News Understanding the Evacuation of Gaza Strip: An In-Depth Discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter misskitty
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the ongoing evacuation of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip, a process initiated by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as part of a controversial plan. The evacuation is currently voluntary, but military force may be used after a specified deadline if settlers refuse to leave. Participants express confusion over the motivations behind the evacuation and the historical context, noting the long-standing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The conversation highlights the complexity of territorial claims, with both sides citing historical and religious justifications for their presence in the region. Overall, the situation is seen as precarious, with potential implications for future peace and stability in the area.
  • #151
Smurf said:
To add to that, it being legal by British and American standards doesn't mean **** if you're not in britain or america.
Who are you talking to? Yonoz or me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
It seems quite interesting to me that posters of this thread have a tough, well-knit opinion on this contentious issue while being blatantly misinformed. The last pages of this thread clearly show a number of misconceptions, and a considerable degree of confusion and deception.

To start with, it is important to define the word 'Judaism' and 'Jew' which apparently many of you here don't understand. Judaism is the world's oldest religion, and is the name of the religion practised by Jews worldwide. However, a Jew is not necessiraly an adherent to Judaism. A Jew is a member of an ethnicity or people, dispersed from the land of Israel close to 2,000 years ago and descended from the native people of the land at that time. The observance of ritual practices is not an element that defines whether a person is a Jew (in terms of ethnicity or not). However, the term Jew can also mean a person who is not descended from the ancient people living in the land but has willingly chosen to adopt Judaism as a religion. This means he (or she) is a Jew by the religious definition of the term, and not the ethnic one. However, since Judaism is not a religion with a missionary spirit, there are far less converts than in other major religions such as Christianity and Islam, and therefore an adherent to the Jewish religion is in the vast majority of cases also an ethnic Jew as opposed to a convert.

Now that this definition, which is admittedly confusing at first sight has been clarified, I would like to (quickly) adress some other points.

Art, the Palestinian refugee problem is much more intricate than you purport it to be. There are a number of factors that served as a catalyst to the fleeing of the Arabs to surrounding countries. Many Arabs (let's call them Arabs because at the time [1947-48] the term 'Palestinian' was not yet clearly defined) fled in advance of the 1948 war, seeking to evade the forthcoming conflict and return once it was over. Many left at the behest of Arab leaders in other countries. They were also lured into false promises that the war would be quickly over and that they would be able to return to the land triumphantly and to capture the possessions of the defeated. A study (carried out by an Arab organisation) said that over 70% of Arab refugees at the time fled without ever having seen an Israeli soldier. Thus, the fairy-tale of widespread forced expulsion falls to water. This all occurred whilst Jewish leaders were asking Arabs not to flee, and promised equal rights and job opportunity employments. Other Arabs, no doubt, were expelled, as a natural consequence of any war, and also due to the fear of violence, but this by no means changes the reality of the issue: that many fled at will due to calls by Arab leaders outside of the territories.

Secondly, we must remember that at the same time approximately the same number of Jews fled Arab countries all over North Africa and the Middle East due to mounting hostility and open strife. These Jews mainly fled to Israel where they were quickly absorbed into the population. This clearly was not the case with the Arab refugees, which, after more than 55 years after the war still have not been granted rights by their neighbouring Arab (brother?) countries. Any person with an open mind and a critical spirit could start to envision that it is maybe just a well-calculated political stratagem for other Arab governments to keep these refugees in camps and not grant them their liberties.

Anyways, I will comment on more issues later, but I thought I had to clarify some of these issues.
 
  • #153
Curious6 said:
Judaism is the world's oldest religion
That's false.
Many animistic religions are in all probability far older than judaism.
 
  • #154
arildno said:
That's false.
Many animistic religions are in all probability far older than judaism.
True, I was qualifying it in terms of the world's major extant monotheistic religions.
 
  • #155
Curious6 said:
Art, the Palestinian refugee problem is much more intricate than you purport it to be. There are a number of factors that served as a catalyst to the fleeing of the Arabs to surrounding countries. Many Arabs (let's call them Arabs because at the time [1947-48] the term 'Palestinian' was not yet clearly defined) fled in advance of the 1948 war, seeking to evade the forthcoming conflict and return once it was over. Many left at the behest of Arab leaders in other countries. They were also lured into false promises that the war would be quickly over and that they would be able to return to the land triumphantly and to capture the possessions of the defeated. A study (carried out by an Arab organisation) said that over 70% of Arab refugees at the time fled without ever having seen an Israeli soldier. Thus, the fairy-tale of widespread forced expulsion falls to water.
No it doesn't.
The conflict was already present way before 1948, Arabs fled because of this, and because they knew that the Western powers (particularly great Britain) would support the Jews, rather than them.
This all occurred whilst Jewish leaders were asking Arabs not to flee, and promised equal rights and job opportunity employments.
Typical power talk. It doesn't mean a thing.
The Jews hadn't the right to promise anything to people already living there, with a far greater claim on the land than the Jews.
Remember:
The Jews had NO REASONABLE CLAIM WHATSOEVER on the lands of ancient Israel.
Period.
 
Last edited:
  • #156
Curious6 said:
True, I was qualifying it in terms of the world's major extant monotheistic religions.

If you qualify it in terms of abrahamic religions, then I will agree. But I strongly disagree with your post in its present form, because Hinduism is monotheistic (I know this goes against common perceptions in the West) and it is considered to be older than Judaism.
 
Last edited:
  • #157
arildno said:
No it doesn't.
The conflict was already present way before 1948..

True, but did I talk about the conflict in such general terms? No, I was referring strictly to the Palestinian refugee problem, and was listing the causes why many fled.

arildno said:
Arabs fled because of this, and because they knew that the Western powers (particularly great Britain) would support the Jews, rather than them.

Both assertions are false. The conflict started approximately in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, so why would Arabs wait 50 years (to 1948) to flee? Also, a major Western power, Great Britain, had shown considerable animosity towards Jewish immigration in the area, and has imposed heavy restraints, while conveniently overlooking Arab immigration.


arildno said:
Remember:
The Jews had NO REASONABLE CLAIM WHATSOEVER on the lands of ancient Israel.
Period.

Why? At least if you make such an affirmation (and in capitals!) at least make sure to support your statement with reasons. The Jews are the descendants of the native inhabitants for the land during millennia, only to be exiled by the Romans in 70 AD and 135 AD, so there is a definite claim to the land. Secondly, not all Jews had left the area after those dates, and before the arrival of the first Jewish immigrants there was already a sizeable Jewish minority in the area. Thirdly, immigration was done on lands that were purchased by absentee landholders during the rule of the Ottoman empire and subsequently during the British mandate. Is it now wrong or immoral for people to live on the lands they have purchased?

Please, consider this information carefully.
 
  • #158
Curious6 said:
Both assertions are false. The conflict started approximately in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, so why would Arabs wait 50 years (to 1948) to flee? Also, a major Western power, Great Britain, had shown considerable animosity towards Jewish immigration in the area, and has imposed heavy restraints, while conveniently overlooking Arab immigration.
I'm not sure if this link would be relavent to this discussion.
 
  • #159
Yes, the above link is relevant, and interesting.
 
  • #160
Why do you think it's interesting?
 
  • #161
Because the Balfour Declaration (1917) is of historical interest to the development of the conflict.
 
  • #162
Curious6 said:
True, but did I talk about the conflict in such general terms? No, I was referring strictly to the Palestinian refugee problem, and was listing the causes why many fled.
Strangely you missed the main cause which was they were being massacred by jews. :smile:

Curious6 said:
Both assertions are false. The conflict started approximately in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, so why would Arabs wait 50 years (to 1948) to flee? Also, a major Western power, Great Britain, had shown considerable animosity towards Jewish immigration in the area, and has imposed heavy restraints, while conveniently overlooking Arab immigration.
The Arabs were very friendly and obliging when the first jews arrived. Unfortunately the Arabs weren't aware that the jews hadn't come to live with them they had come to dispossess them and claim their land for themselves.

Curious6 said:
Why? At least if you make such an affirmation (and in capitals!) at least make sure to support your statement with reasons. The Jews are the descendants of the native inhabitants for the land during millennia, only to be exiled by the Romans in 70 AD and 135 AD, so there is a definite claim to the land. Secondly, not all Jews had left the area after those dates, and before the arrival of the first Jewish immigrants there was already a sizeable Jewish minority in the area. Thirdly, immigration was done on lands that were purchased by absentee landholders during the rule of the Ottoman empire and subsequently during the British mandate. Is it now wrong or immoral for people to live on the lands they have purchased?

Please, consider this information carefully.
Complete and utter nonsense the jews came from Egypt and displaced the people of Canaan by force. The main city Canaan had a population of 260,000 people at the time, a huge city by contempory standards. The Canaanites occupied the land of Canaan for at least 1000 years before the birth of David and Solomon so if anybody has an historical claim to the land it is them.
The immigration you speak of during the British mandate was illegal and it was because of Britain's attempt to enforce the immigration quota that the jews formed terrorist groups to attack the British and the Arabs. One of the main leaders of this terrorism was Menachem Begin who later became prime minister of Israel.
The jews did not buy the vast majority of the land they now occupy. They took it without paying a single cent in compensation to the Arabs they took it from and so yes it is wrong and immoral for them to live there!

The right-wing government of Israel gets away with literally murder and if anybody criticises them their instant retort is "what about the holocaust" I for one am sick of hearing this tired old excuse being dragged out time after time as some kind of warped justification for their disgraceful treatment of the Palestinians.
 
  • #163
Also, the Jews have no more claim on their land from 2000 years ago than the British do to the US, or Canada, or Half of Africa, or Hong Kong, or even (haha) Israel. If you think you deserve Palestinian land because of that then you must agree China deserves Taiwan, Germany deserves Alsace-Lorraine, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, and Spain and Portugal deserve all of Latin America.
 
  • #164
Smurf said:
Also, the Jews have no more claim on their land from 2000 years ago than the British do to the US, or Canada, or Half of Africa, or Hong Kong, or even (haha) Israel. If you think you deserve Palestinian land because of that then you must agree China deserves Taiwan, Germany deserves Alsace-Lorraine, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, and Spain and Portugal deserve all of Latin America.
A difference is that some Jews believe in a biblical "promised land." Can't claim the same for the British over the Americas.
 
  • #165
Curious6 said:
Why? At least if you make such an affirmation (and in capitals!) at least make sure to support your statement with reasons. The Jews are the descendants of the native inhabitants for the land during millennia, only to be exiled by the Romans in 70 AD and 135 AD, so there is a definite claim to the land. Secondly, not all Jews had left the area after those dates, and before the arrival of the first Jewish immigrants there was already a sizeable Jewish minority in the area. Thirdly, immigration was done on lands that were purchased by absentee landholders during the rule of the Ottoman empire and subsequently during the British mandate. Is it now wrong or immoral for people to live on the lands they have purchased?

Please, consider this information carefully.
LOL ...

So the Native Americans share genetic material with SE Asians.

This is a claim to land in China?

"Please, consider this information carefully."

I am from the North East of England. My mother has blonde hair and I have brown hair and hazel eyes.

Chances are, there are some Viking raiders in my ancestry. Can I claim some 'Viking land'?

How about the people from Iceland and Greenland?

We are all theoretically decended from the 'cradle of life' in Africa.

Can we all claim land there.

THEN, after we all claim out land, can we declar ourselves a new nation?

I suggest that you grow up.
 
  • #166
EnumaElish said:
A difference is that some Jews believe in a biblical "promised land." Can't claim the same for the British over the Americas.
You could claim the same for Spain and Portugal, after all, the pope declared everything in Latin America (and elsewhere) belonged to them. :approve:
 
  • #167
Art said:
Strangely you missed the main cause which was they were being massacred by jews. :smile: .

False. The only major-scale massacre that occurred pre-1948 was the Deir Yassin massacre that you rightfully mentioned. However, even if this does not justify the violence, I urge you to take a look at the context this occurred in. The attack was certainly not an unprovoked action of torture and horror as many would like to believe, but it was the retaliatory action after constant Arab attacks. Anyways, even before armed Jewish forces entered the city they warned via loudspeakers that women and children should leave the city, which clearly proves the attack's objective was the men who carried out the preceding attacks. Anyways, if you are genuinely interested, please take a look at the following page:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_diryassin.php

Art said:
The Arabs were very friendly and obliging when the first jews arrived. Unfortunately the Arabs weren't aware that the jews hadn't come to live with them they had come to dispossess them and claim their land for themselves.

Yes, they were indeed very obliging. This is why they started the violence and were the perpetrators of numerous riots, such as those of 1920-21.

Art said:
Complete and utter nonsense the jews came from Egypt and displaced the people of Canaan by force. The main city Canaan had a population of 260,000 people at the time, a huge city by contempory standards. The Canaanites occupied the land of Canaan for at least 1000 years before the birth of David and Solomon so if anybody has an historical claim to the land it is them.

This is interesting. The Jews did not come from Egypt, they were not native from there. Rather, they were enslaved, and were forced to work there. They then migrated to Canaan and established themselves there. Anyways, the figure you mention is unverifiable by history and I have read accounts that it is a grossly overstated figure. Anyways, the majority of Canaanites were absorbed into the Hebrew population as they intermarried for centuries, effectively causing the gradual disappearance of their culture.
 
Last edited:
  • #168
EnumaElish said:
A difference is that some Jews believe in a biblical "promised land." Can't claim the same for the British over the Americas.
Besides, weren't the Palestinians also the children of Abraham.. and thus also promised his land?

edit: Besides 2, it's still illegal as of UN resolution 242.
 
Last edited:
  • #169
Smurf said:
Also, the Jews have no more claim on their land from 2000 years ago than the British do to the US, or Canada, or Half of Africa, or Hong Kong, or even (haha) Israel. If you think you deserve Palestinian land because of that then you must agree China deserves Taiwan, Germany deserves Alsace-Lorraine, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, and Spain and Portugal deserve all of Latin America.

Nothing to do with it. If you are trying to claim that the British inhabitants are the natives of the US, Canada or half of Africa or Hong Kong it is not even worth discussing. However, since Jews are natives of the land the claim is a rightful and just one. Your argument falls to water.
 
  • #170
Smurf said:
Besides, weren't the Palestinians also the children of Abraham.. and thus also promised his land?

edit: Besides 2, it's still illegal as of UN resolution 242.

There is no mention of the term 'Palestinian' in the Bible, nor any of its derivatives. Secondy, please do not state a UN Security Council resolution which has been rejected by Arabs themselves. What is illegal? The settlements of the territories? Please, take a closer look at it and then come back.
 
  • #171
The Smoking Man said:
LOL ...

So the Native Americans share genetic material with SE Asians.

This is a claim to land in China?

"Please, consider this information carefully."

I am from the North East of England. My mother has blonde hair and I have brown hair and hazel eyes.

Chances are, there are some Viking raiders in my ancestry. Can I claim some 'Viking land'?

How about the people from Iceland and Greenland?

We are all theoretically decended from the 'cradle of life' in Africa.

Can we all claim land there.

THEN, after we all claim out land, can we declar ourselves a new nation?

I suggest that you grow up.

If you have no background knowledge in genetics, or the human journey out of Africa to populate the world, then please refrain from expressing these absurdities. Modern homo sapiens are descended from various waves that left Africa close to 60,000 years ago and slowly filled the world. The natives of each country are mainly the descendants of the people that first reached the land, with minor contributions from later additions. I know this topic fairly well, if you would like to have any further information I can explain it to you.
 
  • #172
Curious6 said:
Nothing to do with it. If you are trying to claim that the British inhabitants are the natives of the US, Canada or half of Africa or Hong Kong it is not even worth discussing. However, since Jews are natives of the land the claim is a rightful and just one. Your argument falls to water.
That's stupid. You can trace back the bloodlines from the French to the huns which were from Central Asia. Does France have a claim on Central Asia?
 
  • #173
That is untrue. French are largely descended from the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers that reached Europe close to 40,000 years ago with a subsequent addition during the Neolithic from the Middle East due to the spread of agriculture. Any addition from the Huns is likely to be very minor and therefore insiginificant.
 
  • #174
Curious6 said:
There is no mention of the term 'Palestinian' in the Bible, nor any of its derivatives.
No? Abraham never fathered a child by a slave? Huh.. my mistake.
Secondy, please do not state a UN Security Council resolution which has been rejected by Arabs themselves. What is illegal? The settlements of the territories? Please, take a closer look at it and then come back.
What is illegal? It is illegal for Israel to be in violation of these aspects of the resolution:
UN Resolution 242 said:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
UN Resolution 242 said:
UN Resolution 242 said:
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State
UN Resolution 242 said:
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
UN Resolution 242 said:
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area
Secondly, if Israel thinks they own land just because some Jews built homes there they are sadly mistaken.
 
  • #175
Curious6 said:
That is untrue. French are largely descended from the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers that reached Europe close to 40,000 years ago with a subsequent addition during the Neolithic from the Middle East due to the spread of agriculture. Any addition from the Huns is likely to be very minor and therefore insiginificant.
Paleolithic is a period of time, not a race. It's more commonly know as the stone age, have you heard of it?

Edit: well, actually the Paleolithic period is the second period of the stone age. Stone Age is more broad than that.
 
Last edited:
  • #176
Smurf said:
No? Abraham never fathered a child by a slave? Huh.. my mistake..

Yes, I didn't deny that. But is this child called a Palestinian? No, he was said to be the ancestor of all Arabs, which is clearly a more encompassing term than 'Palestinian'.

OK, and now about the UN Resolution 242. This resolution, post-1967 war, is often stated as proof of the 'illegality' of the settlements. However, even though it calls for 'withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict' it does not call from withdrawal of all territories, as everybody knew that it would pose that the pre-1967 boundaries posed a significant danger. It is not a surprise that it says 'territories' rather than 'all territories' as a request that the word 'all' be included was rejected. Anyways, by returning the Sinai to Egypt in 1982, which arguably was a tremendously valuable asset as it has copious oil supplies of its own, over 90% of the territories captured in the war were returned. Finally, the disengagement is 'returning' Gaza, so there you go. Anyways, the resolution does not oblige anyone to return anything until there is a just peace settlement. If you do not agree with my interpretation, look at this page:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_un_242.php

Also, isn't it funny that the Arabs themselves rejected this resolution and now bring it up? Seems an ingenious way to suit resolutions to your interests.
 
Last edited:
  • #177
Smurf said:
Paleolithic is a period of time, not a race. It's more commonly know as the stone age, have you heard of it?

Edit: well, actually the stone age is more broad, the Paleolithic period is the largest period of the stone age.

LOL, is this a joke? I said 'Paleolithic hunter-gatheres' and if it is too much work to understand that what I referred to were 'hunter-gatheres from the Paleolithic' then please excuse me and I will lower the level of the discussion to a more elementary one.
 
  • #178
Curious6 said:
Yes, I didn't deny that. But is this child called a Palestinian? No, he was said to be the ancestor of all Arabs, which is clearly a more encompassing term than 'Palestinian'.
I suggest you scooch over then because that's even more people you have to share it with now.
 
  • #179
Smurf said:
I suggest you scooch over then because that's even more people you have to share it with now.

Haha, sorry for not giving up the remaining 0.01% of the land of the Middle East. I guess it's asking too much to have one single, independent Jewish state in the world, comparable in size to New Jersey.
 
  • #180
Curious6 said:
LOL, is this a joke? I said 'Paleolithic hunter-gatheres' and if it is too much work to understand that what I referred to were 'hunter-gatheres from the Paleolithic' then please excuse me and I will lower the level of the discussion to a more elementary one.
Because France was the only place with Hunter Gatherer's in the Paleolithic period, everywhere else had booming cities and sustained agriculture. You're right, my bad.
 
  • #181
Curious6 said:
Haha, sorry for not giving up the remaining 0.01% of the land of the Middle East. I guess it's asking too much to have one single, independent Jewish state in the world, comparable in size to New Jersey.
Just pointing out the irrelevance of such a claim.
 
  • #182
Lisa! said:
I don't know what to say. Your story is damn confusing. I've not read others replies because I think it even makes me more confused. So I try to ask you to clarify it step by step.
No worries, just keep in mind I'm a little short of time during the week.
Lisa! said:
First step: Let think you really bought those lands! It's still damn confusing for me. Suppose some of Arabs(or even some of Americans) go to the US and buy some lands and then they decide to have an independent state from US governmemnt and govern independently, now what do you think other Americans would do?
The situation you're describing is very different from the situation in Palestine.
Palestine, until 1917, was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Under its control, Palestine was divided between a few provinces and the Jerusalem sanjack - it was never viewed as a unique, definite territory, and was sparsely populated in different parts by Arabs of various origins and cultures. Lands were owned usually by wealthy landowners who lived away from the territory - usually in Alexandria and Damascus.
The British took control of the Middle East during World War I, and divided it with the French in accordance with the Sykes-Picot agreement. That is the first time modern borders were set in that region. The League of Nations granted the British a mandate to keep the area that is today known as Palestine and Transjordan. Transjordan, whose population today is 90% Palestinian, was given to the Hashemites as part of an agreement for their support in fighting the Ottoman Empire, leaving a territory that became known as Palestine in British hands. The British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, made a declaration that Britain will endeavour to create a national home for Jews in Palestine.
In the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, King Faisal I, head of the Arab delegation, signed the Faisal-Weizmann agreement, accepting the Balfour declaration and agreeing to cooperate in creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. That treaty was not accepted by the Arab leaders in Palestine and they started attacking Jewish settlements by force. In March 1920, they attacked a Jewish settlement in the Galilee called Tel-Hai, where they killed 8 defenders among them Joseph Trumpeldor who became a symbol for the Jewish defenders in those days. In April, during a religious festival they attacked the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. This event is known as The 1920 Riots. These riots were the main factor in the establishment of the Haganah, the largest Jewish defensive organisation. Its policy of restraint was too peaceful for a few individuals, who formed a renegade group called the Irgun, which was very small and was denounced by the Jewish Agency. In 1936 the Palestinian Arabs staged the Great Uprising. These attacks further strengthened the need for a strong Jewish defense and also helped the Irgun gain enough popularity to keep it from falling apart.
Following these riots, the British placed restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchases, forcing Zionist organisations to clandestinely bring immigrants from Nazi Europe to safe shores in Palestine. This immigration continued also after World War II ended.
In 1947 the UN general assembly approved a Partition Plan for Palestine calling for two separate states - a Jewish and an Arab one. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan while Palestinian leaders and the Arab nations rejected it, starting more riots. In 1948 the British mandate ended, Israel declared independence, and on the next day Arab armies, supported by some locals attacked it, and the War of Independence started.
 
  • #183
Curious6 said:
False. The only major-scale massacre that occurred pre-1948 was the Deir Yassin massacre that you rightfully mentioned. However, even if this does not justify the violence, I urge you to take a look at the context this occurred in. The attack was certainly not an unprovoked action of torture and horror as many would like to believe, but it was the retaliatory action after constant Arab attacks. Anyways, even before armed Jewish forces entered the city they warned via loudspeakers that women and children should leave the city, which clearly proves the attack's objective was the men who carried out the preceding attacks. Anyways, if you are genuinely interested, please take a look at the following page:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_diryassin.php
Interesting you say they called on the women and children to leave. Obviously tactics change with time because in the Sabra and Shatila massacre it was the other way around. They waited until the men had left as part of the terms of a ceasefire agreement and then massacred the women and children left behind.
BTW If you like I'll start sourcing my information from the likes of stormfront. They're at least as reliable as the drivel you quoted.



Curious6 said:
Yes, they were indeed very obliging. This is why they started the violence and were the perpetrators of numerous riots, such as those of 1920-21.
Funny that you should refer to the original inhabitants of the land as rioters? Rioting against whom? Wouldn't it have been the jews who were rioting given that they were the visitors to someone elses land?



Curious6 said:
This is interesting. The Jews did not come from Egypt, they were not native from there. Rather, they were enslaved, and were forced to work there.
The biblical claim they make on the land stems from Moses leading them from EGYPT to the promised land. It's as good a starting point as any unless you want to trace their antecedents back to prehistoric times. :rolleyes:
Curious6 said:
They then migrated to Canaan and established themselves there.
Migrated being a euphemism for invaded :smile:
Curious6 said:
Anyways, the figure you mention is unverifiable by history and I have read accounts that it is a grossly overstated figure.
Then what you have read is wrong because it is historically verifiable from the 400 Tel-El Amarna tablets.
Curious6 said:
Anyways, the majority of Canaanites were absorbed into the Hebrew population as they intermarried for centuries, effectively causing the gradual disappearance of their culture.
Please explain how 2 races intermix and the majority one disappears whilst the minority one remains pure. Sounds like an interesting new twist to genetics. :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #184
Art said:
Interesting you say they called on the women and children to leave. Obviously tactics change with time because in the Sabra and Shatila massacre it was the other way around. They waited until the men had left as part of the terms of a ceasefire agreement and then massacred the women and children left behind.

The claim that they called on women and children to leave is something claimed after the fact by the perptrators of the massacre and is not backed up by independet evidnece (including the evidence of members of other Jewish miltias) and must be regarded with great suspicon gievn that most of the victims of the Deir Yassin massacre were women and children.
 
  • #185
EnumaElish said:
A difference is that some Jews believe in a biblical "promised land." Can't claim the same for the British over the Americas.
Biblical promised land? Somehow it isn't acceptable. You know for believing their bible, everyone needs to be Jewish. but as we know there are lots of other religions and some of people
are aheist or they're not religious. So their bible couldn't give them any right to claim these lands, since others don't believe it.
Anyway if this land had belonged to Jews 2000 years ago and now they have claim on it, base on this, European and African American should leave America too, because we know America is belong to people who were living there before European came to America.

By the way, Yonoz say we
bought these lands, curious6 say they have the right to be in Palestine because these lands had belonged to them 2000 years ago. :confused:
 
  • #186
Yonoz said:
No worries, just keep in mind I'm a little short of time during the week.
The situation you're describing is very different from the situation in Palestine.
Palestine, until 1917, was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Under its control, Palestine was divided between a few provinces and the Jerusalem sanjack - it was never viewed as a unique, definite territory, and was sparsely populated in different parts by Arabs of various origins and cultures. Lands were owned usually by wealthy landowners who lived away from the territory - usually in Alexandria and Damascus.
The British took control of the Middle East during World War I, and divided it with the French in accordance with the Sykes-Picot agreement. That is the first time modern borders were set in that region. The League of Nations granted the British a mandate to keep the area that is today known as Palestine and Transjordan. Transjordan, whose population today is 90% Palestinian, was given to the Hashemites as part of an agreement for their support in fighting the Ottoman Empire, leaving a territory that became known as Palestine in British hands. The British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, made a declaration that Britain will endeavour to create a national home for Jews in Palestine.
In the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, King Faisal I, head of the Arab delegation, signed the Faisal-Weizmann agreement, accepting the Balfour declaration and agreeing to cooperate in creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. That treaty was not accepted by the Arab leaders in Palestine and they started attacking Jewish settlements by force. In March 1920, they attacked a Jewish settlement in the Galilee called Tel-Hai, where they killed 8 defenders among them Joseph Trumpeldor who became a symbol for the Jewish defenders in those days. In April, during a religious festival they attacked the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. This event is known as The 1920 Riots. These riots were the main factor in the establishment of the Haganah, the largest Jewish defensive organisation. Its policy of restraint was too peaceful for a few individuals, who formed a renegade group called the Irgun, which was very small and was denounced by the Jewish Agency. In 1936 the Palestinian Arabs staged the Great Uprising. These attacks further strengthened the need for a strong Jewish defense and also helped the Irgun gain enough popularity to keep it from falling apart.
Following these riots, the British placed restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchases, forcing Zionist organisations to clandestinely bring immigrants from Nazi Europe to safe shores in Palestine. This immigration continued also after World War II ended.
In 1947 the UN general assembly approved a Partition Plan for Palestine calling for two separate states - a Jewish and an Arab one. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan while Palestinian leaders and the Arab nations rejected it, starting more riots. In 1948 the British mandate ended, Israel declared independence, and on the next day Arab armies, supported by some locals attacked it, and the War of Independence started.

You told us you bought the lands from Palestinians, so why are you leaving them now? And another question, sure enough Palestinians didn't sell Kods too. So what are you doing there? And you say we're in lands which we bought from Palestinians, I heard that you were going to stretch Israel. Even Egypt would be part of Israel. So are you going to buy all these lands even from Egypt? :bugeye:
 
  • #187
Lisa! said:
Biblical promised land? Somehow it isn't acceptable. You know for believing their bible, everyone needs to be Jewish. but as we know there are lots of other religions and some of people
are aheist or they're not religious. So their bible couldn't give them any right to claim these lands, since others don't believe it.
Anyway if this land had belonged to Jews 2000 years ago and now they have claim on it, base on this, European and African American should leave America too, because we know America is belong to people who were living there before European came to America.

I never understood this whole 'ancestral claim' thing, either. I have a lot of Armenian friends and some of the more ultra-nationalist ones insist that Turkey should return all lands taken in 1915 and all Turkish people should be removed from these lands. I really have to wonder: How many of the people living on this land were even alive 90 years ago? I would feel a little odd myself going to North Carolina or Georgia and demanding that all people of European descent leave because I have an ancestral claim to the land. But hey, why not? If Jews deserve their own state, why not Native Americans? They've been far less successful at integrating into Euro-American culture and have suffered just as much displacement and killing.

By the way, Yonoz say we
bought these lands, curious6 say they have the right to be in Palestine because these lands had belonged to them 2000 years ago. :confused:

They aren't the same person, you know. They can give different reasons.
 
  • #188
loseyourname said:
I never understood this whole 'ancestral claim' thing, either. I have a lot of Armenian friends and some of the more ultra-nationalist ones insist that Turkey should return all lands taken in 1915 and all Turkish people should be removed from these lands. I really have to wonder: How many of the people living on this land were even alive 90 years ago? I would feel a little odd myself going to North Carolina or Georgia and demanding that all people of European descent leave because I have an ancestral claim to the land. But hey, why not? If Jews deserve their own state, why not Native Americans? They've been far less successful at integrating into Euro-American culture and have suffered just as much displacement and killing.
And how are they sure that these Palestinians' ancestors didn't live in Palestine 2000 years ago? :confused: Perhaps their ancestors were jews too and then they decided to change their religion!



They aren't the same person, you know. They can give different reasons.
I don't think it was possible to give different reasons for this subject. There must be one valid reason here. If someone asks you why are you living in this home, you will show a valid document to tell them whether you buy this hom or you inherit it from your ancestors.(Of course if you've not rented it :biggrin: )
 
  • #189
Curious6 said:
If you have no background knowledge in genetics, or the human journey out of Africa to populate the world, then please refrain from expressing these absurdities. Modern homo sapiens are descended from various waves that left Africa close to 60,000 years ago and slowly filled the world. The natives of each country are mainly the descendants of the people that first reached the land, with minor contributions from later additions. I know this topic fairly well, if you would like to have any further information I can explain it to you.
You don't have to any more ... you just gave us the answer: "Modern homo sapiens are descended from various waves that left Africa close to 60,000 years ago and slowly filled the world."

What that does is to prove my point.

If these 'waves' all originated in Africa, which I presented to YOU by the way (even though you are trying to sound superior), then based on your assumption that the genetics of the ANCESTORS of people who lived in certain areas implies a right to claim land at their point of origin then it follows that all homo sapiens have the right to claim land in Africa.

If you think that is absurd then I ask you to look at your own contention that an ANCESTOR from 2,000 years ago gives you the right to claim the land you call Israel.

I want South aftica for the Diamonds and Krugerands ... Smurf, what do you claim?
 
  • #190
I'm taking the Congo, or Zaire, or whatever it's called this year. The biodiversity there will probably produce a biotech cornucopia at some point. Oh, and since I'm part Native American, I'm claiming Cambodia and giving it to my ex-wife; it was her favorite vacation spot.
 
  • #191
Curious6 said:
That is untrue. French are largely descended from the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers that reached Europe close to 40,000 years ago with a subsequent addition during the Neolithic from the Middle East due to the spread of agriculture. Any addition from the Huns is likely to be very minor and therefore insiginificant.
I noticed the ommission of the Native Americans that I posted and that you honed in on the Homo Sapiens.

So 10,000 years ago, the people of Asia migrated to North America.

Are they entitled to land?

The ASEANS have studied language migration and genetics throughout SE Asia. Is it your contention that we must now throw out all our concepts of the ownership of land and immigration to satisfy the absurd notion that these characteristics are 'claims' to a mythical Jewish homeland?
 
  • #192
loseyourname said:
Oh, and since I'm part Native American, I'm claiming Cambodia and giving it to my ex-wife; it was her favorite vacation spot.
Sorry Pol Pot is not in business any more so if you're looking to solve the alimony problem ... :cry:
 
  • #193
re

The jews believe the land of Israel was promised by God.

In my mind what kind of God chooses one group of people over another by promising the land? Why doesn't he promise it to all people including Christians, Muslims or Buddists. Thats not a fair god don't you think, especially where all other religions preach love and equality for all.
 
  • #194
Curious6 said:
Haha, sorry for not giving up the remaining 0.01% of the land of the Middle East. I guess it's asking too much to have one single, independent Jewish state in the world, comparable in size to New Jersey.
Haha ... then I guess we are going to have to sqidge over here too because the worshipers of Gichigumi need a homeland too.

Now, go around the world and find all the religions and find their 'homelands'.

Even the pagans who worship Herne the Hunter in the UK will now have to be given something like Sussex.

Well, the Druids will have to take Stonehenge however, I think they have placed it at an earlier time than that.
 
  • #195
waht said:
The jews believe the land of Israel was promised by God.

In my mind what kind of God chooses one group of people over another by promising the land? Why doesn't he promise it to all people including Christians, Muslims or Buddists. Thats not a fair god don't you think, especially where all other religions preach love and equality for all.
Well YOU obviously didn't pray hard enough did you! :mad:
 
  • #196
waht said:
The jews believe the land of Israel was promised by God.

In my mind what kind of God chooses one group of people over another by promising the land? Why doesn't he promise it to all people including Christians, Muslims or Buddists. Thats not a fair god don't you think, especially where all other religions preach love and equality for all.

Who said God agree with other religions? THIS REMINDS ME OF A Joke.Am I allowed to share my joke here? :rolleyes:
 
  • #197
Lisa! said:
Who said God agree with other religions? THIS REMINDS ME OF A Joke.Am I allowed to share my joke here? :rolleyes:
Please do ... It can't be any worse than a genetic claim to land in the ME :smile:
 
  • #198
The Smoking Man said:
Please do ... It can't be any worse than a genetic claim to land in the ME :smile:
It's quite irrelevant but I share it.


Once a person claims he's God. Others tell him "Do you know what happened to the guy who claimed he was God's prophet? We killed him." He answers "Well, you did the right thing since he was a liar because I didn't send him yo you."

Now I think if we say to some of Jews that what you're saying, hasn't said in other Bibles, who knows perhaps they tell us that's because other bibles aren't from God.
 
  • #199
The Smoking Man said:
I want South aftica for the Diamonds and Krugerands ... Smurf, what do you claim?
I want everything from Morocco to Egypt, if I can't get it all right away I'll conquer it later, and then invade the Middle East with the ultimate goal of controlling all oil in Afri-Asia. Especially at this time when oil's running out but alternative fuel sources arn't advanced enough to replace it. I can hold the world hostage! :smile: :devil: :smile: :devil:
 
  • #200
Gaza "Withdrawal" a Smoke-Screen for Military Occupation

As the world's attention is turned toward the http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=8529 remains unclear , as Israel has refused to negotiate on these key issues, which will define if Gaza will remain a large, social and economically isolated prison.

Also in the context of withdrawal from Gaza, Israeli settlers have severally escalated their attacks against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. This past week three Palestinians were killed by an Israeli settler in the West Bank, who used weaponry belonging to the Israeli military. Throughout the West Bank, Israeli military occupation continues, settlement expansion continues and the construction of the internationally condemned Apartheid Wall is ongoing. The Palestinian struggle against occupation and for liberation also continues on a daily basis. Throughout the summer of 2005 demonstrations and direct actions against military occupation and the Apartheid Wall have taken place on a daily basis , as Palestinians struggle for basic survival.

All http://www.palestinemonitor.org/factsheet/israeli_settlements_on_occupied.htm scattered throughout the country.

For more information and background on the Gaza Withdrawal visit the Electronic Intifada
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
155
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
13K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
289
Views
31K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Back
Top