israel "The Holy Land" >> religion or politics?

[Jayhawker Soule]

The original British/United Nation proposal is to set aside Jurusalam as a 'neutral' ground administered by perhaps some world appointed 'secular hands'. Unfortunately, the Zionist during that time outsmarted everyone, including the British, and successfully established the present Israel.

i also just wanted to point out the Zionists didn't outsmart anyone. The Arab world rejected that UN proposal and any proposal giving land to the Jewish Settlers in the region of modern day Israel.

Absolutely correct:

Jerusalem in International Diplomacy
​

Prior to 1948

Since its independence in 1948, and indeed even in prior times, Israel's rights to sovereignty in Jerusalem have been firmly grounded in history and international law:

• Even before the rise of modern Zionism, a Jewish plurality was restored in Jerusalem under the Ottoman Empire in the early nineteenth century. Since the destruction of the ancient Jewish capital of Jerusalem by the Roman armies in 70 CE, Jews streamed back to their holy city over the centuries, whenever possible. Efforts to restore Jewish political sovereignty were accompanied by the re-establishment of Jerusalem as the national political capital of the Jewish people, even if briefly, in 135 CE and 614 CE.
• There has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem for nearly 150 years since at least 1864, when out of a total population of 15,000 there were 8,000 Jews, 4,500 Muslims and 2,500 Christians, according to British consular sources. By 1914, there were 45,000 Jews in Jerusalem out of a total population of 65,000.
• Israel's international legal position in Jerusalem emanates from the Palestine Mandate, by which the League of Nations, the source of international legitimacy prior to the United Nations, recognized "the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and called for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The League of Nations did not draw a distinction between Jewish rights to Jerusalem and the rest of the area of Palestine.
• Despite the fact that the League of Nations was formally terminated in April 1946, the rights of the Jewish people in Palestine (and in Jerusalem particularly) were preserved by the successor organization to the League of Nations, the United Nations, through Article 80 of the UN Charter, which negated efforts "to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples (emphasis added) or the terms of existing international instruments" at the time of the UN's creation.
• The 1947 UN proposal for internationalizing Jerusalem as a "corpus separatum," under UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), was only a non-binding recommendation which was rejected by the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states by the use of force. The UN did nothing when Jerusalem's Jewish population was placed under siege by invading Arab armies in 1948, so that Israel regarded the internationalization proposals as "null and void." Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in 1950.

[cite]​

implying that the "Palestinian movement" is something other than a competing morass of vitriolic, antisemitic Islamic terrorists at its core is an act of historical revisionism comparable in character and intent to holocaust denial.

 

[Nehustan]

Absolutely correct:

Jerusalem in International Diplomacy​

Prior to 1948

Since its independence in 1948, and indeed even in prior times, Israel's rights to sovereignty in Jerusalem have been firmly grounded in history and international law:

• Even before the rise of modern Zionism, a Jewish plurality was restored in Jerusalem under the Ottoman Empire in the early nineteenth century. Since the destruction of the ancient Jewish capital of Jerusalem by the Roman armies in 70 CE, Jews streamed back to their holy city over the centuries, whenever possible. Efforts to restore Jewish political sovereignty were accompanied by the re-establishment of Jerusalem as the national political capital of the Jewish people, even if briefly, in 135 CE and 614 CE.
• There has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem for nearly 150 years since at least 1864, when out of a total population of 15,000 there were 8,000 Jews, 4,500 Muslims and 2,500 Christians, according to British consular sources. By 1914, there were 45,000 Jews in Jerusalem out of a total population of 65,000.
• Israel's international legal position in Jerusalem emanates from the Palestine Mandate, by which the League of Nations, the source of international legitimacy prior to the United Nations, recognized "the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and called for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The League of Nations did not draw a distinction between Jewish rights to Jerusalem and the rest of the area of Palestine.
• Despite the fact that the League of Nations was formally terminated in April 1946, the rights of the Jewish people in Palestine (and in Jerusalem particularly) were preserved by the successor organization to the League of Nations, the United Nations, through Article 80 of the UN Charter, which negated efforts "to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples (emphasis added) or the terms of existing international instruments" at the time of the UN's creation.
• The 1947 UN proposal for internationalizing Jerusalem as a "corpus separatum," under UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), was only a non-binding recommendation which was rejected by the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states by the use of force. The UN did nothing when Jerusalem's Jewish population was placed under siege by invading Arab armies in 1948, so that Israel regarded the internationalization proposals as "null and void." Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in 1950.

[cite]
​

implying that the "Palestinian movement" is something other than a competing morass of vitriolic, antisemitic Islamic terrorists at its core is an act of historical revisionism comparable in character and intent to holocaust denial.

You see maybe I have a gift...I just knew there was a joke on the horizon. Let's address your statements.

Regarding the return of the Jews under the Ottomans, this obviously happened, jews were allowed to return to the Caliphate. I refer you back to the rights of dhimmi within the Islamic nation. In fact many Jews have been in and around Palestine since the exile, not all having left for Europe, North Africa, or Persia. A good portion of these Jews became Christian, and subsequently Muslim. When my Paelstinian wife passes comment on my Jewish blood, I often retort 'You probably have more Jewish ancestors than me!!!'

Your statistics on the Jewish percentage of Jerusalem, well I won't even go into a rant about statistics. Let's just say did you know that Jeruslaem used to be on the moon, the houses were painted pink with blue spots, and inhabited by green bog eyed monsters from alpha centuri....no don't laugh it's true....I read it somewhere.

Your facts on the LoN and subsequently the UN, seem to be at least based in some history. The fact however that we are talking about a LoN that firmly believed in Colonialism, might is right, and their right to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, where-ever they wanted, really raises many questions in the C21st about the legitimacy of what they thought and thus warranted.

To finish I think given that you seem to infer that historically really there were no Palestinian people, if they existed in Palestine (though I'm sure you would say they didn't really even live there and it was just a desert!!) they were in the minority, no body wanted the land, etc etc etc then why did your Ben Gurion state

'Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country.'

In converstion with Nahum Goldmann, in 1956; as quoted in The Jewish Paradox: A personal memoir (1978) by Nahum Goldmann

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion

 

[jewscout]

To finish I think given that you seem to infer that historically really there were no Palestinian people, if they existed in Palestine (though I'm sure you would say they didn't really even live there and it was just a desert!!) they were in the minority, no body wanted the land, etc etc etc then why did your Ben Gurion state

'Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country.'

In converstion with Nahum Goldmann, in 1956; as quoted in The Jewish Paradox: A personal memoir (1978) by Nahum Goldmann

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion

you have misrepresented this quote by Ben Gurion and taken it completely out of context.
he was talking as if he, himself, were viewing from an Arab leaders position, not the position of a Jew returning, key word, to Israel.

in fact on many occasions the State of Israel has called for peace and have been met w/ silence or even the 3 no's of Khartoum
NO Recognition
NO negotiation
NO PEACE

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/three_noes.html

tho some arab nations have entered into negotiations and gone back on this treaty, others, such as Iran, seem to hold to the ideas of this Treaty.

 

[Nehustan]

To finish I think given that you seem to infer that historically really there were no Palestinian people, if they existed in Palestine (though I'm sure you would say they didn't really even live there and it was just a desert!!) they were in the minority, no body wanted the land, etc etc etc then why did your Ben Gurion state

'Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country.'

In converstion with Nahum Goldmann, in 1956; as quoted in The Jewish Paradox: A personal memoir (1978) by Nahum Goldmann

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion

you have misrepresented this quote by Ben Gurion and taken it completely out of context.
he was talking as if he, himself, were viewing from an Arab leaders position, not the position of a Jew returning, key word, to Israel.

I certainly haven't misrepresented what he said nor taken it from context, let me address both of your accusations. Firstly misrepresentation, to say that he was talking as if he were an Arab and not an 'Israeli' and I misrepresent what he was trying to say, well in the quote he says that very thing 'If I were an Arab', so it is quite clear that he is projecting himself 'as if' he were an Arab....so I struggle to see your point as 'he was talking as if he, himself, were viewing from an Arab leaders position, not the position of a Jew returning, key word, to Israel.'...so yes, Jewscout, that is plain to even somebody who may only have a limited grasp of english. As to out of context I'm sorry I couldn't provided a pdf of the whole book, not that anyone would read it, but I did provide a link to Wikipedia with a longer quote for anyone who was interested, but maybe I should put the whole quote from Wiki, tho that will still be 'out of context' actually without the whole book, it will always by definition be out of context....

'I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out... I'll be seventy years old soon... if you asked me whether I shall die and be buried in a Jewish State I would tell you Yes; in ten years, fifteen years, I believe there will still be a Jewish State. But ask me whether my son Amos, who will be fifty at the end of this year, has a chance of dying and being buried in a Jewish State, and I would answer: fifty-fifty'.

What I find particularly interesting in this fuller version is this part, 'Our God is not theirs'. This would seem to suggest that there are other gods, not exactly monotheism. If however he means that God is only for the Jews then he would not be saying anything that isn't commonly held as true. Here is the real doctrine difference between 'Judaism' and Islam. The Jews say God is One, God of the Jews, whereas the Muslims say God is one, God of all people, of this world and others, I know which doctrine I think will win the day. Actually thinking about it I doubt Elohists would doubt that ALH (Eloah) is ALLH (Allah), the Jahwists.....who knows...but its clear which camp Ben Gurion was in.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country.

That is such a naive, self-serving distortion. But, that aside, there is one significant reason why Arabs would come to terms with Israel: they would be (and had been) qualitatively better off under the deformed Isaeli democracy that under the heel of a backward Islamic theocracy - a point made to me by Arabs on numerous occasions when I was in Israel.

 

[michel]

Absolutely correct:

Jerusalem in International Diplomacy​

Prior to 1948

Since its independence in 1948, and indeed even in prior times, Israel's rights to sovereignty in Jerusalem have been firmly grounded in history and international law:

• Even before the rise of modern Zionism, a Jewish plurality was restored in Jerusalem under the Ottoman Empire in the early nineteenth century. Since the destruction of the ancient Jewish capital of Jerusalem by the Roman armies in 70 CE, Jews streamed back to their holy city over the centuries, whenever possible. Efforts to restore Jewish political sovereignty were accompanied by the re-establishment of Jerusalem as the national political capital of the Jewish people, even if briefly, in 135 CE and 614 CE.
• There has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem for nearly 150 years since at least 1864, when out of a total population of 15,000 there were 8,000 Jews, 4,500 Muslims and 2,500 Christians, according to British consular sources. By 1914, there were 45,000 Jews in Jerusalem out of a total population of 65,000.
• Israel's international legal position in Jerusalem emanates from the Palestine Mandate, by which the League of Nations, the source of international legitimacy prior to the United Nations, recognized "the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and called for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The League of Nations did not draw a distinction between Jewish rights to Jerusalem and the rest of the area of Palestine.
• Despite the fact that the League of Nations was formally terminated in April 1946, the rights of the Jewish people in Palestine (and in Jerusalem particularly) were preserved by the successor organization to the League of Nations, the United Nations, through Article 80 of the UN Charter, which negated efforts "to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples (emphasis added) or the terms of existing international instruments" at the time of the UN's creation.
• The 1947 UN proposal for internationalizing Jerusalem as a "corpus separatum," under UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), was only a non-binding recommendation which was rejected by the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states by the use of force. The UN did nothing when Jerusalem's Jewish population was placed under siege by invading Arab armies in 1948, so that Israel regarded the internationalization proposals as "null and void." Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in 1950.

[cite]
​

implying that the "Palestinian movement" is something other than a competing morass of vitriolic, antisemitic Islamic terrorists at its core is an act of historical revisionism comparable in character and intent to holocaust denial.

Well said!:clap

 

[Nehustan]

That is such a naive, self-serving distortion. But, that aside, there is one significant reason why Arabs would come to terms with Israel: they would be (and had been) qualitatively better off under the deformed Isaeli democracy that under the heel of a backward Islamic theocracy - a point made to me by Arabs on numerous occasions when I was in Israel.

Firstly, two (arguably three) words 'Horse's Mouth', secondly lets take some more words from the Horse....'Anyone who believes you can't change history has never tried to write his memoirs.' Luckily we have records of what people have said and done, so as Ben Gurion can't take back what he said, he may sleep soundly in his grave knowing that you are prepeared to divert attention from what he quite clearly said. Still like I said 'Horse's mouth.'

 

[jewscout]

[/font]
What I find particularly interesting in this fuller version is this part, 'Our God is not theirs'. This would seem to suggest that there are other gods, not exactly monotheism. If however he means that God is only for the Jews then he would not be saying anything that isn't commonly held as true. Here is the real doctrine difference between 'Judaism' and Islam. The Jews say God is One, God of the Jews, whereas the Muslims say God is one, God of all people, of this world and others, I know which doctrine I think will win the day. Actually thinking about it I doubt Elohists would doubt that ALH (Eloah) is ALLH (Allah), the Jahwists.....who knows...but its clear which camp Ben Gurion was in.

this statement shows a blatent ignorance of Judaism's view of G-d and the beliefs of Judaism.
and only goes to further my belief that anti-zionism is a clever disguise for anti-semitism in this day and age.

 

[Nehustan]

An Anti-Semetism and ignorance of Judaism that it would appear is shared by Ben Gurion (let's face it he's not exactly Moses despite his eminence in the history of the Government of the Zionist Occupation). What would that make him???? A self hating Jew with no religious knowledge...hmmm where have I heard that before? I think I will again, when it comes to the respect for people not of the Jewish faith (and presumably meaning those who worship other God's, even tho' there is only one, funny that.) I will return to the 'Horses mouth'

'It is not important what the Goyim say, but rather what the Jews do.’​

I think here and in relation to politics, Israel, accusations and ideologies I shall stray from quoting politicians and delve into literature...

‘“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “It means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more nor less.
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “who is the master. That is all.”’

Follow the white rabbit...​

 

[Ody]

i am beginning to hate this program is was writting a response in favor of israel but the stupid program logged me off i might just leave this site thats a stupid feature

 

[Ody]

personally i find 'the truth's statements woefully anti semitic the whole idea of targeting innocent civilians under the palestinian monsters understandable even worse, you are an example of the type of people he warned us about

 

[jewscout]

An Anti-Semetism and ignorance of Judaism that it would appear is shared by Ben Gurion (let's face it he's not exactly Moses despite his eminence in the history of the Government of the Zionist Occupation). What would that make him???? A self hating Jew with no religious knowledge...hmmm where have I heard that before? I think I will again, when it comes to the respect for people not of the Jewish faith (and presumably meaning those who worship other God's, even tho' there is only one, funny that.) I will return to the 'Horses mouth'

'It is not important what the Goyim say, but rather what the Jews do.’​

I think here and in relation to politics, Israel, accusations and ideologies I shall stray from quoting politicians and delve into literature...

‘“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “It means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more nor less.
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “who is the master. That is all.”’

Follow the white rabbit...​

Again, i feel that the statement is being taken out of context in an attempt to paint Ben Gurion, Israel, and Judaism in a negative light.
I do not believe that, in the context of the statement, that Ben Gurion was stating that either 1) Judaism believes in multiple g-ds or that 2) that G-d is for the Jews and no one else
and in the the statement above ben Gurion is referring to how the Jews conduct themselves, and most specifically the State of Israel, in regards to the rest of the world and Israel's search for peace which has been rejected time and time again.
again, to say that the big bad zionists are the sole cause of the problem is to ignore the corruption and refusal for peace on the side of the Arab leadership, including the late Arafat.

 

[Nehustan]

Again, i feel that the statement is being taken out of context in an attempt to paint Ben Gurion, Israel, and Judaism in a negative light.

'Horse's mouth' so of course you would have to say it's out of context.

Of course I could use Talmudic sources about Goyem, but do I really want to read them?????

Again, to say that the big bad zionists are the sole cause of the problem is to ignore the corruption and refusal for peace on the side of the Arab leadership, including the late Arafat.

Well I guess if the Ashkansim had stayed in Europe, Sephardim in N.Africa and Spain (maybe southern France) and the Arabic/Oriental Jews in the Levant and the Hijaz, without the Zionist Regime there wouldn't be a problem, maybe they could have used their summer breaks to visit Herod's Temple. After all according to...

There has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem for nearly 150 years since at least 1864, when out of a total population of 15,000 there were 8,000 Jews, 4,500 Muslims and 2,500 Christians, according to British consular sources. By 1914, there were 45,000 Jews in Jerusalem out of a total population of 65,000.

so plenty of options there for bed and breakfast :sarcastic

 

[Deut 13:1]

and i hope that people will stop posting ridiculous posts and hatered arguments such as:
Here's my constructive idea: stop firing rockets into Israel.

We need to build bigger walls. :banghead3

 

[Deut 13:1]

'Horse's mouth' so of course you would have to say it's out of context.

Of course I could use Talmudic sources about Goyem, but do I really want to read them?????

Sure, that is assuming you actually have OPENED the talmudic source you take the quotation from, not some pathethic site such as www.TalmudIsSatan.com or whatever else site you copy and paste their arguments from. If you have a serious question or concern on what the Talmud says, I along with Jayhawker would be happy to discuss it with you assuming you opened it and read it for yourself, you shouldn't have much trouble as it is in aramaic. Open a thread in the Judaism forum and I'll be sure to drop by.

Again, this is assuming you've read it, if I get the impression that you're copy/pasting some anti-semetic peace of garbage, I'll be sure to return the favor with useless dribble from garbage sites on the qur'an such as www.QuranIsGarbage.com

However, in the unlikely chance you have actually read Talmud, feel free to quote it in a NEW thread so this one doesn't go further off topic.

 

[Deut 13:1]

One other thing, please in your expert opinion on Judaism and what it stands for, define the following in your own words, Mishnah, Gemora, Midrash. State the difference between them, if you feel there are any.

 

[Nehustan]

One other thing, please in your expert opinion on Judaism and what it stands for, define the following in your own words, Mishnah, Gemora, Midrash. State the difference between them, if you feel there are any.

Well hey I'm no Hebrew or Judaic Scholar, but lets try and see how far wrong I go. When I am accused of being a Jew, I say Zabulon.

relating to oral traditions generally, I'll (adopting parliamentarian style) refer you to an answer I gave earlier...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26144​

Mishnash would appear to be a form of extended legislation, part of the oral tradition, and interpretation of the coded (written) law, I suppose in legalistic speak, 'established precedent'.

Gemora would appear to be scholastic/rabbinical interpretation on the Mishnah, from specific and well established historical rabbis.

and to come to Midrash, I suppose that 'peshat' would be what the text actually means when read without say Gemetria and comparisons between text, 'remez' would be what is suggested as a 'subtext' 'between the lines' if you will, 'derash' would be scholarly analysis of the text, and 'sod' well I imagine this would include insights, very much relying on people's dicoveries e.g. comparisons of text between books, chapters and verse in the Torah using tools such as the previously mentioned Gematria.

Of course with the tradition(s) being oral, relying on written sources is always going to be dubious, which is one of the reasons I tend to ignore written words other than those revealed through prophets. I much prefer oral transmission.

(P.S. despite my dislike for the oral tradition being written I have thought of buying a copy of the 'Talmud', maybe now would be a good time to have a look for a copy...give it a proper read for future reference)

 

[Nehustan]

How dissapointing 'teacher', I was expecting a mark. Never mind was never into rabbinical judaism so I guess I don't need a Rabbi. By the way, when I purchase the Talmud (I've found a copy of 30 Volumes in English on a CDRom with a CDRom of the Zohar too, combined for quite a decent price on Amazon), and I then quote relevant quotes to this conversation, do not say 'that's out of context' (quotes are by NATURE out of context, that's why they are quotes), that I am misrepresenting, or that this is a minority opinion that isn't held by all.

 

[Nehustan]

...but there are no right for second level and uncivilised nation "in their eyes" to live in peace.

I missed this quote The Truth, I have a nice little quote for you. I will give you some context to accompany it as that seems to be the favourite word at the moment, punctuated by the phrase 'anti-semitism', even tho' you wished for this thread to be a political debate it seems it had been steered toward religious arguments.

It occured when a Journalist went through an IDF checkpoint with a Palestinian whereupon the IDF soldier ordered the lawyer to follow commands, then whilst laughing dropped his papers and ordered him to recover them from the floor, explaining;


‘These people will do whatever you tell them to do, if I tell him to jump, he will jump. Run, he will run. Take your clothes off, he will take them off. If I tell him to kiss the wall, he will kiss it. If I tell him to crawl on the road, won’t he crawl?…Everything. Tell him to curse his mother and he will curse her too…Really, not humans.’ (Chomsky, N, 1999, Fateful Triangle, p.490, citing Segez, T.)


So here we have a clear report of the value given to other peoples, one might even say Untermensch to borrow a philosophical term. If I was to expand the model I think it would be fair to consider the State of Israel as gaining Lebensraum much in the vein of the annexe of Sudetenland when it comes to occupied territories. I would ask how far they are prepared to follow the model, but I think I know the answer.

 

[michel]

personally i find 'the truth's statements woefully anti semitic the whole idea of targeting innocent civilians under the palestinian monsters understandable even worse, you are an example of the type of people he warned us about

I am afraid I have to agree with you.