 sj |
||
|
||
Palestine (continuation)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: bobad Date: 30 Oct 11 - 01:21 PM "The Palestinian president, in a remarkable assessment delivered on Israeli TV, said Friday the Arab world erred in rejecting the United Nations' 1947 plan to partition Palestine into a Palestinian and a Jewish state." Huffington Post |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 30 Oct 11 - 12:16 PM Last 24 hours: 40 rockets/mortars fired into Israel from Gaza IDF response - air strikes resulting in the deaths of at least 10 militants. When a "ceasefire" brokered by Egypt is supposed to be in effect. Yet another example of how incapable the Arabs of Palestine are of honouring any agreement entered into. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: pdq Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:08 AM It has been mentioned many times, but the League of Nations Mandate was divided is such a way that 77% went to the new country of Jordan, one of the current 20 states of the informal Arab World. Jews were supposed to get a viable homeland, but got only 6.7% of the Mandate's land as inhabited territory for Jews, plus the Negev Desert to control. That is the "home" of the nomadic Beduin and has been an expensive proposition in terms of Israeli money invested. The British Mandate: Overview "In 1920, following the defeat of the Turks, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the peace conferences after World War I, the British Mandate for Palestine was created by the League of Nations. The Mandate was international recognition for the stated purpose of "establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people." The area of the Mandate was originally 118,000 square kilometers (about 45,000 square miles). In 1921, Britain took the 91,000 square kilometers of the Palestine Mandate east of the Jordan River, and created Trans-Jordan (later the Arab country of Jordan) as a new Arab protectorate. Jews were barred by law from living or owning property east of the Jordan river, even though that land was over three-fourths of the original Mandate. In 1923, Britain ceded the Golan Heights (another 1,176 square kilometers of the Palestine Mandate) to the French Mandate of Syria. Jews were also barred from living there. Jewish settlers on the Golan Heights were forced to abandon their homes and relocate inside the westerb area of the British Mandate. The total remaining area of the Mandate for Palestine, after these land deductions, was just under 26,000 square kilometers (about 10,000 square miles). The southern part of the Mandate – the desert of the Negev – was also closed by the British to Jewish settlement. The area was inhabited by 15,000 roaming Bedouins, and had no Jewish or Arab settlements in it. The balance of the Mandate, the inhabited part of Palestine, and only the part west of the Jordan, was just 14,000 square kilometers. Jewish immigration was limited by the British from time to time, especially after the periods of Arab riots and severely restricted after 1939. At the same time, Arab immigration was not restricted or even recorded. By 1948, when the State of Israel was founded, 1.8 million people lived the western area of the Mandate, estimated to be 600,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs. Following the war between the Jews and the Arabs in 1948, the inhabited areas of the 14,000 square kilometers were divided along cease-fire lines between Israel and Jordan/Egypt. 8,000 square kilometers, or 57% of the reduced area (which is only 6.7% of the original Mandate territory), became Israel. The rest of the area of western Palestine, 5,700 square kilometers of historic Judea and Samaria, was annexed by Jordan – and renamed the West Bank – while 360 square kilometers were occupied by Egypt and called the Gaza Strip." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Oct 11 - 09:06 AM ...elect to go to war and you are automatically condemned to accept the consequences. If that means that you should not be surprised at the the consequences, that may be true enough. If it means that the consequences are justified, it would imply that terrorism is justified in many or even in most of the circumstances in which it takes place. I do not think that Hamas or Al Qaeda would quarrel with Teribus on that particular point, even if they might disagree on the definition of "elect to go to war" some of the time. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Oct 11 - 09:04 AM How ever would you justify "pretty well established" Lox? In your house? The missiles continued after the cease fire. They were no less deadly because "rogue groups" launched them. Israel was no less justified in trying to prevent them. The blockade did not prevent the import of missiles. They could have imported more of their actual needs instead of missiles. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: Lox Date: 30 Oct 11 - 07:22 AM Actually it is prettyt well established by now that the Gaza Massacre of the end of 2008 beginning of 2009 was not the result of a breach of the ceasefire by Hamas, but in fact it was the Israelis who broke it. For a more thorough analysis check out the following lecture by Jewish academic Norman Finkelstein. Finkelstein If Teribus's shouting and impotent machismo intimidate you, Finkelstein is the perfect antidote. Teribus' bark is a lot worse than his bite. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:32 AM Apologies - hit the wrong key: Records show that: 1 - The Jews of Palestine accepted this solution and on the ending of the period of the League of Nations Mandate in 1948 declared the existence of their independent sovereign state which they called Israel. - Teribus Elicited the following comment by Don T A somewhat sanitised version of events during that period. Leaving out, of course, the actions of Menachim Begin et al, of "Irgun Zwai Leumi", who were murdering British soldiers with gay abandon and the tacit approval of the aforementioned Jewish community. So much so that Begin, like many other terrorists, went on to lead his country. Funny how apologists for Israeli intransigence gloss over such relatively significant events. Complete and utter red-herring which has nothing whatsoever to do with the UN, or their proposed two-state solution. But in stating the above Don is being very selective himself. From 1920 until 1948 both Jews and Arabs attacked and murdered British troops in Palestine, prior to the start of the Second World War it was predominantly Arabs doing the killing and during the "Great Arab Revolt" (1936 to 1939) the Jews actually helped the British in order to defend themselves. It was only as the British tried to enforce restrictions to immigration that one of the Jewish Defence organisations turned against the British. This mind you comes from the source of a comment on the other "Palestine" thread about the deplorable presence of IDF troops in Gaza. Don T deplores the presence but ommitted to mention the reason for that presence - the indiscriminate firing of over 8,000 missiles, rockets and mortar bombs at Israeli civilian targets from territory that had been handed over to the Arabs of Palestine on the understanding that such attacks would not be launched - (Yet another example of the Arabs of Palestine not being capable of honouring any agreement they enter into). To put the scale of these attacks into perspective in the 2003 US invasion of Iraq there were only 804 missiles fired, there were only 505 bombing missions flown. The fact that the 8,000+ Hamas missiles fired into Israel resulted in so few casualties was pure good fortune, the death toll was low but not for the want of Hamas and their fellow travellers trying to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. Very pleased however to see that Don T does not refute what the UN's records do in fact say - That the Jews of Palestine accepted the 1947-UN Plan and that the Arabs of Palestine rejected it - elect to go to war and you are automatically condemned to accept the consequences. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation) From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:07 AM "What records show that........? Whose records?" - Stringsinger What an idiotic question - the documented records of that highly biased and ultra pro-Israeli organisation - THE UNITED NATIONS - they good enough for you Stringsinger Odd thing is those "myth" following Palestinian Arabs (excluding Hamas and Hezbollah) who have been attacking, robbing, bombing and murdering the Jewish population of Palestine for about ninety-one years now, have just recently put forward the fiction that they would now be prepared to accept the two-state option originally proposed by the UN based on the pre-Six Day War borders (which in fact were no borders at all because those self same "myth" following Palestinian Arabs did not recognise them) - Damned shame that they didn't do that in 1948 it would have saved everyone a great deal of grief. It does however beg the question that if the deal was no good then why is it acceptable now? The answer of course lies in the Arabs of Palestine's track record on previous agreements, they did not honour those - they will not honour this one. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: GUEST Date: 29 Oct 11 - 11:34 PM I thought guests could not start threads, has there been a policy change ?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: artbrooks Date: 29 Oct 11 - 09:59 PM Jewish and Israeli are too very different things. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 29 Oct 11 - 12:30 PM ""Written by someone who has not got the faintest clue about the subject he/she has chosen. Or even worse is insulting everyone's intelligence here by attempting to fence in history. For the attention of our GUEST: 1948 - The USA and Europe gave away nothing - "generously" or otherwise. Neither did the United Nations, who having accepted the reality that the Arabs of Palestine could not peacefully co-exist in a single state with the Jews of Palestine, proposed and offered a two state solution. Records show that: 1 - The Jews of Palestine accepted this solution and on the ending of the period of the League of Nations Mandate in 1948 declared the existence of their independent sovereign state which they called Israel."" A somewhat sanitised version of events during that period. Leaving out, of course, the actions of Menachim Begin et al, of "Irgun Zwai Leumi", who were murdering British soldiers with gay abandon and the tacit approval of the aforementioned Jewish community. So much so that Begin, like many other terrorists, went on to lead his country. Funny how apologists for Israeli intransigence gloss over such relatively significant events. On topic, the Arab Spring should, but probably won't redound to the benefit of those (both Arab and Jewish) who would like to see peaceful co-existence. That will only come when the belligerents on both sides lose the power to make decisions for their respective populations, and Palestine becomes, and is recognised as, a soverign state. In other words, it will require not only an Arab, but also a Jewish Spring. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 29 Oct 11 - 12:27 PM ... tho you have recommended restraints throughout which sez a fair bit about your mindset & preoccupations, Shitbag-Shouter... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 29 Oct 11 - 12:21 PM Fat lot of restraint you have always shown in your dealings with me, Colosto you drivelling heap of piggiturd... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Oct 11 - 12:10 PM Trying to distinguish historically between Palestinians and Jews 2,000 years ago is a bit futile, because 2000 years ago you are basically talking about the same people. The distinction today that underlies the conflict isn't about genetics, it's about history, ownership of territory, accompanied by largely shared religious traditions that have diverged over the years which provide a marker for the two sides. Here's an interesting piece making these points, by an English medical writer, coming to the conclusion The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians : "Jews and Palestinian Arabs are blood brothers - although this close genetic relationship probably stems from pre-Judaic times, rather than any more recent conversion of Palestinian Jews to Islam. And the bad news? Well, this basic story has been known for the best part of a decade now. But, perhaps unsurprisingly, it hasn't lead to the warring sides laying down their weapons and engaging in a group hug. This is a religious conflict, not a genetic one." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Stringsinger Date: 29 Oct 11 - 11:42 AM What records show that........? Whose records? Whether Jews lived there historically doesn't give them the right to eject Palestinians or occupy their lands. The myth that Palestinians would like to see Israel go into the sea still prevails. Actually, the Palestinians just want the right to exist in an oppressive Jewish state which is becoming less secular and democratic by the day. I get where these records are coming from.......AIPAC. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Mrrzy Date: 29 Oct 11 - 11:31 AM Well, how would you say He Who Fought God, or maybe He Who Fought People, in Arabic? And this is the thread for actual discussion, not the ad hominem attacks, no? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: artbrooks Date: 29 Oct 11 - 11:24 AM All of the Israel vs. Palestine positions have been gone over so many times before. Does anyone want to discuss the OP's issue, or are you just interested in crapping on each other? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Lox Date: 29 Oct 11 - 09:50 AM I guess the above does indeed illustrate the need for restraint, and possibly even the need for restraints ... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Oct 11 - 09:19 AM He is a piece of dehumanised toxic filth I think there might be a case for suggesting that that is an example of posting with "No sense of restraint or proportion...otiose overstatement and ill-natured aggressiveness"... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 29 Oct 11 - 08:45 AM Well, maybe, Kevin: but 'toxic filth'; 'dehumanise'? Oh come on. Typical of old Colostolox, mind. No sense of restraint or proportion. Tyoical of his chronic tendency to otiose overstatement and ill-natured aggressiveness. He is a piece of dehumanised toxic filth, if you like. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Oct 11 - 07:58 AM I'm sure that you actually do disagree with "pdq's formulation", MtheGM. "...recent squatters who have poured into the area in the last 900 years or so" is both distasteful and daft. "...squatters who have poured into the area" is every bit as unpleasant when targetted at Palestinians as it would be when referring to Jews; and "recent" as a term for "the last 900 years or so" is unusual, to say the least. Sometimes in these discussions we find some pretty disconcerting "allies", and I think it is better to refrain from lining up alongside what they say things we disagree with. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 29 Oct 11 - 07:00 AM In what way does that 'dehumanise' anyone, Colostolox? Neither agreeing nor disagreeing with pdq's formulation; just can't see why it should be denounced as 'toxic filth'* simply because The Great You questions its accuracy, or how any demographic is 'dehumanised' by any gloss placed on the accuracy or otherwise of their supposed history. ~M~ *{a topic you know much of, Colosto-me-dear: your stock-in-trade, one might say}, |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Lox Date: 29 Oct 11 - 06:48 AM PDQ writes of poisoning threads. And also writes this piece of toxic filth. "This fight is a PR masterpiece by the Arabs. They never were the rightful owners of the Jewish homeland (Canaan/Palestine/etc.) and they are recent squatters who have poured into the area in the last 900 years or so." Apart from being wrong it shows us exactly what language PDQ like to use to dehumanize human beings he views as less deserving of life and human rights than him. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 29 Oct 11 - 02:24 AM "I care about their repressive actions in curtailing and controlling peoples who have lived in Palestine/Israel for thousands of years before 1948--when the USA and Europe so "generously" gave someone else's homeland to European Jews. - ANON Written by someone who has not got the faintest clue about the subject he/she has chosen. Or even worse is insulting everyone's intelligence here by attempting to fence in history. For the attention of our GUEST: 1948 - The USA and Europe gave away nothing - "generously" or otherwise. Neither did the United Nations, who having accepted the reality that the Arabs of Palestine could not peacefully co-exist in a single state with the Jews of Palestine, proposed and offered a two state solution. Records show that: 1 - The Jews of Palestine accepted this solution and on the ending of the period of the League of Nations Mandate in 1948 declared the existence of their independent sovereign state which they called Israel. 2 - The Arabs of Palestine totally rejected the United Nations proposal and elected to go to war with the complete and utter destruction of the state of Israel and the annihilation of its people as their declared aim. They lost that war and Israel having successfuly defended itself endorsed its own right to exist. 3 - That the United Nations immediately recognised the State of Israel and welcomed the newly declared state into the International Organisation as a full member. Shortly after this recognition by the UN the State of Israel was independently recognised by the U.S.S.R and by the U.S.A "European Jews"?? Here our anonymous contributer elects to ignore the fact that Jews have always lived in the region commonly referred to as Palestine. During the Arab initiated riots of 1929 the Arabs of Palestine murdered, robbed and forcibly ejected the majority Jewish population of the town of Hebron - That Jewish population of that town could be traced as having lived there for over 800 years (They apparently have no rights). Modern day Jewish migration to what we commonly refer to as Palestine (There is no such country, nation, race or state) began around 1847 while the territory was part of the Ottoman Empire. The Jews who returned to the area bought land, and improved it, either by agriculture or commercially. This created employment which brought people in most of whom were Arab - a simple examination of the demographic history of the period shows this to be true. The greatest influx of Jews to the area was not caused by the events of the Second World War or indeed its aftermath. The greatest influx of Jews to the area was caused by the war that the Arabs elected to fight in 1948. After their humiliating defeat the Jewish populations of a great many Arab countries, populations who had lived in those countries for centuries, were dispossessed and extradited - the ONLY place for them to go was ISRAEL. Since their defeat in 1948 the Arabs have on several occasions attacked Israel and each and every time they have resorted to arms they have lost. Each and every time that ceasefires have been brokered and agreements entered into the Arabs have failed to comply or honour those agreements. Arab violence towards the Jews of Palestine was initiated by a lie deliberately told by an Arab in 1920 and the same continues to this day. Over the intervening years all the Jews of Palestine have learned to do and learned to do well is how to defend themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Oct 11 - 11:51 PM Mrrzy Israel was a sobriquet of Jacob, meaning 'the man who fought God', from the story of Jacob and the Angel ~~ "Israel is a Biblical given name. The patriarch Jacob was given the name Israel (Hebrew: יִשְׂרָאֵל, Standard Yisraʾel Tiberian Yiśrāʾēl; "Struggled with God") after he wrestled with the angel (Genesis 32:28 and 35:10)" - wiki The Twelve Tribes of Ancient Israel were named after the twelve sons of Jacob; hence the name Children Of Israel sometimes portentously used of the Jews. And so 'Israel' as a collective name for the Jewish race, whence the name of the state ~ called in the early days of immigration, 1880s+, Eretz Yisrael = the Land Of Israel. This simply factual: no inferences to be drawn from this answer to Mrrzy's question as to whether I think it was all a good idea or not: laRGELY BECAUSE, AS WILL HAVE BEEN GATHERED, I AM NOW PROFOUNDLY AMBIVALENT ON THE MATTER. {not emphasis ~ sorry for imadvertent caps lock} ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: GUEST,mg Date: 28 Oct 11 - 06:52 PM I was just thinking about what Palestine means..it obviously is a great-sounding name (to me) for a country..some countries have great=sounding names in English, and some fall flat..Belgium?? flat to me. Great country, of course. Turkey..flat..but Istanbul..great name. Of course in their own languages they would have better names I am sure. But Palestine means something..like Ireland means something. Like America means something. South Africa..flat. Zimbabwe..great name. ALl of this is to my ears only. Other people would hear things differently. Greenland..flat. Ethiopia..great name mg |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Mrrzy Date: 28 Oct 11 - 06:34 PM But what does the word Israel mean? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Oct 11 - 02:39 PM While it is not antisemitic to believe the statement "Jews are more faithful to Israel than to the country of their birth", that is of course a statement that an antisemite would be likely to agree with. The same is true of criticisms of Israel's behaviour, and of the way that the Palestinians were dealt with at the time of Israel's establishment and since. Such criticisms are not an indication of antisemitism but antisemites can be expected to have these views. I am sure there are people who genuinely get confused about this. However basic logic sorts out the false syllogism involved. All antisemites believe A This person believes A Therefore this person is an antisemite. Equivalent to: All monkeys have eyes John has eyes Therefore John is a monkey. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Oct 11 - 04:22 AM Perfectly tenable view, Guest, certainly; but why are you ∴ so proud of it as to remain anonymous? Why not come out & identify yourself? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: GUEST Date: 28 Oct 11 - 04:18 AM I don't care about Israel. I care about their repressive actions in curtailing and controlling peoples who have lived in Palestine/Israel for thousands of years before 1948--when the USA and Europe so "generously" gave someone else's homeland to European Jews. Am I angry about this? I am. Israel is on the same losing side of history as Nazi Germany, South Africa, Soviet Russia, and the string of little dictatorships strung out elsewhere. We won't see it in our lifetime, but there will be vindication for the citizens of Palestine. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Oct 11 - 03:16 AM In interests of fairness, I feel I must also reproduce this supposed example of the antisemitism rubricated in above report "Jews are more faithful to Israel than to the country of their birth" as I regret to say that I believe it true of many Jews. Many of my own relations have always looked a bit uncomfortable when I have broached such a topic to them, and it was just one of the tendencies which caused me to question my own identification with my own ethnic heritage early in my adolescent/adult life. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Oct 11 - 01:31 AM In obedience to Joe's injunction to continue in this thread: without wishing to stir up previous hostilities which we have to a considerable extent been done to deah in the old one ~ a worrying recent report [extracts & URL below] on current Italian antisemitism forwarded by a Californian Jewish friend who much concerns himself with such matters (which I don't myself in the normal course of events) saeems so germane to much we had to say there as to be worth a reference: ~M~ Runaway Anti-Semitism Trampling Italy by Soeren Kern October 27, 2011 at 5:00 am http://www.hudson-ny.org/2538/anti-semitism-italy A jarring 44% of Italians are prejudiced or hostile towards Jews, according to a new research study released by the Italian Parliament on October 17. The inquiry found that nearly half of all Italians say they feel no sympathy whatsoever toward the Jews. There has also been an exponential proliferation of anti-Semitic Internet websites and social networks in Italy. Moreover, the level of hatred against the State of Israel in many cases passes the limits of legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and aims at the destruction of the Jews. (12% of Italians) holds "contingent" anti-Semitic views such as "Jews use the Holocaust to justify Israeli policy;" "Jews talk too much about their own tragedies and disregard the tragedies of other people" and "The Jews behave like Nazis with the Palestinians." |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: artbrooks Date: 27 Oct 11 - 05:36 PM What is an Arab? A significant percentage of the Israeli population are Jews who are physically indistinguishable from, for instance, Christian or Muslim citizens of Lebanon or Jordan. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: GUEST Date: 27 Oct 11 - 04:24 PM Matt Giwer appears to be an anti Semite Holocaust denier - mortified at quoting him and apologise to those I have given offence to for doing so. But it doesn't alter the fact that the Arabs have been in Palestine for millennia and only the acceptance of that fact will bring lasting peace to that area. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Oct 11 - 03:54 PM Thanks for that information - I really didn't know who Matt Giwer was but the argument I put forward was one I had been given some time ago, and if it is wrong than please correct it. I have no more time for holocaust deniers than I'm sure you have. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 27 Oct 11 - 03:31 PM Googling Matt Giwer, I found the following, which I copy here without comment, other than wondering if this can be one with whom the notoriously ever-progressive Mr Carroll is happy to be associated --- Israel declares there was no Holocaust Extermination: 27 million Jews survived the holocaust by Matt Giwer, © 2007 [June] .,,.,. Is Matt Giwer an Antisemite? You be the judge~~ You pathetic, primative bastards are all alike. You folks should get your sociologic parallels straight. David and Montezuma were equals. Today's Jews are adhering to a social form that died out in the civilized world thousands of years ago. By any definition today's Jews are a living anachronism that should be preserved under some endangered species act. Just as we do not disturb the strange tribes of the Amazon we should not disturb the strange tribes of Juda or David. (March 23, 1996) I don't know how to indentify jews. Why don't you tell me? The nose, the funny hats, the names, the beards, the "I want a Mercedes" whine? How are they identifiable? What identifies them? Ask three jews what is a jew and you get four opinions. Maybe you can do better. ....... |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Oct 11 - 03:22 PM Cross-posted; I know nothing of Giwer and his holocaust denying, but the view put forward rings true as far as my undarstanding goes - though I am willing to be corrected. As for my participating in this thread - the other one was polluted by a number of people, myself included - I left it to the flatulents and the incontinents a while ago. Ban one of us and you must ban us all and not just select those that agree with your viewpoint. Otherwise - message as in previous post. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Oct 11 - 02:59 PM "Where do the books of Moses,..." About 2 centuries after Herodotus?? Not making a case for the Israelis pulling out of the Middle East, as apparently pdq is for the Palestinians - just perhaps that after all this time they should all learn to accept that we are in the 21st century and learn to live with the realities that that brings. "Would the haters care to back off " Am trying to stay on topic and discuss it without the hate... You don't like it, either ignore me or get me expelled. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: pdq Date: 27 Oct 11 - 02:55 PM This thread was started because Jim Carroll poisoned the other thread. Now he is posting crap from Matt Giwer, and insane Holocost denier. Too bad the initial poster's wants are not being honored by allowing Carroll's drass to stay. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: jennbrooks Date: 27 Oct 11 - 02:42 PM Would the haters care to back off - or continue on the other thread - so that the issue raised by the OP can continue to be discussed? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: MGM·Lion Date: 27 Oct 11 - 01:46 PM Who, out of interest, is this Mr Matt Giwer, and what his qualifications for so positive a polemic? Where do the books of Moses, c C13-12BC, or of Solomon {esp Song of Songs, "Daughters of Jerusalem"}, about C9BC, fit into this conceptualisation? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Oct 11 - 01:45 PM Did I say 2 and a half centuries? - I meant millennia of course Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Oct 11 - 01:37 PM "They never were the rightful owners of the Jewish homeland" This is the worst possible argument anyone could put up for the Israeli case in Palestine - that the Palesinians have no right to Palestine at all. It confirms the worst suspicions of those who oppose Israeli behaviour; that the Arabs are expected to vacate an area that they have occupied for 2 and a half centuries largely on the basis of a myth to make way for a "chosen people" - a recipe for centuries of bloodbath which I doubt if anybody but the most extreme Zionists support. Jim Carroll Palestine by Matt Giwer, © 2005 [Sep] We know for a fact all of the common knowledge of the origin of Palestine is false. We also know the common knowledge has been deliberately falsified by redneck Christians and their murderous zionist brethren. We do not know how long Palestine has existed. It first appears in the written record in the books Herodotus wrote of his travels in the region in the 5th c. BC. There he refers to the region as Palestine Syria seven times. And that is the spelling he used. All relationship of Palestine of the biblical Philistines is bible speculation and not based in fact. So far as anyone can tell the Philistines were as invented as the biblical Jews. The name Palestine for the region ceased to be used for about one century under Roman rule when it was broken into several administrative regions. The name was restored for the single administrative region restored after the 134AD revolt in Judea. So Palestine and the Palestinians have existed for at least 2500 years. It is noteworthy that Herodotus mentions no people in or around Palestine Syria which could be the Judeans or Israelites of the Old Testament. He also prepared lists of peoples who practiced circumcision and had related genital mutilation customs. There are no Old Testament people on this list either. There is no mention of Philistines either. So at the time of Herodotus we know the Palestinians existed but have no evidence of the people of the Bible existing. This is consistent with the creation of the first "old testament" as the Septuagint some two centuries after Herodotus by Juda Macabe. So lets say Herodotus happened to miss them. After all he was only one man and inventing his methods as he went along. After Alexander conquered the region and later all the way to the Indus valley, he had inventories made. They were to list the lands and peoples he ruled. There is no mention of any people who could have been the Jews or Judea on either inventory. Today we can more or less confirm the accuracy of the inventories but no Jews or Judeans. Of course this is not something Zionists want to hear as their political ideology is based upon the fiction of the Old Testament. The Christian literalists are not interested in any allegorical reading of the bible. Even the moderate bible "scholars" are believers and have an interest in putting the date of the first writing of the Old Testament as far back as possible. The so-called scholars are the most annoying of all. They make no credible attempt to actually date the creation of its books. There are facts of archaeology which must be shown false or accepted. They most uniformly hold it was created shortly after the most recent documented time they could not have been written. They have great scholarly debates over a few decades "shortly" after this time. They do not consider how late they could have been written nor when they were likely created. We can date them by simply applying the rule of the oldest external mention of them. By that rule the original was the Greek Septuagint towards the end of the 3rd c. BC. The Septuagint also uses Palestine. Philistine comes from the Hebrew version of the Septuagint which is first mentioned at the beginning of the 1st c. BC. The first mention it is a translation is by Josephus towards the end of the 1st c. AD. In his claim he cites the forged letter of Aristeas which recounts a magical, inspired translation. Josephus is a priest of this religion. The best "evidence" he knows of is a forgery. By all the physical evidence and by all the principles which apply to everything other than the Bible, the Palestinians long predate anyone calling themselves the people of the Old Testament. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: pdq Date: 27 Oct 11 - 12:47 PM Israel is sovereign country recognized by the United Nations. It was formed in 1948. The traditional Jewish homeland dates back about 5772 years and has been variously been called Canaan, The Holy Land, the Promised Land, and yes Palestine, a name applied by the Romans about 2000 years ago as an afront to the Jews. The Greeks used a similar name: Philistia. I suggested Arabiana for Gaza and perhaps a few other Arab pockets in and around Israel. This fight is a PR masterpiece by the Arabs. They never were the rightful owners of the Jewish homeland (Canaan/Palestine/etc.) and they are recent squatters who have poured into the area in the last 900 years or so. The Arab World consists of 20 countries now. The Arab leaders call Israel Palestine and count it as their 21st Arab World Country. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Mrrzy Date: 27 Oct 11 - 12:30 PM Nobody's arguing with the name of Israel, pdq. And Palestine as a name for the place where the semites lived predates the split between them into arabs and hebrews, which predates the conversion of hebrews to jews, which happened in historical times. If you mind the name Palestine for the Arab half, what would you prefer? Isn't the word Israel hebrew for something? What would the same word be in Arabic? |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: pdq Date: 26 Oct 11 - 07:33 PM This is all about a name! If the term "Palestine" were replaced by another name such as Arabiana, everyone would see that there is no "palestinian people", just Arabs who live in and around the traditional home of the Jews which was incorrectly called Palestine by the Romans and (I believe) called Philistia by the Greeks. Jews have a right to name their homeland and not have others do it for them. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Mrrzy Date: 26 Oct 11 - 07:25 PM Maybe it could be titled Palestine, really. Anyway, I was trying to rise above it by talking under them but this is a fine alternative... I'm waiting to see what the Arab Spring Fling Thing will do for the statehood question, too. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Oct 11 - 05:45 PM That kind of thing isn't "undemocratic", however unpleasant they may be. "Democratic governments" are quite capable of doing vile things - torturing people, waging murderous illegal wars, bankrolling tyrants... Stuff like that doesn't make the USA and the UK governments undemocratic. Israel has a "democratic government" for that matter and that doesn't stop it acting illegally and tyrannically. Democracy is only a first step in a long journey. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: robomatic Date: 26 Oct 11 - 04:21 PM American leaders aren't choosing to buy the UN. Arab oil money is doing that. The democratic conduct of Hamas as you term it extends to summary street executions and waging war on its neighbor Israel in all but name. |
|
Subject: RE: Palestine From: Stringsinger Date: 26 Oct 11 - 03:38 PM It's good to know that American so-called leaders can't buy the UN. The recognition of Palestine by the UN represents a world-wide acceptance and repudiation of American and Israel exceptionalism. Obama and Netanyahu are on the wrong side of history and basically take an undemocratic stand, remembering that Hamas, whether we agree with their policies or not, was democratically elected. The UN in their wisdom followed a democratic tradition in their decision to accept Palestine. |
| Share Thread: |
