That I think they should die? If telling the truth by citing verses from the Qur'an is considered by you to be hatred speech then I find that remarkable.

I agree so put those links.Which post? difficult to say.But I remember you called Islam one of the most hatred religion of the world.citing verse from Qur'an telling the truth?I never see any of your post contain verse from Qur'an.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

You continually, intentionally misrepresent me.

And you consummately, incessantly fail to explain how. If repetition is what matters, you repetitively use the population of Israel as a justification for Zionist policy. The more Jews waiting to die in the Biblical furnace in Israel there are, the more acceptable to you Zionist policy is. You keep supporting Jewish immigration to Israel and you keep typing hundreds of claims that they're going to die because that's what you believe. I'm not so simple-minded as many Israel supporters to think you actually want people to die, but you're so confused with your own positions, you can't understand simple cause and effect of how what you support will accomplish exactly that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Where (which posts) did I say I hate Muslims? That I think they should die? If telling the truth by citing verses from the Qur'an is considered by you to be hatred speech then I find that remarkable.

You're a broken record at telling other people on the internet that "The Muslims hate...." or "The Palestinians hate...."

Jeem is saying you hate people? How's that spoon of your own medicine taste? Sour bitters, isn't it? Feels like hate itself, doesn't it? *mirror moment imminent*

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

You're a broken record at telling other people on the internet that "The Muslims hate...." or "The Palestinians hate...."

Jeem is saying you hate people? How's that spoon of your own medicine taste? Sour bitters, isn't it? Feels like hate itself, doesn't it? *mirror moment imminent*

Since it's a lie it doesn't bother me in the slightest. jeem hasn't produced a single post yet where I uttered such words. My guess is that he's referring to the posting of verses from the Qur'an - ironic isn't it, Paliboy? :)

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.