Why can't people just leave the Jews alone?

[Flankerl]

I love it when particular non-Jews try to push their racial ideas on us.

 

[Lyndon]

Er, a non-Jewish woman who converts is considered just as Jewish as a born Jewish woman. Being Jewish is more than just genetics.

And you make it sound like genetic Jews don't really exist anymore, which is just ridiculous. I guess Arabs don't really exist anymore, either.

By that logic, any Christian, their religion having originated in Palestine, has just as much right to Israel as Jews or Muslims

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

By that logic, any Christian, their religion having originated in Palestine, has just as much right to Israel as Jews or Muslims

You obviously don't understand what Jewishness is.

 

[Lyndon]

No I understand what Jewishness is, what I don't understand is how Jewishness gives one the right to steal land from native Palestinians in Israel.

 

[Shad]

So you claim that modern Palestinian bloodline from 100 years ago when Palestine was theirs are just as weak as Israeli Jews bloodline related to when they last occupied Palestine 2000 years ago, and that makes sense to you?? I can see this argument is going nowhere!!

There is said arbitrary bloodline line drawn. Hypothetical scenario. A Jewish man from the 19th century has lived in the area now called Palestine and Israeli, the province of Syria in the Ottoman Empire, all his life. He married a European woman which moved to the area. However since the mother/wife is not Jewish nor native to the area their children have no right to any land nor property due to mixed bloodlines. Your argument is nonsense in this situation. Never mind state laws, never mind inheritance your own religion proposes which contradicts your view. All of which are point covered by others already.

How do we test your idea? Considering bloodlines do not show specific local information but region your view is empty. Under such testing millions of people that never set foot in the land nor any of their ancestors can claim the area due to a common haplogroup. Again your idea is only tenable under an arbitrary line in the sand you draw.

 

[Shad]

No I understand what Jewishness is, what I don't understand is how Jewishness gives one the right to steal land from native Palestinians in Israel.

How does bloodlines give anyone the right to any land? You should of asked this before talking about bloodlines. Find me the gene for land ownership. I will wait.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No I understand what Jewishness is,

No, you don't, since you apparently think it's all about genetics.

what I don't understand is how Jewishness gives one the right to steal land from native Palestinians in Israel.

They're not "stealing" anything. If the indigenous people of the Americas or the indigenous Australians decided that they wanted their land back, would that be "stealing"? Nope. The Palestinians are either descended from Arab invaders or Jews and Christians who converted to Islam and became Arabized.

 

[metis]

How does bloodlines give anyone the right to any land? You should of asked this before talking about bloodlines. Find me the gene for land ownership. I will wait.

Yes, and what some keep forgetting is that the M.E. in general has had major movements of populations throughout most of its human history because of several factors: its crossroads locality, wars, seeking of better land, droughts, etc. What we commonly call "Arabs" today in that region are really not Arabs in the original meaning of the term, which was actually a relatively small tribe in the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula. In the late 1800's/early 1900's, the French referred to the "Palestinians" as "Sud-Syrians" (South Syrians) since most were of Assyrian/Syrian stock.

For us to argue over the history of the region is rather silly since we do live in the here and now.

 

[columbus]

Yes, and what some keep forgetting is that the M.E. in general has had major movements of population....

For us to argue over the history of the region is rather silly since we do live in the here and now.

This is the point!
We don't live in the 1st century CE. What happened a century ago, or a millennium or two or three, doesn't matter much. DNA could not be less important.
What matters is now. The people who are currently living and those who will live with the results of the choices being made today.

I don't care about atrocities committed by people who are long dead. I don't care about their beliefs and achievements much either.

So while I see plenty of blame to spread around, I see the biggest problem as Islam. The Palestinian people would rather stick with the violent, corrupt, and uninterested leadership that they have (such as Hamas and Fatah), because it is Muslim leadership. The productive and creative and free society of Israel is an enemy because it is not Muslim dominated.
Tom

 

[godnotgod]

Maybe its because some Jews, the majority it seems in Israel, refuse to try to get along with their neighbors.

Seems they've been mandated by God to deliberately seek trouble with them from the get-go. After all, they are God's 'Chosen People' and must have special privileges, doctrines which the 'Christian Nation' seems to have inherited from them:


Deuteronomy 12
12 These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the Lord God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth.

2 Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:

3 And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

4 Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 20

10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.

11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.*

12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:

18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.

*So the Jewish idea of 'peace' is servitude to them.

 

[godnotgod]

I am ashamed of both side quite frankly, why can't they just share the land like decent people, instead of hating each others guts, and all these people call themselves people of God, Ha.

Yes indeed, but some people are more equal than others, heh heh. Convenient, no?

My take, and I may be totally off, is that the trouble began when Abraham wanted a son to pass on his great wealth to. His wife, Sarah, was infertile, but God gave Abraham the right to sire a child with their house servant, Hagar, who was Egyptian. That son, Ishmael, fathered the Arab nation, but Hagar and Ishmael were banished by Sarah out of jealousy. And so, my thinking goes, the Arab people have no right to Abraham's inheritance because they are illegitimate. Something like that.

 

[rosends]

Yes indeed, but some people are more equal than others, heh heh. Convenient, no?

My take, and I may be totally off, is that the trouble began when Abraham wanted a son to pass on his great wealth to. His wife, Sarah, was infertile, but God gave Abraham the right to sire a child with their house servant, Hagar, who was Egyptian. That son, Ishmael, fathered the Arab nation, but Hagar and Ishmael were banished by Sarah out of jealousy. And so, my thinking goes, the Arab people have no right to Abraham's inheritance because they are illegitimate. Something like that.

that is, indeed, your interpretation. The text actually says that the issue wasn't jealousy, and that the Arabs do have an important inheritance and are in no way illegitimate, just not the same one as given through Isaac.

 

[godnotgod]

that is, indeed, your interpretation. The text actually says that the issue wasn't jealousy, and that the Arabs do have an important inheritance and are in no way illegitimate, just not the same one as given through Isaac.

Hagar was not Abrahams's lawful wife. Doesn't that make any offspring between them illegitimate?

And it appears from the text that the decision to father a child via Hagar was not God's decision, but Sarah's:


Genesis 16 (NIV)
Hagar and Ishmael
16 Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”

 

[Shad]

Yes, and what some keep forgetting is that the M.E. in general has had major movements of populations throughout most of its human history because of several factors: its crossroads locality, wars, seeking of better land, droughts, etc. What we commonly call "Arabs" today in that region are really not Arabs in the original meaning of the term, which was actually a relatively small tribe in the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula. In the late 1800's/early 1900's, the French referred to the "Palestinians" as "Sud-Syrians" (South Syrians) since most were of Assyrian/Syrian stock.

For us to argue over the history of the region is rather silly since we do live in the here and now.

The identification of Arab can also cover the language used by a people. It is another form of classification just like citizenship, ethnicity, "race", culture, etc. Many call people in North African Arab but how many are actually Arab? We know there were a number of populations which varied pre-Islam which were not Arab. The only explanations are a migration pattern, which undermines any claims if Palestinians are Arab by ancestry rather than language due to "mixed bloodlines". The other is I point out above which is assimilation and changes due to the cultural environment surrounding them.

 

[Lyndon]

Arabs lived in Palestine 100 years ago and made up 95% of the population, Jews made less than 5%. How can you deny the significance of that. There was a Jewish invasion and around 1948 an ethnic cleansing of about 1 million arabs forced to leave the country and this is the kind of BS you are defending.

 

[rosends]

Hagar was not Abrahams's lawful wife. Doesn't that make any offspring between them illegitimate?

And it appears from the text that the decision to father a child via Hagar was not God's decision, but Sarah's:


Genesis 16 (NIV)
Hagar and Ishmael
16 Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”

No, not illegitimate in the least, unless you know of some written codes from back then that detail marriage laws.

 

[metis]

The identification of Arab can also cover the language used by a people. It is another form of classification just like citizenship, ethnicity, "race", culture, etc. Many call people in North African Arab but how many are actually Arab? We know there were a number of populations which varied pre-Islam which were not Arab. The only explanations are a migration pattern, which undermines any claims if Palestinians are Arab by ancestry rather than language due to "mixed bloodlines". The other is I point out above which is assimilation and changes due to the cultural environment surrounding them.

Yes, and actually it is the language whereas Mohammed's words in the Qu'ran were written in Arabic, so as Islam spread, the name for the earliest adherents were called "Arabs". Because of difficulties in going from one translation to another, the Qu'ran ideally should always be read in Arabic.

Almost without a doubt, what has become known as "Arabs" is only likely consists of a small minority of members that came from the original Arab population.

 

[Shad]

Yes, and actually it is the language whereas Mohammed's words in the Qu'ran were written in Arabic, so as Islam spread, the name for the earliest adherents were called "Arabs". Because of difficulties in going from one translation to another, the Qu'ran ideally should always be read in Arabic.

Almost without a doubt, what has become known as "Arabs" is only likely consists of a small minority of members that came from the original Arab population.

No need to read it always in Arabic. This idea is pure nonsense as there have been experts that have translated these texts, and have done so for centuries, that continue to provide translations. Hence why linguistics is a field, hence lexicons. Beside a major error in this argument is the fact that everyone still uses their own language as a reference point when using a second language. This is due to basic development of language and education of said language.

For example no one knows ancient Egyptian, it is a dead language completely. We only have transliterations based on languages we do know. By your argument people should only read hieroglyphs in ancient Egyptian thus no one can know anything about anything we find due to a complete lack of native speakers. The same applies to ancient Hebrew. It become a dead language only used in texts yet people have no issues with it since there are other languages used as bridge between the language then and the language now. The same applies to other fields which cover a wide range of languages.

 

[metis]

Arabs lived in Palestine 100 years ago and made up 95% of the population, Jews made less than 5%. How can you deny the significance of that. There was a Jewish invasion and around 1948 an ethnic cleansing of about 1 million arabs forced to leave the country and this is the kind of BS you are defending.

Revisionist history. 5/6 of "Palestine" went to form Jordan and what we now call the WB and GS. Arabs that lived in Israel could stay as long as they weren't involved in attempts to drive them out, which is why there are roughly 1 & 1/2 million Palestinians living in Israel, and they consider themselves to be "Israelis".

It was the surrounding states and many of the Palestinians who tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", to use Arafat's words, that prevented a peaceful solution. Under the U.N. 2/3 decision, which you virtually ignore, those Palestinians who were displaced would be given money by the U.S. to purchase land and housing elsewhere, but when Israel was attacked by them and the surrounding countries, that offer was pulled from the table.

To call what the U.N. decided as being "ethnic cleansing" is absolutely foolish in every respect.

 

[metis]

No need to read it always in Arabic. This idea is pure nonsense as there have been experts that have translated these texts, and have done so for centuries, that continue to provide translations. Hence why linguistics is a field, hence lexicons. Beside a major error in this argument is the fact that everyone still uses their own language as a reference point when using a second language. This is due to basic development of language and education of said language.

For example no one knows ancient Egyptian, it is a dead language completely. We only have transliterations based on languages we do know. By your argument people should only read hieroglyphs in ancient Egyptian thus no one can know anything about anything we find due to a complete lack of native speakers. The same applies to ancient Hebrew. It become a dead language only used in texts yet people have no issues with it since there are other languages used as bridge between the language then and the language now.

It is ideally to be read in Arabic, and I did not make that up. Nor did I say it had to be read in Arabic. I had both an English and Arabic copy, the former of which I donated to a school library near me, so obviously in can be read in any language.