Holy Land and the Jews

[F0uad]

looking at this from an outside perspective...


"it's mine"
"no, it's mine"
"well, you're wrong"
"no i'm not"
"yes you are"
"prove it"
"god said so"
"oh, in that case..."

This is the first time i think somebody fully understands me on RF.

 

[F0uad]

Interesting, where did I write that?
I answered your question regarding ancient Israel, if you want to draw a comparison to today then thats your decision.

I think you miss-understand me i was talking about present time not ''Ancient'' maybe a misunderstanding on both parts?

Thats all fine but the world doesnt work that way.

I know it doesn't but according to my knowledge in religion people should be free to live where ever they want because only god possess the land and has the right to it.

While there are certainly some problems with the Israeli Arabs they still got it far better than any other arab in any arab country.
Muslims are also free to worship their god in Israel.
You are also lucky that you wrote "mostly in peace".

You really think so? Ever visited Arabs in Israel? Every visited Palestine and actually took time to talk to them?

I mean just 5/6millions Palestinians who cannot go back to there country that are locked up in Lebanon, Syria and neighbouring countries sounds like the same thing what happened in 45 with a different kind of people?

I fail to see the connection. Israel was attacked one day after its creation by its neighbouring countries.
What did you expect the Israeli leaders to do. Not to take any land and wait for another round with the arabs?

Yeah you should read that too.

Rumor
Noun

rumor (countable and uncountable; plural rumors)
(countable) A statement or claim of questionable accuracy, from no known reliable source, usually spread by word of mouth.
There's a rumor going round that he's going to get married.
(uncountable) Information or misinformation of the kind contained in such claims.
They say he used to be a thief, but that's just rumor.

Synonyms
(piece of information):
(information): gossip, hearsay, talk, tittle-tattle

Sorry to say this but it looks to me that you are the one who didn't read it fully ''READ ALL OF IT"

I am not trying to justify Palestine as i can clearly see you are trying to justify Israel there are many arguments for both sides what i was simply asking if there is a verse in the Torah that ''justifies'' the actions for example conquering and killing of the inhabits in this present time.. I mean we both know that the conquering is still going on.. Illegal settlements, Illegal wall borders... anyway my question is there any justifiction within the verses on what happened after 45 till even now?

 

[JacobEzra.]

Desert is desert.

 

[gnostic]

Desert is desert.

Apparently, there are good deserts and bad ones.

But like you, it just mostly sand and some sparsely areas of vegetation. It's not the real estate I would prefer. If I want sand I'd drive to the beach.

 

[gnostic]

And for your information, the Ishmaelites weren't Muslims, regarding to your:

1)- Not all today's Arabs are Ishmaelis or Semitics or descendants of Abraham ( Paternal).

...and this:

So the Holy Land belongs to the real heirs of Abraham from his own offspring in Hebrew and Arabic : ZR3

I personally don't think Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob ever actually exist. And even if they did, you are still ignoring everything it say in Genesis.

You've ignored verses 21:8-21, when Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael out of Canaan. Reluctant as Abraham was, he did God's bidding:

12 But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring."

Hagar brought her son to the desert land of Paran (the Sinai peninsula), where he grew to become a hunter. Nothing in Genesis, suggests otherwise. Ishmael did return when they buried Abraham next to Sarah, but Ishmael never challenged Isaac's claim to Canaan, after their father's death.

20 God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer. 21 While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt.

If Ishmael was sent out of Canaan, then the descendants of Ishmael actually had no right to claim Canaan as their own, because Ishmael (and his descendants) was not part of the covenant. A covenant which you continuously ignored that both Isaac and Jacob inherited.

Some Muslims have claimed that the Bible is corrupted, but I think it is the Muslims who corrupted it with selective interpretations. You, for example, DON'T READ THE WHOLE DAMN CHAPTER (17), let alone the entire Torah, just a few verse here and there that pleased you. It is poor scholarship (though I wouldn't even call it scholarship.

Admit it, you're biased.

Have you even attempt to objectively read any of the quotes that I've given in post 69, without your "Islamic" preconception? Have you read the Torah, from Genesis to Deuteronomy? Have you ever bother to learn the Oral Torah?

 

[Flankerl]

I think you miss-understand me i was talking about present time not ''Ancient'' maybe a misunderstanding on both parts?

Probably.

I know it doesn't but according to my knowledge in religion people should be free to live where ever they want because only god possess the land and has the right to it.

I want to live in your house. It obviously doesnt belong to you since all land belongs to god.

The world doesnt work that way.

You really think so? Ever visited Arabs in Israel? Every visited Palestine and actually took time to talk to them?

You are probably talking about the arabs in the disputed territories. I wrote about the Israeli Arabs. The arab citizens of Israel.

I mean just 5/6millions Palestinians who cannot go back to there country that are locked up in Lebanon, Syria and neighbouring countries sounds like the same thing what happened in 45 with a different kind of people?

So? I honestly dont care and you know why?
Every single expelled person on the whole world ceases to be a refugee when he settles in a new country. Also his children cease to be refugees because they were never expelled anywhere.

And guess what all these rules dont count for the so called palestinian refugees. So cry me a river. Why do they get some fine extra rules? Why dont they get integrated into the societies of their new countries?
I live in a country that integrated over 12 million refugees after WW2.
But thank god the UNRWA is different huh? And all just to keep the conflict alive. Isnt that nice?

Those people will never "return". Their return would mean the end of Israel and that wont happen unless the arab countries defeat Israel.

So thats a yes.

Sorry to say this but it looks to me that you are the one who didn't read it fully ''READ ALL OF IT"

I am not trying to justify Palestine as i can clearly see you are trying to justify Israel there are many arguments for both sides what i was simply asking if there is a verse in the Torah that ''justifies'' the actions for example conquering and killing of the inhabits in this present time.. I mean we both know that the conquering is still going on.. Illegal settlements, Illegal wall borders... anyway my question is there any justifiction within the verses on what happened after 45 till even now?

Its completely irrelevant since the first 30 years of Israel were fairly social democratic/socialist and religious ideas werent really important.

The fact is that no jew tried to destroy the al aqsa mosque and that all those jews were murdered in cold blood.

But dont get me wrong, i dont like it that the security wall isnt always on Israeli territory. But the security wall itself is wonderful.
Its also not a border wall because the green line doesnt specify a border but the armestice line of the 1948 war.

 

[Shermana]

So? I honestly dont care and you know why?
Every single expelled person on the whole world ceases to be a refugee when he settles in a new country. Also his children cease to be refugees because they were never expelled anywhere.

If the "refugees" are allowed back, should the descendents of my family and all others who had to flee from Cossack raids on their Ukrainian villages be given back all the property they gave up? I could use a nice Ukrainian villa by the Black Sea.

 

[Aabraham ben Azar]

If the "refugees" are allowed back, should the descendents of my family and all others who had to flee from Cossack raids on their Ukrainian villages be given back all the property they gave up? I could use a nice Ukrainian villa by the Black Sea.

Why the Palestinians have to pay price of Ukrainian crime against your family ???

 

[F0uad]

Flankerl i don't you think you fully understand me

I was just asking something i wasn't trying to have a pro-Israel or pro-Palestine dialogue because those can go on for days and days, i was simply asking if there is a ''verse'' that justifies the behaviour of now nothing else. I didn't even want to start about what happened, what is illegal or who is right.

I wanted to ask this question because a minority of the Jews do not see any justification in the scripture and actually say that the State Israel shouldn't be there and on the other-hand some Jews do justify the ''conquering'' with religious text i know that Israel is mostly based on secularism i was just trying to ask individuals what they think about it. Not a lecture of history with a biased perspective on it.

So let me ask again and please stay on topic next time. Do you belief that conquering the land after 45 when ''Palestinians/Arabs'' where in control is justified by scriptural text and if it is, isn't it a violent script if it says so?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Flankerl i don't you think you fully understand me

I was just asking something i wasn't trying to have a pro-Israel or pro-Palestine dialogue because those can go on for days and days, i was simply asking if there is a ''verse'' that justifies the behaviour of now nothing else. I didn't even want to start about what happened, what is illegal or who is right.

I wanted to ask this question because a minority of the Jews do not see any justification in the scripture and actually say that the State Israel shouldn't be there and on the other-hand some Jews do justify the ''conquering'' with religious text i know that Israel is mostly based on secularism i was just trying to ask individuals what they think about it. Not a lecture of history with a biased perspective on it.

So let me ask again and please stay on topic next time. Do you belief that conquering the land after 45 when ''Palestinians/Arabs'' where in control is justified by scriptural text and if it is, isn't it a violent script if it says so?

The problem is, there's a very different understanding among people about what happened. About how to describe the establishment of the State of Israel. You're presenting 1948 as if it were somehow anything like Joshua's conquering of the land as described in the Bible. Not everybody sees it that way.

You'll find that when you ask someone a loaded question, you won't get the straight answer you want. The answer isn't wrong. The question is wrong.

 

[F0uad]

The problem is, there's a very different understanding among people about what happened. About how to describe the establishment of the State of Israel. You're presenting 1948 as if it were somehow anything like Joshua's conquering of the land as described in the Bible. Not everybody sees it that way.

You'll find that when you ask someone a loaded question, you won't get the straight answer you want. The answer isn't wrong. The question is wrong.

Uh how can this be a wrong question?
Whatever you call it ''establishment'' or war i think the most people in Israel know it was not totally peacefully and the Arabs ruled it before. So again the question remains there is there any justification on what happened after 45 ''call it whatever you want''

I simply asked the question if he/she finds the scripture justifying the ''act'' whatever it may be the ''60year-war, establishment, conquering'' name it what you want.

How come this isn't a legit question according you?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Uh how can this be a wrong question?
Whatever you call it ''establishment'' or war i think the most people in Israel know it was not totally peacefully and the Arabs ruled it before. So again the question remains there is there any justification on what happened after 45 ''call it whatever you want''

I simply asked the question if he/she finds the scripture justifying the ''act'' whatever it may be the ''60year-war, establishment, conquering'' name it what you want.

How come this isn't a legit question according you?

Because it's a loaded question.

"When did you stop beating your wife?" Is not a legit question to ask someone who never beat their wife.

Yes, the birth of the modern State of Israel was violent... but was it the Jewish conquerors driving out the peaceful Arab natives? Or was it Jews seeking a safe haven in a land where some Jews still lived, where they legitimately bought land from absentee landlords, established communities that were hated by their Arab neighbors, and when they wanted to raise a flag over the land they lived in and the UN said they could have a state in, their Arab neighbors found it unacceptable and sought to stomp them out of existence, and were unsuccessful in doing so?

Or was it something in between?

If you assume that it was the first option... Jewish conquerors vs peaceful Arab natives... and your question is based on that premise, don't expect to get a meaningful answer from people who don't operate based on that premise. They're going to remind you what they believe happened, and based on that view, your question no longer applies.

 

[F0uad]

Because it's a loaded question.

"When did you stop beating your wife?" Is not a legit question to ask someone who never beat their wife.

Yes, the birth of the modern State of Israel was violent... but was it the Jewish conquerors driving out the peaceful Arab natives? Or was it Jews seeking a safe haven in a land where some Jews still lived, where they legitimately bought land from absentee landlords, established communities that were hated by their Arab neighbors, and when they wanted to raise a flag over the land they lived in and the UN said they could have a state in, their Arab neighbors found it unacceptable and sought to stomp them out of existence, and were unsuccessful in doing so?

Or was it something in between?

If you assume that it was the first option... Jewish conquerors vs peaceful Arab natives... and your question is based on that premise, don't expect to get a meaningful answer from people who don't operate based on that premise. They're going to remind you what they believe happened, and based on that view, your question no longer applies.

My friend i am trying to be respectful(if i hurt someone's feeling sorry) i am not trying to get into a Palestine-Israel dialogue i hope you understand where i am coming from.

Lets choose it was something between because we can say whatever we want the ''Arabs'' were the majority and ruled i hope you agree? So let me try to clarify the question.. Is the state of Israel justified by scripture when Arabs were ''ruling'' it?

Reply on what you have said: There were also Jews in Morocco and Turkey so i do not see the link of a safe-haven + what had the Palestinians to do with WW2? And it was safe after 45 so why even ''take power'' in Israel and what about the other 61millions who died in WW2 why don't they get a piece of land?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Reply on what you have said: There were also Jews in Morocco and Turkey so i do not see the link of a safe-haven + what had the Palestinians to do with WW2? And it was safe after 45 so why even ''take power'' in Israel and what about the other 61millions who died in WW2 why don't they get a piece of land?

Everywhere in the world, the Jews were always second class citizens. They were always expendable. All the Jews ever want to do is live in peace and be Jews.

Even in Morocco and Turkey, the Jews were never really secure. They were never at home. They were always guests.

The land of Israel is where they belong. It's where they were before the Romans kicked them out. And there was no need for Palestinians to suffer.

"We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs."

David Ben-Gurion, 1937

The Balfour Declaration, UN partition... it was always about giving the Jews a place they could call home. Not at the expense of the Arabs already living there... but peacefully.

We extend the hand of peace and good-neighborliness to all the States around us and to their people, and we call upon them to cooperate in mutual helpfulness with the independent Jewish nation in its Land. The State of Israel is prepared to make its contribution in a concerted effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

Excerpt from the Israeli Proclamation of Independence.

Even amidst the violent attacks launched against us for months past, we call upon the sons of the Arab people dwelling in Israel to keep the peace and to play their part in building the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its institutions, provisional and permanent.

Excerpt from the Israeli Proclamation of Independence.

The Arabs didn't need to leave. They just needed to be good neighbors.

But it was with great violence that the Arabs rejected their new Jewish neighbors.


Tell me. What did the Jews in Hebron do to provoke the 1929 Hebron Massacre? Who did the Jews in Hebron conquer, displace, kill, or oppress that they deserved to have their men, women, and children killed, their business looted, their homes and synagogues ransacked?

Would such Jews who attempted to defend themselves be called conquerors?

The narrative that the Jews just showed up after the Holocaust to take land away from Arabs is ********. And if that's the accepted premise which you build your question on, then yeah, you're gonna get a "Palestine-Israel dialogue" whether you wanted to or not.

Your question seems to be "Were the Jews scripturally justified in conquering Palestine in the 1940s?"

It's such a narrow question built on a premise that those who you're asking don't accept.

 

[Poisonshady313]

This is part of your post from earlier...

I would rather ask if God told the Jews to dwell peacefully in the land of Israel why did they ''conquer'' it and rule it? I mean the 60year war and the conquering of Palestine was justified by the ''idea'' that Jews alone should have the land for themselves and are ''the chosen people''.

The bigger problem here is that after the secularist state have attacked Jews in great numbers they invaded a country that had nothing to do with it and clearly done the same to innocent people what has done against them, i mean its like releasing your anger on a innocent country while other ''Islamic'' countries opened the borders to save the same Jews who would then kill Muslims later on its like the idea of Judah in Christianity.

I don't hope someone got upset of what i have said.. i am just confused that not more Jews stand up against this crime that there ''fore-fathers'' have done...

There are so many assumptions and accusations in there that aren't even close to being true. But more importantly, the people the question is directed towards (those who might try to find support for the land belonging to the Jews in scripture) don't buy the premise that the establishment of the modern State of Israel is as you describe it.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The simple fact that you refer to it as a "crime" is enough to show that you won't take any answer given to you seriously. You're not open to viewing it in a different way. Your mind is made up, and you want to know if Jews can prove that God gave them permission to do a bad thing.

If your post was the original post in this thread, I would have reported it for being a troll thread.

 

[F0uad]

Serious :-O wow all these allocations for nothing was this serious needed?

You know what never-mind i find it weird how you feel attacked when i asked a sincere question maybe in the future i can ask the same question when people do not get offended that quick.

Like i said i am not going to have a Palestine/Israel debate both have done wrongs in my eyes and some still do.

 

[Caladan]

i think the most people in Israel know it was not totally peacefully and the Arabs ruled it before.

Fouad the Arabs did not rule the land before. The British ruled the land, and before them the Turks.
When the British left the region several Arab states were created and a state of Israel was created as well. In fact the original partition was for two states in Palestine, one Arab and one Jewish, but this was rejected by the Arabs.

 

[F0uad]

Fouad the Arabs did not rule the land before. The British ruled the land, and before them the Turks.
When the British left the region several Arab states were created and a state of Israel was created as well. In fact the original partition was for two states in Palestine, one Arab and one Jewish, but this was rejected by the Arabs.

Thanks for a decent reply i am not sure why but some people get emotional regarding the topic.

I do agree that the ''British'' had many things to say in the country but the land still belonged to the people who lived there (Arabs & Jews) we know that the Majority was Arab yet the most was taken over and given to Jews..

Anyway we know that after 48 the real expenditure began Palestinians had no army in that time Egypt and Jordan had to involve to at-least have some land left for the Palestine's, anyway lets get back to my question.. Do you belief that the ''Expenditure, War, Conquering, Establishment'' is justified by Scripture...

Lets try to forget the thing about Arabs and Jews lets try to concentrate on the scripture.. ''If possible''

 

[Caladan]

Thanks for a decent reply i am not sure why but some people get emotional regarding the topic.

I do agree that the ''British'' had many things to say in the country but the land still belonged to the people who lived there (Arabs & Jews) we know that the Majority was Arab yet the most was taken over and given to Jews..

Anyway we know that after 48 the real expenditure began Palestinians had no army in that time Egypt and Jordan had to involve to at-least have some land left for the Palestine's, anyway lets get back to my question.. Do you belief that the ''Expenditure, War, Conquering, Establishment'' is justified by Scripture...

Lets try to forget the thing about Arabs and Jews lets try to concentrate on the scripture.. ''If possible''

Scripturally based?
I don't believe the conflict in this specific land or in the region is (or should be) based on scripture, but I'm not going to deny that even on a secular platform the land is central on the basis scripture to some degree. What I mean by this is the historical and cultural links the Jews held to this specific land, and not other lands. in Jewish culture Uganda, Argentina, or China hold no meaning, but Israel and Jerusalem are central. The western wall, Masada, or the ancient synagogues in northern Israel are found in this land.
Do I think all of this should be linked to the political process?
No. Personally I don't, for the most part. Unless we want to discuss the cultural importance of sites and territories.