Full Version: Should the Jews been given a state of thier own?
My family is half Jewish, and as I read more and more about the creation of a Jewish state, the more I think it was to make Christian biblical prophecy come true by religious zealots in America and Britain than any real need to asuage guilt for the Holocaust. It seems to me there is no real difference between the palestenians and the isrealis except that the isrealis are doing to the palestenians what south africa did to blacks. I think the US, with Britain, has created all the problems in the middle east due to WW2, and now this generation and others are paying the price.
Got a question?
BTW, religious zealots are still trying to help prophecy come true, thinking that they can move up the second coming. Silly, silly people. God does things in his own way, and in his own time.
BTW, religious zealots are still trying to help prophecy come true, thinking that they can move up the second coming. Silly, silly people. God does things in his own way, and in his own time.
I think this is the crux of the debate on the middle east, since really all problems in our foreign policy really derive from the 1948 creation of the Isreal state. I am no zionist conspiracy thinker now, and don't have any animosity for the Jewish poeple as a race or state, but on the other hand, we made a real dangerous situation by our own hands.
Yes, I think it was the right thing to do. However, I think that it should have been done in East Africa - which was the original place offered by the then British Empire as a homeland, several years before the Holocaust.
But the Zionists turned their noses up and decided they had to have their own historic homeland back, despite many centuries away from it. So much so that they were prepared to use terror tactics to get it (bombing the women and children in the Kind David Hotel, for example).
It's impossible to be sure whether the locals in Keyna and Uganda (I think that was roughly the area the British had in mind) would have accepted the incoming Jews more easily than the Arabs have, but away from the religious hot-spot of Jerusalem things might have been a little easier. Plus, anti-Semitism had no real history in that part of sub-Saharan Africa compared to the Middle East, as there had never been any Jews there. (The "Lost Tribe" in Ethiopia were much farther North).
I don't think that the British motivation then or after WW2 was motivated by religious support for Zionism as a way-station to the second coming. The kind of religious fundamentalists that attach themselves to that kind of symbolism and biblical litertalism have been out of mainstream power in England for about the last two centuries. (Although there are still echoes of the kind of religious persecutions of the Reformation era in Northern Ireland and part of Scotland, the people responsible have not had nationwide influence for a similar amount of time.)
But the Zionists turned their noses up and decided they had to have their own historic homeland back, despite many centuries away from it. So much so that they were prepared to use terror tactics to get it (bombing the women and children in the Kind David Hotel, for example).
It's impossible to be sure whether the locals in Keyna and Uganda (I think that was roughly the area the British had in mind) would have accepted the incoming Jews more easily than the Arabs have, but away from the religious hot-spot of Jerusalem things might have been a little easier. Plus, anti-Semitism had no real history in that part of sub-Saharan Africa compared to the Middle East, as there had never been any Jews there. (The "Lost Tribe" in Ethiopia were much farther North).
I don't think that the British motivation then or after WW2 was motivated by religious support for Zionism as a way-station to the second coming. The kind of religious fundamentalists that attach themselves to that kind of symbolism and biblical litertalism have been out of mainstream power in England for about the last two centuries. (Although there are still echoes of the kind of religious persecutions of the Reformation era in Northern Ireland and part of Scotland, the people responsible have not had nationwide influence for a similar amount of time.)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 2 2003, 05:07 AM)
I think this is the crux of the debate on the middle east, since really all problems in our foreign policy really derive from the 1948 creation of the Isreal state. I am no zionist conspiracy thinker .....
I can't remember the last time I heard something so anti-semetic. Do you think you might offer some references as to why ALL of our foreign policy problems come from Israel? The last I checked we didn't go through te Cold War for the Jews land. We aren't having problems right now with Korea because of Israel, are we?
By the way, it is impossible to liked all the time by all the people. And if we have to be hated by one group because we like another, I'm glad we chose the Jews to "side up with". At least they have stuck by the US which is more than the Arab leaders or South American leaders we have put into power have done.
I'll be honest with you CruisingRam, I think your posting is despicable and racist and furthermore it is groundless and not based in reality. Nor is it in the interest of the US.
Edited to add: This whole thread is Anti-Jew as best as I can tell. Would anyone please tell me why they SHOULDN'T have been given their own state? Or why when their ENEMIES attacked THEM, they shouldn't have taken the necessary land to protect themselves? Or why the Arabs left their people behind without offering refugee???
QUOTE
My family is half Jewish, and as I read more and more about the creation of a Jewish state, the more I think it was to make Christian biblical prophecy come true by religious zealots in America and Britain than any real need to asuage guilt for the Holocaust. It seems to me there is no real difference between the palestenians and the isrealis except that the isrealis are doing to the palestenians what south africa did to blacks. I think the US, with Britain, has created all the problems in the middle east due to WW2, and now this generation and others are paying the price.
I agree Johnlocke, this is anti-semitic garbage and this is the only thing I'm going to say about it. T Plestinians are also without a homeland, if the other Mslim nations in the Middle East were so concerned with this, they would assist the Plestinians like the many Christian nations have helped Irael. But no, they let them stay in the quagmire with Irael and allow both sides to continue killing each other.
What is wrong with helping a repressed people who have been spat apon and degregated to the extent that the Jewish people have? I found it comforting that America and England did what they did in 1948 for the new nation of Irael. Where else were they to go? Israel is their homeland.
Oh, blame America for the ethnic hatreds of the last 3,000 years. The Jewish/Muslim rivalry goes all the way back to father Abraham in the Old Testament. If you don't know that, then you don't know the real problems that are concerning Irael and the Middle East.
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Aug 2 2003, 10:24 AM)
I'll be honest with you CruisingRam, I think your posting is despicable and racist and furthermore it is groundless and not based in reality. Nor is it in the interest of the US.
I know I have told you to report posts you feel are in violation of the rules rather than comment on how awful you feel they are. When you do this it is obvious you are more interested in derailing this thread than seeing this forum maintain it's integrity for civil, constructive debate. Stop crying wolf. The townspeople will not want to help you when there is a real wolf.
Now please debate:
QUOTE
Should the Jews (have) been given a state of thier own?
I know that the feelings that a question like this are very strong, and that any mention of the fact that Isreal may not be entitled to a homeland any more than the American Indians, the Kurds, or the long list of other poeples that have been harmed by history and now have no ethnic country of thier own is interpreted as anti-semitic, but the question is a legitimate one. Now, as far as the cold war, Isreal was a bit player on the world scene, but in the middle east and the conflicts today it is everything. Why did we take a poeple, that have had no homeland of thier own for about 2000 years, and give them one, especially taking away ANOTHER poeples homeland, an already established goverment, and give it to the (then) ethnic minority? You CAN discuss this question without being anti-semitic, as similar as you can discuss afirmative action or discrimination agaisnt whites in america without being racist.
Is persecution of a minority group grounds for a homeland? And even more important, is persecuting another poeple and removing the existing goverment in order to give them that homeland morally okay as well? If so, why not just declare Iraq Kurdistan? They are as large of a sub-ethnic group, have had persecution by several countries almost on the scale of the Jews, have commited acts of terror to GET thier homeland, have historical claim to the region, and have been ardent supporters of the US as long as our interests coincide? I think it is simply because the Kurds have not been mentioned in Genesis more than anything!
Is persecution of a minority group grounds for a homeland? And even more important, is persecuting another poeple and removing the existing goverment in order to give them that homeland morally okay as well? If so, why not just declare Iraq Kurdistan? They are as large of a sub-ethnic group, have had persecution by several countries almost on the scale of the Jews, have commited acts of terror to GET thier homeland, have historical claim to the region, and have been ardent supporters of the US as long as our interests coincide? I think it is simply because the Kurds have not been mentioned in Genesis more than anything!
QUOTE(Jaime @ Aug 2 2003, 04:54 PM)
I know I have told you to report posts you feel are in violation of the rules rather than comment on how awful you feel they are. When you do this it is obvious you are more interested in derailing this thread than seeing this forum maintain it's integrity for civil, constructive debate. Stop crying wolf. The townspeople will not want to help you when there is a real wolf.
Jaime,
I'm sorry but I don't like to report posts because in my opinion, that is tantamount to running and crying to daddy rather than running and crying wolf. I am not trying to derail this thread so much as the anti-semetism in the thread....and perhaps the illegitimacy in the thread. I thought that asking for evidence was quite appropriate and perhaps the fact that I ask for what could never be provided only helps maintain the integrity of the forum. And lastly I see no mention in your post of the illegitmate claims that I was responding to, leading me to hope that there is not some sort of sidetaking going on here.....
Encouring sources is always welcome, you did more than that. Now NO MORE derailing this thread. Debate it or don't. It's staying open for now.
The muslims have not always been the traditional enemies of the Jewish poeple either- in fact the real poeple who really did awful things to them are the Christians and their "pogroms"- the burning of Jews at the stake for entertainment. The Ottoman Turks were Muslim and did not despise Jews- in fact they were usually scribes in thier courts. This is how so many Jews ended up in Spain- the real persecution came after the Christians came to power and started thier "pogroms". This is also part of the reason for the Diaspora. Jews were the scribes and the learned, and they found refuge in Malta, then on to Germany, where, in context of the times and the treatment elsewhere, Germany was the refuge for them for centuries, and weren't really persecuted there till modern times, so the logical homeland would have been Germany, they have nearly as long as history there, and carving out a state for the Jews in germany would have been appropriate considering Germany was the state that wronged them the most!
We do feel a sense of national guilt towards the Jews for the Holocaust- and I have read that there was some evidence we knew about it, and as such, bear some of the responsibility for it happening, and America was a fairly anti-semitic nation at the time, but allowing war criminals like Ariel Sharon (implicated in a massacre or two of his own) to use this national guilt against us is not right either. The Isrealites have no real claim on the Jewish state outside a religious reference from 2000 years ago, and someone else was living there when we declared it thier homeland, a very small minority of Jews were still living there, and we made refugees and enemies out of an entire ethnic group.
We do feel a sense of national guilt towards the Jews for the Holocaust- and I have read that there was some evidence we knew about it, and as such, bear some of the responsibility for it happening, and America was a fairly anti-semitic nation at the time, but allowing war criminals like Ariel Sharon (implicated in a massacre or two of his own) to use this national guilt against us is not right either. The Isrealites have no real claim on the Jewish state outside a religious reference from 2000 years ago, and someone else was living there when we declared it thier homeland, a very small minority of Jews were still living there, and we made refugees and enemies out of an entire ethnic group.
I think it is unfair to call someone questioning the logic behind the formation of a Jewish state anti-semitic.
The creation of Israel has created a nearly intractable problem in the middle east. We have had actual anti-semitic threads on AD with very little outcry from JL.
The historical problem behind this question is that it was the Jews and the zionist movement (which I still have not seen how this term is derogatory. Isn't its inception in Theodor Herzl's The Jewish State, which launched the move to create a Jewish homeland in the middle east) any way, this movement was the creation of the jewish people. It is very arrogant to say that anyone gave the Jews the nation of Israel.
In doing so Israel upset the balance of power in a region that was becoming independent of European and Turkish domination.
Edited to add:
Um- the Muslim faith was not established until the 7th century AD.
The creation of Israel has created a nearly intractable problem in the middle east. We have had actual anti-semitic threads on AD with very little outcry from JL.
The historical problem behind this question is that it was the Jews and the zionist movement (which I still have not seen how this term is derogatory. Isn't its inception in Theodor Herzl's The Jewish State, which launched the move to create a Jewish homeland in the middle east) any way, this movement was the creation of the jewish people. It is very arrogant to say that anyone gave the Jews the nation of Israel.
In doing so Israel upset the balance of power in a region that was becoming independent of European and Turkish domination.
Edited to add:
QUOTE
Billie Jean Posted on Aug 2 2003, 10:13 AM
QUOTE
Oh, blame America for the ethnic hatreds of the last 3,000 years. The Jewish/Muslim rivalry goes all the way back to father Abraham in the Old Testament. If you don't know that, then you don't know the real problems that are concerning Irael and the Middle East.
Um- the Muslim faith was not established until the 7th century AD.
To make sure I don't get off topic too far:
First off I agree with Eeyore:
If there was a nice empty piece of land that nobody else was living in I'd say fine, set up your own state. But that was not the case and I think it was a mistake to put our political and financial backing behind a proposition that has created suffering and ill will to this day on all sides, well beyond the principals, due to the displacement of one people by another. It's done, we have to make the best of it but I think the Zionist state idea going back to Herzl and the Balfour declaration was flawed at its core. And many Jews agree. You don't suppose they're all anti-Semetic?
On the other hand, here I disagree with Eeyore:
This is just history. The English established the Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration and the UN consecrated Israel as a state in the 1947 partition.
Finally, I think CruisingRam offers a perspective on the matter that bears repeating.
The Kurds also didn't have a well funded PR campaign.
QUOTE
Should the Jews have been given a state of their own?
First off I agree with Eeyore:
QUOTE
I think it is unfair to call someone questioning the logic behind the formation of a Jewish state anti-semitic.
If there was a nice empty piece of land that nobody else was living in I'd say fine, set up your own state. But that was not the case and I think it was a mistake to put our political and financial backing behind a proposition that has created suffering and ill will to this day on all sides, well beyond the principals, due to the displacement of one people by another. It's done, we have to make the best of it but I think the Zionist state idea going back to Herzl and the Balfour declaration was flawed at its core. And many Jews agree. You don't suppose they're all anti-Semetic?
On the other hand, here I disagree with Eeyore:
QUOTE
It is very arrogant to say that anyone gave the Jews the nation of Israel.
This is just history. The English established the Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration and the UN consecrated Israel as a state in the 1947 partition.
Finally, I think CruisingRam offers a perspective on the matter that bears repeating.
QUOTE
Is persecution of a minority group grounds for a homeland? And even more important, is persecuting another poeple and removing the existing goverment in order to give them that homeland morally okay as well? If so, why not just declare Iraq Kurdistan? They are as large of a sub-ethnic group, have had persecution by several countries almost on the scale of the Jews, have commited acts of terror to GET thier homeland, have historical claim to the region, and have been ardent supporters of the US as long as our interests coincide? I think it is simply because the Kurds have not been mentioned in Genesis more than anything!
The Kurds also didn't have a well funded PR campaign.
Lets also remember that the Palestenians also took thier entire terrorist campaign straight from Menecem Begin's playbook- only the palestanans don't have the PR like dingo said.
QUOTE
Um- the Muslim faith was not established until the 7th century AD.
Um- You need to read up on the Muslim and Jewish faith and realize that they both believe in the same God and that they bot are rooted in the God of Abraham. Isaac and Ishmael were Abrahams sons. Isaac is the line that the Jews descend from and Ishael is the line in which the Arabic\Muslim line derives from.
Yes, the whole concept of Jews vs Muslim for thousands of years is a real cop out. The muslims treated the Jews much better than the Christians until recent history (last hundred and a half years or less). The real cause for the current hate is the displacement of the palestenians by the Isrealites. I tell you what, if a foriegn nation decided that someone else better deserved my land than me and my chosen goverment, ya, I might be a little radical too!
QUOTE
Yes, the whole concept of Jews vs Muslim for thousands of years is a real cop out.
How is that a cop out? Jews have PROVEN historical and archeological claims to Jerusalem PREDATING the Muslim faith.
http://www.fortruthssake.com/claims.asp
QUOTE(Billy Jean @ Aug 2 2003, 11:36 PM)
Isaac and Ishmael were Abrahams sons. Isaac is the line that the Jews descend from and Ishael is the line in which the Arabic\Muslim line derives from.
BJ, you do understand that this is strictly a faith statement and has no historically factual basis for it whatsoever.
Putting that aside how does it relate to the founding of a Zionist state?
Yes, Mohamed was not even born until after Jesus' death - so therefore, no Islam until after Jesus LOL
Also- the real debate here is- The Jewish empire/state was completely destroyed as an entity in AD70- two thousand years later (approx) in 1948 they are given thier homeland back- why? Should we give the Iroquois federation the east coast back? Our genocide of them was as bad as the Nazis to the Jews- shouldn't our nations guilt be assuaged by giving the indians a soveriegn homeland, and even sell them arms etc - but we don't have a bible demanding this do we?
Also- the real debate here is- The Jewish empire/state was completely destroyed as an entity in AD70- two thousand years later (approx) in 1948 they are given thier homeland back- why? Should we give the Iroquois federation the east coast back? Our genocide of them was as bad as the Nazis to the Jews- shouldn't our nations guilt be assuaged by giving the indians a soveriegn homeland, and even sell them arms etc - but we don't have a bible demanding this do we?
QUOTE
BJ, you do understand that this is strictly a faith statement and has no historically factual basis for it whatsoever.
Putting that aside how does it relate to the founding of a Zionist state?
Putting that aside how does it relate to the founding of a Zionist state?
http://www.fortruthssake.com/claims.asp
To answer your question, the statement I made concerning the historical lineage tie ISN't based entirely on "faith based" knowledge, but is accepted by both Jews and Arabs alike. In addition, the ENTIRE conflict is innertwined with faith on both sides of the issue.
QUOTE
Scholars agree that Mohammed was influenced by Judaism (and Christianity). This influence was significant enough that Mohammed's original plan for the direction of prayer (Qibla) was also Jerusalem. Mohammed later changed the direction of prayer to Mecca in Saudi Arabia -- a place that was converted from a pagan pilgrimage site to the "eternal city," and the center of the Moslem religion. (Moslems also placed Mecca as the spot where Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac's brother Ishmael.)
Mohammed never made it to Jerusalem, and the word "Jerusalem" appears nowhere in the Koran.
After founding Islam and leading his Islamic armies to victory over his pagan rivals, Mohammed died. Although Mohammed never made it to Jerusalem with his conquering armies, his successor, the Caliph Omar, captured Jerusalem from the Byzantines in 638. When Omar first visited the ruined Temple mount, he deliberately prayed south of the ruins of the Temple, toward Mecca, so that no one should think he was praying in the same direction as the Jews.
The holiest book of Islam is the Koran, which according to Moslem tradition contains the teachings of Mohammed. Unlike the Jewish Bible which contains hundreds of references to Jerusalem, the word "Jerusalem" appears nowhere in the Koran. So what is the Islamic spiritual connection to the site?
Mohammed never made it to Jerusalem, and the word "Jerusalem" appears nowhere in the Koran.
After founding Islam and leading his Islamic armies to victory over his pagan rivals, Mohammed died. Although Mohammed never made it to Jerusalem with his conquering armies, his successor, the Caliph Omar, captured Jerusalem from the Byzantines in 638. When Omar first visited the ruined Temple mount, he deliberately prayed south of the ruins of the Temple, toward Mecca, so that no one should think he was praying in the same direction as the Jews.
The holiest book of Islam is the Koran, which according to Moslem tradition contains the teachings of Mohammed. Unlike the Jewish Bible which contains hundreds of references to Jerusalem, the word "Jerusalem" appears nowhere in the Koran. So what is the Islamic spiritual connection to the site?
I havn't caught up to this yet, but will.
Just a quickkie thought....
YES there should be a state of Israel.
As there should be a state of Palestine.
And "there lyeth the problem"....
So much hate between them.........
Regards..Alan
Just a quickkie thought....
YES there should be a state of Israel.
As there should be a state of Palestine.
And "there lyeth the problem"....
So much hate between them.........
Regards..Alan
The Jews, of all people, understand how it felt to be driven from their homeland. It seems to me that they should cut the Palestinians some slack since it was where they lived for centuries following the dispersion.
Most certainly they should be given their own state. They have the right to live as we do. 
So do the Palastinians.
What happened to the Jewish people during this century is unforgivable.
For the Jewish state to use this to induce the World to feel pity for their own ends, is unforgivable.
For rich 'Uncle Sam' allowing it's favourite 'spoilt kid' to get out of hand, is unforgivable.
Regards...Alan
So do the Palastinians.
What happened to the Jewish people during this century is unforgivable.
For the Jewish state to use this to induce the World to feel pity for their own ends, is unforgivable.
For rich 'Uncle Sam' allowing it's favourite 'spoilt kid' to get out of hand, is unforgivable.
Regards...Alan
Actually part of the reason for the formation of Isreal was anti-semitism. Countries did not want Jewish immigrants. It would have been much cheaper in blood and money if we had given the Jews a few thousand acres in Montana or Arizona. You cannot make a case that the formation of Isreal has served the best interests of the US. I know, they are our only friend in the Mid East. Gee, I wonder why?
The apocalypse believers have never had enough political influence to influence this decision on forming Isreal.
The apocalypse believers have never had enough political influence to influence this decision on forming Isreal.
QUOTE
BJ - To answer your question, the statement I made concerning the historical lineage tie ISN't based entirely on "faith based" knowledge, but is accepted by both Jews and Arabs alike.
A lot of people accept the ET origins of ufos and crop circles but this doesn't prove a damn thing. Where is your proof of the historical lineage ties with Isaac and Ishmael?
Also Islam had a history after the Koran. Are you going to base your support for Palestinian removal on the fact that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran? Spiritual books should not be injected into determining political boundaries. If we employed that kind of rationalization wars would break out all over the world based on somebody's interpretation of a religious text of which there are quite a number.
Of course they should have their own place to live.
So should the Palestinians.
And like every tribe throughout history, the stronger erodes the weaker.
Uncle Sam gave the Jews the right through might.
Uncle Sam had better put this wayward kid back in its box real quick before the 'wayward kid' tells Sam what to do.
Or is it too late??
Regards..Alan
So should the Palestinians.
And like every tribe throughout history, the stronger erodes the weaker.
Uncle Sam gave the Jews the right through might.
Uncle Sam had better put this wayward kid back in its box real quick before the 'wayward kid' tells Sam what to do.
Or is it too late??
Regards..Alan
QUOTE
AW - Of course they should have their own place to live.
So should the Palestinians.
And like every tribe throughout history, the stronger erodes the weaker.
So should the Palestinians.
And like every tribe throughout history, the stronger erodes the weaker.
Sounds a little schizophrenic. The weak Palestinians will get their little reservation like the Abos.
Appartently Dingo, you do not read the link that I have provided, so here is the text for you.
BTW, why don't the other Mulsim countries in the Middle East help out the Palistinians? They're Muslims, right? The overwhelming majority of the nations in the Middle East our Muslims, why don't they help they're own, by portioning off part of they're land for the Palistinians? No one else BUT the US and the UK are going to help Isreal!! The Muslim nations don't want the Jews there! They're going to just let Isreal and Palistinine kill each other off, the Palistinians are obviously dispendable to the other Muslim nations, they don't want to take them in.
http://www.fortruthssake.com/claims.asp
REALLY?! Tell that to the MUSLIM states, who live by the Koran and set they're policies by it. The KORAN is they're LAW and final authority. The muslims, like every other culture have kept the Jews out of their land since the days of the Roman empire.
The historyof Isaac and Ishmael is VERY old and accepted on either side. The DEBATE of the brothers isn't whether or not they were related, but rather, who Abraham was going to sacrifice to God and who God chose to be the line inwhich he blessed. PLEASE read up on your Biblical and Muslim theology. Even this Muslim site acknowledges that.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaa...and_ishmael.htm
BTW, why don't the other Mulsim countries in the Middle East help out the Palistinians? They're Muslims, right? The overwhelming majority of the nations in the Middle East our Muslims, why don't they help they're own, by portioning off part of they're land for the Palistinians? No one else BUT the US and the UK are going to help Isreal!! The Muslim nations don't want the Jews there! They're going to just let Isreal and Palistinine kill each other off, the Palistinians are obviously dispendable to the other Muslim nations, they don't want to take them in.
QUOTE
The Jewish Historical Connection To Jerusalem
The early history of Jerusalem is also rooted in the Bible. In addition to the events already mentioned, the Book of Joshua (ch. 10)describes how Adoni-Tzedek, the Canaanite king of Jerusalem, wages war against the Jews.
During the approximately 400-year period from the entrance of the Jewish people into the land, through the period of the Judges, Jerusalem remained a non-Jewish city. It was not until the reign of King David (ca. 1,000 BCE) that Jerusalem was captured from the Canaanites (2-Samuel 5) and converted into the political/spiritual capital of the Jewish people. (Archaeologists agree that the original Canaanite city and the City of David was located in what is now the Arab village of Silwan, a few meters south of the "modern" walls of the Old City.)
King David purchased the peak of Mount Moriah, as recorded in 2-Samuel 24:18-25.
David purchased the peak of Mount Moriah (2-Samuel 24:18-25) as the site for the future Temple and gathered the necessary building supplies. The Book of 1-Kings (ch. 6-8) describes in great detail how David's son, King Solomon, built and dedicated the Temple: "And it came to pass after the 408th year after the Children of Israel left Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel... that he began to build the house of the Lord" (1-Kings 6:1).
Solomon's Temple is also known as the first Beit HaMikdash (the First Temple). While all archaeologists agree that it stood on Mount Moriah, probably on the site of the present Gold Dome of the Rock, its exact location is unknown.
Four hundred and ten years after its completion, it was utterly destroyed by the Babylonians when they besieged Jerusalem and no trace of it remains.
After the Babylonian destruction, most of the Jewish population of Israel was forcibly exiled from the land. This forced exile on the road to Babylon is mentioned in the famous verse from Psalm 137: "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion."
Fifty years later, after Babylon was captured by Persia, the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. Under the leadership of Zerubavel and Nechemiah, the Jews rebuilt both the Temple and walls around the city (Nechemia 4-6).
During both the First and Second Temple periods, the Temple was the central focus of the Jewish world both in Israel and the diaspora. Its upkeep was paid for by all Jews worldwide. The Kohanim (priests) and Levites served in the Temple, and three times a year -- during the holidays of Passover, Sukkot and Shavuot -- all Jews were commanded to come to Jerusalem and visit the Temple.
This rebuilt temple is known as the Second Temple (Bayit Sheni). It stood for 420 years on the same site as the First Temple, on Mount Moriah. The Second Temple was remodeled several times, but reached its most magnificent form during the reign of King Herod the Great (37-4 BCE). The great Jewish historian, Josephus, who lived during the end of the Second Temple period, gives detailed descriptions of both Herod's construction and the layout of the Temple compound (see "Antiquities" ch. 15 and "Jewish Wars" ch. 5).
The Second Temple period ended with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. It is possible that the Jews tried to rebuild the Temple at later periods, but they were never successful, and for over 600 years the site of the Temple Mount lay in ruins. The only remains are the massive retaining walls that encompass Mount Moriah, built by Herod to support the platform on which the Temple stood.
The Moslem Historical Connection To Jerusalem
By the time the Omar arrived in Jerusalem in 638, the Islamic direction of prayer was toward Mecca, and the two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina were already well-established. Islam, which like Christianity has many of its spiritual roots in Judaism recognized the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount, and one early Islamic name for the Temple Mount was Bayt al-Maqewdis -- literally "Holy Temple." The name used today, al-Quds, is based on the Hebrew word for "holy." Moslems have also used the term Sahyun or Sihyun, the Arabic form of "Zion."
Historians suggest several reasons for the construction of Moslem holy sites on the Temple Mount. The establishment of the Umayyid Islamic Dynasty in 658 corresponds to a period of instability in the Islamic world, characterized by power struggles and assassinations. One of the Five Pillars (commandments) of Islam is Hajj -- pilgrimage to the holiest Islamic city, Mecca. In the late 7th century, the Damascus-based Umayyid Caliphate lost control of Mecca. This need to diminish the importance of Mecca and create an alternative Moslem holy site closer to Damascus may well have pushed the Umayyid Caliph Abd al-Malik, in 688, to begin construction of the Dome of the Rock on the former site of the Jewish Temple.
Another reason suggested by historians for a Moslem presence in Jerusalem is that the Caliph wished to compete with the impressive Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the traditional burial place of Jesus in Jerusalem. It is interesting to note that the present dimensions of the Dome of Rock are identical to those of the rotunda of the Holy Sepulcher.
Yet given that Jerusalem isn't mentioned in the Koran, what is the uniquely Islamic connection to the site? The answer is found in the 17 Sura (chapter) of the Koran. This chapter recounts the story of a dream Mohammed has where he takes a midnight ride (al-Isra) on his flying horse al-Buraq, which had the face of a woman, the body of a horse and the tail of Peacock. The narrative of the Koran in Sura 17 describes it as follows:
"Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque (in Mecca) to the further mosque (al-masjid al-Aqsa), the precincts of which we have blessed."
The actual location of al-Aqsa (the "further mosque") in Mohammed's dream ride is never mentioned. Some early Moslems understood al-Aqsa metaphorically, or as a place in heaven.
In the late 7th century, the Umayyids claimed that the actual site of al-Aqsa was in fact the Temple Mount. Later the site of al-Aqsa was restricted to the mosque area at the southern end of the Temple Mount (the site of the current Al Aqsa Mosque). The original mosque, probably located on the site where Omar first prayed when he arrived in Jerusalem in 638, was built by the Umayyid Caliph al-Walid in the early 8th century. It was destroyed by earthquakes several times and later rebuilt.
Islam claims that the site of Mohammed's ascension to heaven was a rock atop Mount Moriah.
The narrative of the Koran then describes how Mohammed, having arrived at al-Aqsa, then ascends to heaven (al-Mi'raj -- "the ascension") accompanied by the angel Gibril (Gabriel), where he then traveled around the heavens and spoke with Allah and other prophets. The Umayyids in Jerusalem claimed that the actual site of Mohammed's ascension to heaven was the exposed piece of bedrock at the top of Mount Moriah. Thus Caliph Abd-al-Malik's beautiful Dome of the Rock was built to commemorate the location of this important event.
From 638 CE until 1917 (with the exception of the Crusader occupation from 1099 to 1187), Jerusalem was controlled by various Islamic dynasties based in Syria, Egypt and Turkey. While Jerusalem remained a city of pilgrimage, none of these Islamic dynasties made Jerusalem their capital. The only other people in the last 3,000 years to have Jerusalem as a capital are the Crusaders who founded the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem from 1099-1187.
For most of this 1,300-year period, despite its status as the third holiest Islamic city, Jerusalem remained a backwater, run-down town under Islamic control. Exceptions were during both the Umayyid period (7th to mid-8th century) and the Mamluk period (mid-13th to early-16th century), when major Islamic building projects were carried out in the city.
The early history of Jerusalem is also rooted in the Bible. In addition to the events already mentioned, the Book of Joshua (ch. 10)describes how Adoni-Tzedek, the Canaanite king of Jerusalem, wages war against the Jews.
During the approximately 400-year period from the entrance of the Jewish people into the land, through the period of the Judges, Jerusalem remained a non-Jewish city. It was not until the reign of King David (ca. 1,000 BCE) that Jerusalem was captured from the Canaanites (2-Samuel 5) and converted into the political/spiritual capital of the Jewish people. (Archaeologists agree that the original Canaanite city and the City of David was located in what is now the Arab village of Silwan, a few meters south of the "modern" walls of the Old City.)
King David purchased the peak of Mount Moriah, as recorded in 2-Samuel 24:18-25.
David purchased the peak of Mount Moriah (2-Samuel 24:18-25) as the site for the future Temple and gathered the necessary building supplies. The Book of 1-Kings (ch. 6-8) describes in great detail how David's son, King Solomon, built and dedicated the Temple: "And it came to pass after the 408th year after the Children of Israel left Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel... that he began to build the house of the Lord" (1-Kings 6:1).
Solomon's Temple is also known as the first Beit HaMikdash (the First Temple). While all archaeologists agree that it stood on Mount Moriah, probably on the site of the present Gold Dome of the Rock, its exact location is unknown.
Four hundred and ten years after its completion, it was utterly destroyed by the Babylonians when they besieged Jerusalem and no trace of it remains.
After the Babylonian destruction, most of the Jewish population of Israel was forcibly exiled from the land. This forced exile on the road to Babylon is mentioned in the famous verse from Psalm 137: "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion."
Fifty years later, after Babylon was captured by Persia, the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. Under the leadership of Zerubavel and Nechemiah, the Jews rebuilt both the Temple and walls around the city (Nechemia 4-6).
During both the First and Second Temple periods, the Temple was the central focus of the Jewish world both in Israel and the diaspora. Its upkeep was paid for by all Jews worldwide. The Kohanim (priests) and Levites served in the Temple, and three times a year -- during the holidays of Passover, Sukkot and Shavuot -- all Jews were commanded to come to Jerusalem and visit the Temple.
This rebuilt temple is known as the Second Temple (Bayit Sheni). It stood for 420 years on the same site as the First Temple, on Mount Moriah. The Second Temple was remodeled several times, but reached its most magnificent form during the reign of King Herod the Great (37-4 BCE). The great Jewish historian, Josephus, who lived during the end of the Second Temple period, gives detailed descriptions of both Herod's construction and the layout of the Temple compound (see "Antiquities" ch. 15 and "Jewish Wars" ch. 5).
The Second Temple period ended with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. It is possible that the Jews tried to rebuild the Temple at later periods, but they were never successful, and for over 600 years the site of the Temple Mount lay in ruins. The only remains are the massive retaining walls that encompass Mount Moriah, built by Herod to support the platform on which the Temple stood.
The Moslem Historical Connection To Jerusalem
By the time the Omar arrived in Jerusalem in 638, the Islamic direction of prayer was toward Mecca, and the two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina were already well-established. Islam, which like Christianity has many of its spiritual roots in Judaism recognized the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount, and one early Islamic name for the Temple Mount was Bayt al-Maqewdis -- literally "Holy Temple." The name used today, al-Quds, is based on the Hebrew word for "holy." Moslems have also used the term Sahyun or Sihyun, the Arabic form of "Zion."
Historians suggest several reasons for the construction of Moslem holy sites on the Temple Mount. The establishment of the Umayyid Islamic Dynasty in 658 corresponds to a period of instability in the Islamic world, characterized by power struggles and assassinations. One of the Five Pillars (commandments) of Islam is Hajj -- pilgrimage to the holiest Islamic city, Mecca. In the late 7th century, the Damascus-based Umayyid Caliphate lost control of Mecca. This need to diminish the importance of Mecca and create an alternative Moslem holy site closer to Damascus may well have pushed the Umayyid Caliph Abd al-Malik, in 688, to begin construction of the Dome of the Rock on the former site of the Jewish Temple.
Another reason suggested by historians for a Moslem presence in Jerusalem is that the Caliph wished to compete with the impressive Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the traditional burial place of Jesus in Jerusalem. It is interesting to note that the present dimensions of the Dome of Rock are identical to those of the rotunda of the Holy Sepulcher.
Yet given that Jerusalem isn't mentioned in the Koran, what is the uniquely Islamic connection to the site? The answer is found in the 17 Sura (chapter) of the Koran. This chapter recounts the story of a dream Mohammed has where he takes a midnight ride (al-Isra) on his flying horse al-Buraq, which had the face of a woman, the body of a horse and the tail of Peacock. The narrative of the Koran in Sura 17 describes it as follows:
"Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque (in Mecca) to the further mosque (al-masjid al-Aqsa), the precincts of which we have blessed."
The actual location of al-Aqsa (the "further mosque") in Mohammed's dream ride is never mentioned. Some early Moslems understood al-Aqsa metaphorically, or as a place in heaven.
In the late 7th century, the Umayyids claimed that the actual site of al-Aqsa was in fact the Temple Mount. Later the site of al-Aqsa was restricted to the mosque area at the southern end of the Temple Mount (the site of the current Al Aqsa Mosque). The original mosque, probably located on the site where Omar first prayed when he arrived in Jerusalem in 638, was built by the Umayyid Caliph al-Walid in the early 8th century. It was destroyed by earthquakes several times and later rebuilt.
Islam claims that the site of Mohammed's ascension to heaven was a rock atop Mount Moriah.
The narrative of the Koran then describes how Mohammed, having arrived at al-Aqsa, then ascends to heaven (al-Mi'raj -- "the ascension") accompanied by the angel Gibril (Gabriel), where he then traveled around the heavens and spoke with Allah and other prophets. The Umayyids in Jerusalem claimed that the actual site of Mohammed's ascension to heaven was the exposed piece of bedrock at the top of Mount Moriah. Thus Caliph Abd-al-Malik's beautiful Dome of the Rock was built to commemorate the location of this important event.
From 638 CE until 1917 (with the exception of the Crusader occupation from 1099 to 1187), Jerusalem was controlled by various Islamic dynasties based in Syria, Egypt and Turkey. While Jerusalem remained a city of pilgrimage, none of these Islamic dynasties made Jerusalem their capital. The only other people in the last 3,000 years to have Jerusalem as a capital are the Crusaders who founded the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem from 1099-1187.
For most of this 1,300-year period, despite its status as the third holiest Islamic city, Jerusalem remained a backwater, run-down town under Islamic control. Exceptions were during both the Umayyid period (7th to mid-8th century) and the Mamluk period (mid-13th to early-16th century), when major Islamic building projects were carried out in the city.
http://www.fortruthssake.com/claims.asp
QUOTE
Spiritual books should not be injected into determining political boundaries.
REALLY?! Tell that to the MUSLIM states, who live by the Koran and set they're policies by it. The KORAN is they're LAW and final authority. The muslims, like every other culture have kept the Jews out of their land since the days of the Roman empire.
QUOTE
A lot of people accept the ET origins of ufos and crop circles but this doesn't prove a damn thing. Where is your proof of the historical lineage ties with Isaac and Ishmael?
The historyof Isaac and Ishmael is VERY old and accepted on either side. The DEBATE of the brothers isn't whether or not they were related, but rather, who Abraham was going to sacrifice to God and who God chose to be the line inwhich he blessed. PLEASE read up on your Biblical and Muslim theology. Even this Muslim site acknowledges that.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaa...and_ishmael.htm
BJ, the problem with religious fanaticism is that you only listen to what's going on in your own head. Your answer was completely nonresponsive.
1. You offered not a shred of proof of the historical lineage ties with Isaac and Ishmael? The fact that a bunch of religious folk believe it, Muslim or otherwise, means nothing. In fact there is no proof that Abraham and his sons ever existed.
2. Your long winded C & P does little more than question the religious significance of Jerusalem for Muslims. PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED.
3. The only folks I know that are making a religious claim for the right of Israel to conquer Palestine are you and your fundi friends and some Israeli settlers. You have blood on your hands and are costing this country billions in treasure and international good will. The Bible is referring to events long long ago and your fantasies about its modern application would be cute if you guys weren't creating a huge, horrible mess with your funny ideas.
The Roman empire was pretty much a shadow by the time Muhammed showed up. Jews until recently were living in Muslim lands in considerable number and by most accounts were treated better than in Christian countries. Where is Koranic prophecy being applied on the matter of boundaries in Palestine?
Do you know how many Jews in Israel hate the mess that you and your crowd are imposing on them with your prophetic delusions?
QUOTE
Dingo - A lot of people accept the ET origins of ufos and crop circles but this doesn't prove a damn thing. Where is your proof of the historical lineage ties with Isaac and Ishmael?
Also Islam had a history after the Koran. Are you going to base your support for Palestinian removal on the fact that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran? Spiritual books should not be injected into determining political boundaries. If we employed that kind of rationalization wars would break out all over the world based on somebody's interpretation of a religious text of which there are quite a number.
Also Islam had a history after the Koran. Are you going to base your support for Palestinian removal on the fact that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran? Spiritual books should not be injected into determining political boundaries. If we employed that kind of rationalization wars would break out all over the world based on somebody's interpretation of a religious text of which there are quite a number.
1. You offered not a shred of proof of the historical lineage ties with Isaac and Ishmael? The fact that a bunch of religious folk believe it, Muslim or otherwise, means nothing. In fact there is no proof that Abraham and his sons ever existed.
2. Your long winded C & P does little more than question the religious significance of Jerusalem for Muslims. PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED.
3. The only folks I know that are making a religious claim for the right of Israel to conquer Palestine are you and your fundi friends and some Israeli settlers. You have blood on your hands and are costing this country billions in treasure and international good will. The Bible is referring to events long long ago and your fantasies about its modern application would be cute if you guys weren't creating a huge, horrible mess with your funny ideas.
QUOTE
The KORAN is they're LAW and final authority. The muslims, like every other culture have kept the Jews out of their land since the days of the Roman empire.
The Roman empire was pretty much a shadow by the time Muhammed showed up. Jews until recently were living in Muslim lands in considerable number and by most accounts were treated better than in Christian countries. Where is Koranic prophecy being applied on the matter of boundaries in Palestine?
Do you know how many Jews in Israel hate the mess that you and your crowd are imposing on them with your prophetic delusions?
QUOTE
1. You offered not a shred of proof of the historical lineage ties with Isaac and Ishmael? The fact that a bunch of religious folk believe it, Muslim or otherwise, means nothing. In fact there is no proof that Abraham and his sons ever existed.
Both parties in question are people of faith. The fact that TWO apposing parties both account for the SAME story, SAME people but with different outcomes, is the proof of these ancient characters for their cultures. Both the Jew and the Muslim believe in the same God, both the Jew and the Arab believe in their shared history. I am only stating what is commonly held between them. I cannot help that their spiritual and religious leaders hold a great amount of influence in how they conduct them selves.
Sure, if both cultures would throw their religious beliefs out the window, things would be a lot simpler, but those faiths are deep rooted and are what define them as a people. I have given links to both sides of the matter and what both sides think of the other, I cannot help it if you wish not to include the religions into this topic. People who understand what's really going on over there, know that religion DOES play a big part in the conflict. I'm sorry.
QUOTE
BJ - Both parties in question are people of faith. The fact that TWO apposing parties both account for the SAME story, SAME people but with different outcomes, is the proof of these ancient characters for their cultures. Both the Jew and the Muslim believe in the same God, both the Jew and the Arab believe in their shared history.
BJ, if everybody in the world but one believes the world is flat and that one believes the world is round based on his studies, who is right?
QUOTE
I cannot help it if you wish not to include the religions into this topic. People who understand what's really going on over there, know that religion DOES play a big part in the conflict. I'm sorry.
Where do come up with the notion that I don't wish to include religion in this thread? I've made an issue out of people like yourself imposing your religious prejudices to disenfranchise the Palestinians in favor of Israel. You and Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey and millions of other fundis in this country have imposed religious prophecy on the politics of this sad region and therefore YOUR activities "play a big part in the conflict. Yes, I'm very sorry about that and I wish it would stop.
You know Dingo, I have done nothing but bite my tongue today over the remarks you have made towards me. I have given unbias links and sources in my previous posts and all I hear from you is attacks and this delusional belief that I support people like Pat Robertson, who, by the way I think is a homophobe. If you aren't going to read my links and my quotes, discuss and debate the topic at hand and just continue to attack me, then this debate is going to go no where. 
QUOTE(Billy Jean @ Aug 4 2003, 02:22 PM)
You know Dingo, I have done nothing but bite my tongue today over the remarks you have made towards me. I have given unbias links and sources in my previous posts and all I hear from you is attacks and this delusional belief that I support people like Pat Robertson, who, by the way I think is a homophobe. If you aren't going to read my links and my quotes, discuss and debate the topic at hand and just continue to attack me, then this debate is going to go no where.
Billy Jean - he is NOT attacking you. You know very well that you are to report posts you feel are attacks and not respond to them. This is distracting from the debate.
I am all-for a Jewish state. I think it is necessary for peace. But dont the palestinans(sp?) want the state NOT THE JEWS. They have Israel. I think that if they want a state just create it out of the palestianian authroity which governs the land israel just left. I think thats where they should create one if they want to
QUOTE(Billy Jean @ Aug 4 2003, 11:22 AM)
You know Dingo, I have done nothing but bite my tongue today over the remarks you have made towards me. I have given unbias links and sources in my previous posts and all I hear from you is attacks and this delusional belief that I support people like Pat Robertson, who, by the way I think is a homophobe. If you aren't going to read my links and my quotes, discuss and debate the topic at hand and just continue to attack me, then this debate is going to go no where.
BJ, this is not personal. Your links simply don't meet a standard of proof. Don't bite your tongue. Let's have a real conversation. You know my reference to Pat Robertson had nothing to do with his homophobia but his backing, like Hal lindsey, of the seizing of Palestinian land by the Israelis based on Biblical prophecy, which I understand you support. We can't have a conversation if you keep diverting from the topic and playing the victim.
When you gave unqualified support for Hal Lindsey's sabotaging of the roadmap and backed it up with virulent attacks on Islam and claims based on a highly partisan religious piece that, despite recent history, Jerusalem belongs rightfully to the Jewish religion then yes I got concerned and perhaps a bit heated. Add to that your confusing religious sources, the legacy of Abrahams sons, with objective evidence and I felt you needed to be made aware that this was not a serious response. Simply throwing out religious links does not address OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.
It is not for me to tell you what to believe. But when you and others inject yourself into another region of the world based on prophetic religious beliefs that in an extreme and violent way support one side of a conflict and could bring the whole world to the precipice of annihilation then it becomes everybodies business.
Again this is not personal but it is definitely political.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Aug 4 2003, 07:16 PM)
When you gave unqualified support for Hal Lindsey's sabotaging of the roadmap and backed it up with virulent attacks on Islam and claims based on a highly partisan religious hit piece that Jerusalem is exclusively the headquarters of the Jewish religion then yes I got concerned and perhaps a bit heated. Add to that your confusing religious sources, the legacy of Abrahams sons, with objective evidence and I felt you needed to be made aware that this was not a serious response. Simply throwing out religious links does not address OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.
Personally, I wish we had a "safe" nuclear bomb that we could set off in the middle of Jerusalem. No radiation, no polluting the planet, we just utterly destroy Jerusalem forever.
First, it'll stop Jews, Christians and Muslims from trying to take it over. You can't control what doesn't exist. Second, it'll end the ridiculous debate that "God is going to give it to us". If God was going to give it to you, he wouldn't allow it to be destroyed, would he?
QUOTE
Personally, I wish we had a "safe" nuclear bomb that we could set off in the middle of Jerusalem. No radiation, no polluting the planet, we just utterly destroy Jerusalem forever.
First, it'll stop Jews, Christians and Muslims from trying to take it over. You can't control what doesn't exist. Second, it'll end the ridiculous debate that "God is going to give it to us". If God was going to give it to you, he wouldn't allow it to be destroyed, would he?
First, it'll stop Jews, Christians and Muslims from trying to take it over. You can't control what doesn't exist. Second, it'll end the ridiculous debate that "God is going to give it to us". If God was going to give it to you, he wouldn't allow it to be destroyed, would he?
I think you have the best idea! You can't fight over what doesn't exist! I'd be like taking the toy away from the two kids who are playing tug a war with it. "Mine!" "No it's mine!" 
Edited to add: this is just a joke also....
Ofcourse, I do NOT condone the use of nuclear weapons. Just trying to lighten the mood.
Just to let everybody know, in the spirit of civility and clarity, I modified the paragraph that Cephus quoted.
Cephus, the Biblical prophecy goes well beyond city of Jerusalem but I get your point. However, I don't think I'm too keen on your humour. Perhaps because it conjures up an even worse reality that is in the wings.
Cephus, the Biblical prophecy goes well beyond city of Jerusalem but I get your point. However, I don't think I'm too keen on your humour. Perhaps because it conjures up an even worse reality that is in the wings.
I think the debate has gotten way off track again, which is precisely the reason that the middle east is so screwed up, and we keep making it worse as a country- our religious beliefs are too intertwined with the logic of what we are doing.
Outside the religious debate- why are we protecting and supporting the main crux of the conflict in the middle east?
With all the persecuted poeple in the world, why this particular sub-ethnic group/religion?
How come we don't give equal treatment to the Palestenians? Or the Kurds, Or the American Indian?
Outside the religious debate- why are we protecting and supporting the main crux of the conflict in the middle east?
With all the persecuted poeple in the world, why this particular sub-ethnic group/religion?
How come we don't give equal treatment to the Palestenians? Or the Kurds, Or the American Indian?
Dingo,
I think that YOU should admit that the Bible does play a major influence here. Whether or not the specifics of the Bible are historically accurate or not is really irrelevant if both sides involved accept them as true. They may differ on the conclusions, but both sides acknowledge the Biblical accounts.
The Palestinians remain refugees because no other country will accept them. No Muslim country will extend the hand of friendship to them.
The "occupied territories" were the staging areas for the wars against Israel over 30 years ago.
The Palestinians deserve a state, but the Israelis also deserve security.
As for the creation of Israel itself, I don't think any scholar will discount the history of the Jews and the area currently occupied by the state called Israel.
Yes, it was unprecedented to give land back to a group that was so long dispossessed. But the UK (not the US) was in charge of governing that portion of the old Ottoman empire. I don't think they could have foreseen how much war and bloodshed would be caused by that decision.
I think that YOU should admit that the Bible does play a major influence here. Whether or not the specifics of the Bible are historically accurate or not is really irrelevant if both sides involved accept them as true. They may differ on the conclusions, but both sides acknowledge the Biblical accounts.
The Palestinians remain refugees because no other country will accept them. No Muslim country will extend the hand of friendship to them.
The "occupied territories" were the staging areas for the wars against Israel over 30 years ago.
The Palestinians deserve a state, but the Israelis also deserve security.
As for the creation of Israel itself, I don't think any scholar will discount the history of the Jews and the area currently occupied by the state called Israel.
Yes, it was unprecedented to give land back to a group that was so long dispossessed. But the UK (not the US) was in charge of governing that portion of the old Ottoman empire. I don't think they could have foreseen how much war and bloodshed would be caused by that decision.
The main reason that the Arab countries don't give them citizenship (though many will give them citizenship on an individual basis if asked, like Jordan, the largest Palestenian community in the world) is that it would also mean that they accept Isreal as a state. Since the majority of palestenians live outside Isreal in Arab countries, and that Palestenians are one of the richest sub-ethnic arab groups, I would say the hospitality has been rather good considering the economic situation of many of the host countries.
Also, Isreal's behavior has been nearly as bad as it's neighbors in relation to it's treatment of the palestenians- and now they have a law that if you are Jewish/Isreal citizen and you marry a palestenian, the spouse can't live in Isreal- very close to ethnic cleansing!
Also, Isreal's behavior has been nearly as bad as it's neighbors in relation to it's treatment of the palestenians- and now they have a law that if you are Jewish/Isreal citizen and you marry a palestenian, the spouse can't live in Isreal- very close to ethnic cleansing!
QUOTE
The Palestinians remain refugees because no other country will accept them. No Muslim country will extend the hand of friendship to them.
Why is it up to another Muslim country to accept the Palestinians? Its not. Thats like saying Mexico should let all the Native Americans settle on their land. Sounds ridiculous right? Thats because it is, its not their problem, they shouldnt have to deal with it. The Palestinians are Israel's problem.
Do I think that Israel should have become a state? No. What makes them more deserving of the land than the people who had settled it? Nothing. And now that the state is there, I realize that it must be dealt with. If only the Israelis would listen to international law and stop colonizing land that doesnt belong to them, and stop oppressing an entire group of people that have more claim to the land than they do.
QUOTE
and stop oppressing an entire group of people that have more claim to the land than they do.
Aren't the Palestinians the ones bombing the Israelis though?.... I mean, the Arabs would love to "push the Jews into the ocean" to quote them. Israelis are just protecting themselves when they retaliate against the suicide bombers. I agree they need to figure something out, but the Palestinians are the ones resorting to terrorism. Regardless if the Israelis need to stop colonizing, it doesn't call for murder. BTW, how do the Palestinians have more of a claim? Wouldn't you want your ancestral homeland back if your ancestors were kicked out and put into slavery and had no choice in the matter?
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Aug 4 2003, 02:27 PM)
Do I think that Israel should have become a state? No. What makes them more deserving of the land than the people who had settled it? Nothing. And now that the state is there, I realize that it must be dealt with. If only the Israelis would listen to international law and stop colonizing land that doesnt belong to them, and stop oppressing an entire group of people that have more claim to the land than they do.
Very well put. Sensible observations are hard to come by.
QUOTE
AL - Dingo,
I think that YOU should admit that the Bible does play a major influence here.
I think that YOU should admit that the Bible does play a major influence here.
Admit it? I absolutely insist on it! It is partly due to the Hal Lindsey types and their bogus Biblical prophecies that we are stuck in a ME swamp and out of pocket due to direct and indirect costs for over a trillion dollars.
QUOTE
BJ - Aren't the Palestinians the ones bombing the Israelis though?
Aren't the Israelis the ones occupying, expanding the settlements and killing the Palestinians. Which came first?
QUOTE
Why is it up to another Muslim country to accept the Palestinians? Its not. Thats like saying Mexico should let all the Native Americans settle on their land. Sounds ridiculous right? Thats because it is, its not their problem, they shouldnt have to deal with it. The Palestinians are Israel's problem.
Since present day Israel comprises of a bare 20% of the region once known as Trans-Jordan, the area settled by 'palestinians', I'd say it is A lot of countries problem.
Oh yeah, Jordan doesn't want them back after King Hussein expelled the PLO in 1970 for attempted coup and launching terrorist attacks from their soil.
As for the Israeli's as occupiers? I think we've come to far from 1948 to undo anything that was done to create the nation in the first place. But the territory that Israel captured after it was attacked repeated times by all of it's neighbors IMO, is still rightfully theirs unless or until a peace agreement is reached by the above parties.
Here is a very nice link about the history of isreal and the surrounding people. It is not bent either way or bias as far as i can see, this is a following excert from it.
"In Nov.4 , Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated in Tel
Aviv by a right-wing extremist who considered Rabin's crusade for peace a
betrayal of the Jewish state. The prime minister was shot three times as he
was getting into his car to leave a peace rally at 9:30 PM local time. He
was rushed to nearby Ichilov Hospital but had no heartbeat or blood
pressure when admitted to the emergency room. Doctors tried without success
to revive Rabin, but he was pronounced dead at 11:10 PM. Israeli Foreign
Minister Shimon Peres took over leadership of the Labor government"
a history page.
"In Nov.4 , Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated in Tel
Aviv by a right-wing extremist who considered Rabin's crusade for peace a
betrayal of the Jewish state. The prime minister was shot three times as he
was getting into his car to leave a peace rally at 9:30 PM local time. He
was rushed to nearby Ichilov Hospital but had no heartbeat or blood
pressure when admitted to the emergency room. Doctors tried without success
to revive Rabin, but he was pronounced dead at 11:10 PM. Israeli Foreign
Minister Shimon Peres took over leadership of the Labor government"
a history page.
QUOTE
DT - the territory that Israel captured after it was attacked repeated times by all of it's neighbors IMO, is still rightfully theirs unless or until a peace agreement is reached by the above parties.
The 1947 partition involved the colonial imposition of a Zionist state on Palestinian land. The Palestinians called for Arab resistance rather than have their residency threatened and being reduced to 2nd class citizenship. Why should victory have entitled Israel to have territory beyond the partition? In the 1st and 2nd world war we did not claim title to additional land due to victory. Could it be that expansion was already in their plans and the war was simply a pretext? Recent historical documents have born out that thesis. Is there any peace agreement you can imagine that would have Israel go back to the partition line?
As far as I know under Brittain Palestine and Jordan were considered separate political entities although at times there was some administrative overlap. That's what I've read anyway. I'm no expert.
QUOTE
Aren't the Israelis the ones occupying, expanding the settlements and killing the Palestinians. Which came first?
QUOTE
In 1947 the United Nations Resolution recommending the partition of Israel.
In 1948 British Mandate ends and State of Israel Proclaimed.
In 1948 British Mandate ends and State of Israel Proclaimed.
So, it would seem to me that the Jews, by international law have every right to the land, excluding Biblical history.
QUOTE
In April 1949 Israel-TransJordan Armistice Agreement signed, whereby Jerusalem divided between the two countries.
http://www.centuryone.com/hstjrslm.html
So Jerusalem was divided into two countries, but Israel was partitioned by the UN, regardless of whether or not the palestinians like it. It seems to me that if Jordan signed an armistice, that they must recognize the sovereignty of Israel. So, a peace treaty was signed, that doesn't negate the proclamation made by the UN a year earlier. It seems to me that the palestinians are the illegal occupiers and that the Uk established nation of Israel is being ignored by them.
QUOTE
That's what I've read anyway. I'm no expert.
Ditto here, Dingo, I just try and read all I can, like you.
QUOTE
Why should victory have entitled Israel to have territory beyond the partition?
The action of giving back conquered territory after a war is a fairly modern one, from my readings the early 1900's is when this became in vogue. So, I agree Israel may be a little old fashioned here.
But their reasons, I think, have some validity. Israel, being approximately 12 miles from sea to western edge of the West Bank surely needed a buffer from it's sworn enemies. Same for the Golan heights.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Aug 4 2003, 05:10 PM)
Since present day Israel comprises of a bare 20% of the region once known as Trans-Jordan, the area settled by 'palestinians', I'd say it is A lot of countries problem.
Oh yeah, Jordan doesn't want them back after King Hussein expelled the PLO in 1970 for attempted coup and launching terrorist attacks from their soil.
As for the Israeli's as occupiers? I think we've come to far from 1948 to undo anything that was done to create the nation in the first place. But the territory that Israel captured after it was attacked repeated times by all of it's neighbors IMO, is still rightfully theirs unless or until a peace agreement is reached by the above parties.
Palestine was set up as a different colony from Transjordan.. They people who lived their for generations thought of it as home. The arabs there began to get quite worried about the impact of the current of Jewish migration to Israel from all over the world.
Palestine and Transjordan After 1922
Sykes-Picot 1916
Jordan was right to expel the terrorist organization of the PLO from its borders as any legitimate government should expel terrorist organizations that use their territory to plan out acts of aggression against other nations or people.
Israel can stick to power politics but I don't think that is in their best interests. And we should not back them if their policy is to expand whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Israel is also relying on "peacetime" tactics of extending settlements (with government subsidy) into Palestinian "occupied" territory trying to gain the right to claim these lands by virtue of settlers.
Israel was not attacked repeated times by its neighbors. There was a give and take on this front.
1948- arab neighbors attacked Israel
1956 israel attacked egypt
1967 israel attacked Egypt and Syria and Jordan
1973 Egypt and Syria attacked Israel.
For a people that focus (rightfully) on the tremendous injustice done to them in the form of general anti-semitism and specifically the Holocaust. This people that wandered the world without a homeland for 2 millennia is particularly unsympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian to the point of arguing that no such people exist.
IMO the idea of a Jewish state with particular rights for Jews in Israel as citizens and limited rights for others goes against the trend in modern democracies. (Southern civil rights movements, anti-apartheid movement in Africa etc.) This is the force of ethnic nationalism that has unleashed most of the torrent of wars since the beginning of the twentieth century. This I definitely do not blame on the Jews, but they are part of this horrible aspect of modern history. (As of course in full are the Palestinians and scores of other countries/peoples in the last several generations.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.