1. The land now known as Israel was once ruled by its inhabitants, the Canaanites, throughout most of the 2nd millennium BCE. The Hebrews invaded and conquered the land in ~1125 BCE. The Kingdom of Israel began a long decline after the death of King Solomon in 922 BCE, culminating in the conquest of Israel by Assyria in 722 BCE, when most Jews were exiled from the land. The land of Israel was ruled by a long succession of conquerors, including Persia, Greece, and Rome. There was a Jewish uprising under the Macabees that led to a Jewish state that lasted briefly from 141 BCE to 63 BCE. After an aborted uprising against the Romans in 135 CE, many Jews were massacred, many more sold into slavery, and most of the rest fled the country.

2. The conquest of Palestine by Arabs in 635 CE started a long period of relative peace and religious freedom. Jews and Christians were allowed to worship freely, and engaged in commerce with the majority Arab population. Jewish and Christian clerics were considered "people of the book" and accorded a measure of respect and status.

3. Muslims believe themselves to be direct descendents of Abraham, and therefore share a common ancestry with Jews. It was not until the 20th century that there was significant animosity between Jews and Arabs.

4. In 1517, Palestine was conquered by the Ottoman Turks, and remained part of the Ottoman Empire (with a few brief interruptions) until 1918.Under the Ottoman Empire, Arabized Palestinians, who were descendents of the Canaanites, were given most of the administrative positions.

5. Motivated by persistent persecution of Jews in Europe, a movement began in the late 1800s to reclaim Palestine as a Jewish homeland. This movement, known as Zionism, prompted many Jews to emigrate to Palestine. In 1900, there were approximately 500,000 Arabs in Palestine, and about 50,000 Jews. By the early 1930s, the number of Jews had grown to 300,000. European Jews began purchasing land titles from absentee landlords in Paris and Beirut, and showed up with deeds in hand to remove tenant farmers who had occupied the land for generations.

6. The British took possession of Palestine in 1918. They promised Arab leaders independence. Around the same time they signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement with France and Russia to divide up the Arab states to rule as colonies. And they promised Jews a "national home" in Palestine. These conflicting promises could not be resolved, and Britain held Palestine as a possession, defaulting to the terms of Sykes-Picot.

7. Alarmed by the de facto takeover of their country, Palestinian hostility to Jewish immigrants began to grow. Anti-Zionist demonstrations in the 20s and 30s sometimes resulted in violent clashes, including the infamous attacks on Jews in Jafra and Jerusalem. The British set a policy limiting Jewish immigration, but to little avail. When London proposed establishing a legislative council split 50/50 between Jews and Palestinians, this was rejected by the Palestinians, still in the majority, as unfair. In 1935, with the growing anti-semitism in Germany, over 60,000 Jews came to Palestine. Fearing Jewish domination, an Arab revolt broke out in 1936, and continued sporadically through 1939.

8. In an attempt to quell Jewish aspirations for a Zionist state, London declared that its aim was an independent bi-national state with both Arabs and Jews sharing governance. Meantime, ships bringing refugees from Hitler's Europe were turned back from Palestinian ports by the British. The Zionists organized acts of sabotage and terrorism against the British. In 1947, in view of intensified anti-British attacks, London submitted the question of Palestine's fate to the United Nations. The UN approved a resolution partitioning Palestine, with Arab countries and India voting against it. By then there were 1.3 million Arabs and 600,000 Jews in Palestine. But the Jews were prepared to fight for what they wanted. Armed Zionist organizations seized control of major cities and towns and began to expel Palestinians en masse, often using terrorism to compel them to flee. This policy culminated in the massacre of the entire population of the village of Deir Yasin in April 1948 by the Irgun, a militant Zionist organization led by Menachem Begin. (Hence the Palestinian appellation "Begin the Terrorist", and yes, this is the same Begin who later won the Nobel Peace Prize with Anwar Sadat).

9. In May 1948 the British withdrew from Palestine, and Israel proclaimed itself a nation. Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon attacked immediately, and urged Palestinians to take refuge with the promise that they could return to their homes after Israel was defeated. But Israel, armed with modern weapons and aircraft by the Soviet Union (who preferred an independent state to British rule) defeated the Arab countries. In the January 1949 armistice, Israel was granted 40% more land than under the UN partition resolution. The 1948 war created 780,000 Palestinian refugees, most of whom settled near the borders of Israel in southern Lebanon, the west bank that was then part of Jordan, and the Gaza Strip that then belonged to Egypt.

10. In the early 60s, Israeli agents clandestinely sabotaged western targets in Egypt in an effort to hurt relations between the US and Egypt. The US subsequently cut off financial and military aid to the Nasser government. When Nasser turned to the Soviet Union for aid, ties between Israel and the US became much stronger. Since the mid-60s, Israel has been the largest recipient of US foreign aid, most of which has been military. In some years, US aid to Israel has exceeded aid to all other countries combined.

11. Palestinians in exile set up the Palestinian Liberation Organization with support from some Arab countries, to conduct both an international campaign for restoring refugees to their homeland and to put military pressure on Israel (mostly through terrorist acts).

12. In 1967, in response to threats from Arab countries demanding repatriation of Palestinian refugees and Palestinian sovereignty, Israel carried out a lightning strike, seizing the whole of Palestine, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Syria's Golan Heights, and all of Sinai. The UN nearly unanimously adopted Resolution 242 calling for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Israel refused, saying it needed secure borders in order to resist Arab threats to its existence. From this time on, Israel began building new Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. This frequently involved bulldozing Palestinian homes to make way for new apartment buildings. Palestinians who lost their homes were not compensated.

13. During the late 70s and early 80s, when official US policy prohibited military aid to governments that routinely violated the human rights of its citizens, the US paid Israel to provide military aid to its former client dictatorships. Thus Israeli Uzis showed up in the hands of soldiers in Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Colombia, as well as in the hands of CIA-backed guerillas in Angola and elsewhere.

14. In October of 1991, a middle east peace conference was held in Madrid. A "land for peace" deal was offered by Arab nations (the PLO was excluded from the talks) but rejected by Israel. Hundreds of thousand of Israelis took to the streets after the conference demanding that their government enter into dialog with the Palestinians.

15. In 1992 Israel bombed Palestinian refugee camps in southern Lebanon, killing hundreds of civilians. Israeli patrols in the occupied territories frequently killed Palestinians with impunity, especially young males. Palestinian frustration and anger reached the boiling point, as the Intifada pitted rock-throwing Palestinians against Israeli soldiers with automatic weapons.

16. In 1993, an agreement was reached in Oslo establishing principles of interim self-government in the Gaza Strip and Jericho. In 1994, the agreement was extended to include all of the West Bank.

Just wait till ETH sees THIS one...Boy are you gonna get it![smoke]

It isn't exactly "spin-free". For example, it white-washes the Arabs in the '67 war. Egypt had blockaded Israeli ports, and Syria had shelled Israeli territory--both acts of war.

Nor does 242 call for Israel to withdrawal from THE occupied territories, only "territory". This is the difference between a complete withdrawal from every inch of territory and a partial withdrawal from some territory. The Israelis will need to retain some land to preserve their security, such as sites for early warning radars that cover the West Bank.

Nor were the pogroms of the 30's "anti-Zionist". They were flatly anti-Jewish, and encouraged to be such by the Grand Mufti, who later played footsie with Adolf. (Arafat is a fairly close relative of the Mufti, btw; he was an uncle as I recall.)

Sooner or later someone will show up with...

"Well we took land from the Indians."

Don't forget Mexico, or those damned British oppressors.

"Spin free" stops at #8, after which you get a fair amount of selective history, gross exageration, and strategic ommisions. Just a few examples of each.

Selective History: Ignoring the fact that,by 1948 about 1/3 of all the Arabs in "Palestine had also immigrated there from other Arab countries after the Brits took the mandate. Why? Because life under the Brits was a lot better than under living under Arab rule.

Gross Exageration:  That all the residents of Deir Yassin were killed. The operation was certainly no credit to Israel's armed forces and it was a combined  Haganah/Irgun deal, but it was neither planned to happen as it did, nor was it any  example of Israel's attitude toward conducting military operations.  It was one of those deals where, having encounteered unexpected resistance, the Israelis overreacted.

Strategic Ommisions:  Arab atrocities against Jews during the 1948 war.  Of course, if he was going to get into that, he would have needed twice the space he used.

Oh yeah, I forgot "Outright Lies" as a catagory. The Israelis recieved exactly Zero military assistance from the USSR during the 1948 war. What they did get was recognition of their existance and a certain amount of moral support. The Russians also allowed the Czechs to keep on selling arms to the Israelis after the Communist takeover.

I have niether the time nor the energy to deal with the rest of the twisted history started on this thread, but I do note one thing:
Throughout the early historical dates the suffix "BCE" (before Christian Era) is used for dating rather than the far more common "BC" (Before Christ).  My experience is that only Moslems and Jews use the BCE suffix.  HMMMMM!

More than history it seems a parade of half truth and omissions...

Where are facts like that Haganah, when Deir Yassin was discovered, brought in the massacre site UN observer to put in evidence LEHI responsibilities (and thus delegittimating Begin and his organization)?

Furthermore:
-Where is the first division of historical Palestine, made 1922 by the British, that gave birth to Jordany?

-the motivation for the preventive attack by Israel in the 1967 Six Days War are false and ridicolous: Palestinian problem started AFTER the occupation and not BEFORE the occupation of the West Bank...
Nasser started ILLEGALLY to heavily provocate Israel in the hope, once the Israelis would start the war, to easily win...

BenDover should study history much more...

Can't stand anything that is objective huh Paolo ??

Maybe Italy and the Italian taxpayers would like to pay Israel $5 Billion per year to continue to kill Palestinians and let U.S. taxpayers rest for a while.

Paolo, why don't you find out who is in charge of the Italian government 'today' and run it past him ??  (Or her ?)

Well I am not Italian, but I can see that Ben's statements were not "Spin free" or a concise history of what happen in the middle east.

Ha Ha!  Chances are, citizens of Italy are funding the exterminations of Israeli citizens by Arafat's suicide bombers.

Your selective headlining cracks me up!

THANKS !

[i][b]Nothing[/b][/i] is spin-free.

What's your source, BenDover?

Gee I seem to be missing a few wars, terrorist attacks etc from the Palestinian side....


I thought that this was going to be serious.......now its just a Pro PLO post!!


You should change the title.....its spinning out of control.

From me.

You are right. It's not spin free, but it's also not a pro PLO post either. It's a devils advocate post to see who has the ability to spot the missing ingredients. Also to find out which members on here have an acclimation to the historical context of the region instead of the media BS hyped current events.

I appreciate all the posts that can add facts to the debate.

IMHO, both sides have historical right to live in the area and both would benefit from peaceful coexistance if they could get past their hatred of each other.

To another poster, BCE (Before Common Era) is also used by most scientists, such as anthropologists, paleontologists, and geologists. It is not "anti-Christian" in general.

Thanks again for the posts.

regards,

legrue

LeGrue, you aren't by chance Legrue formerly of El Paso, are you?

About the only thing I'm gonna take issue with:


BCE (Before Common Era) is a fairly common suffix in many history books and is used without regatd to nationality.

So this was just a test?

Had this been a real post, would we have been informed where to tune for up to date warnings and the information you left out?

Like the fact that this piece of land was first referred to as Palestine when the Romans conquered it. They named it after the Philistines a European people from part of what is now called Greece.

And that "people of the book," while "accorded a measure of respect and status," were still taxed at higher rates than muslims and were not allowed to testify in court against muslims. In other words, they were cheated and not afforded any legal recourse.

Spearweasel,

Nope, never even been to the city, although I've spent some time in Texas.

regards,

legrue

...actually, BCE is "Before Common Era", and is used by many historians and scholars.

the_reject

[b]BenDover[/b], a raving liberal probably could not have some up with a less 'spin free' history of the area!

Unlike my friend, [b]shamayim[/b], I believe the 'spin free' portion of your clipped history of Israel/Palestine ends at #2, not #8.

The "tensions" between Islam and Christianity began long before Sept 11, they began long before the British Mandate in Palestine, they began long before the Crusades, even. The starting point was the seventh century, when Islam began a period of conquest that remade the face of the Middle East and North Africa, extended into Spain, and threatened all of Europe. It was in 638 AD, in fact, that the Muslims first captured Jerusalem.

The regions conquered by the Arab/Muslims in this very early period included the cradle of Christianity and the early church. To speak as if "tensions" between Islam and Christianity began with the Crusades, as if Christians had simply decided out of the blue to attack Muslims, is not a small error. It is a fundamental distortion of the historical record.

Beginning with the Islamic invasion of Israel/Palestine in 635 AD, the Muslims continued their ruthless invasion of Christian nations, until, by the time of the First Crusade, the area of Christendom had been reduced by 2/3 of its original size.

By the middle of the 7th century, the Persian Empire fell, and the Byzantines lost Syria (including Palestine) and Egypt. By 732 AD, the Arab/Islamic armies had conquered parts of Asia, Africa, and Spain, calling the latter, Andalusia.

During the lifetime of Muhammad, and especially after his migration to Medina in 622, he dealt with Jewish and Christian tribes of Arabia. He had hoped that these followers of 'heavenly' (theistic) faiths who had received God’s Revelations through Moses, David, and Jesus, would now welcome him as the final Messenger of God. That did not happen however. Soon after he conquered Mecca in 630, he persecuted the Jews, slew some of their men, and enslaved their women and children.

[b]After his death, his successors (the Caliphs) decreed that no Jew or Christian may continue to live within Arabia[/b]. This prohibition is still maintained today.

What about the conquered lands? The invading Arab/Islamic armies expected all pagan subjects to Islamize; but they did allow Jews and Christians to remain within their faith according to specific restrictions. The Arabs granted them the status of 'Dhimmis,' an Arabic word that literally means 'under the protection' of the new masters. [b]The terms of this 'protection' were defined by the 'protectors.'[/b]  Religious traffic flowed one way: from Judaism or Christianity, to Islam, and never vice-versa. [b]Once a Muslim, always a Muslim[/b]. The Law of Apostasy was imbedded in the Quran, and an apostate could expect no mercy, death was the penalty for leaving Islam. [b]Christians were restricted to worshipping within their churches, but were not allowed to evangelize.[/b]

[b]No new church buildings could be built. Christians were expected to pay a poll tax for the 'protection' they received from their new masters.[/b]

[b]Is this the kind of 'relative peace and religious freedom' that you meant?[/b]

Are you certain you are [u]not[/u] a liberal?

Oh, BTW, whether you denote the 'Common Era' as that, or as 'After Christ', we all still know precisely what event is being referred to, don't we?

Heh-heh-heh! [:D]

Why do the heathen rage?

Eric The(Crusading)Hun[>]:)]

Interesting side note on the Before Christ, Before Common Era thing...

As most of us know the Church re calculated recorded history so that in a sense time would begin with the "birth of Christ." This way they could "in a way" ignore all recorded history before that event, especially that history that suggested we ever lived without their Gods influence.

But due to a mathematical error they missed the calculation (which was simple subtraction) by about 4 years. This meant that the last millenium was not the 2000 anniversary of the birth of christ. That event had already happened about 4 years before.

So much for divine guidance.

For this reason, and others, the term "before common era" is used because the term "before Christ" is not accurate.

Posr from SteyrAUG -

God didn't tell them to change their calendar did He? Nope.

Jesus nowhere in Scripture asked that His birthdate be noted, calculated, or celebrated.

So what 'divine guidance' are you talking about?

Of course, it's as accurate either way.

You either say Jesus was born 4-3 BC, or you say He was born 4-3 BCE.

But it's the 'other reasons' that are the real reason for the change - liberal assholes just don't want anything to do with Jesus!

Oh, and some conservative assholes, as well.

Probably moderate assholes, too!

Sorry to include the word 'asshole' in a post with the name of Jesus.

But the Devil made me do it!

Eric The(Sorry,IWon'tLetItHappenAgain)Hun[>]:)]

I was quoting historical and documented facts.

You, instead, cannot stand anything beyond your income declaration.

Shalom...

Let me just say this about Jesus. It is from the classic work 'The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah' by Alfred Edersheim, 1886. From Chapter 6, Vol. 1:

"To the question, whether this hope has ever been realised - or rather, whether One has appeared Whose claims to the Messiahship have stood the test of investigation and of time - impartial history can make only one answer. [b]It points to Bethlehem and to Nazareth[/b]. If the claims of Jesus have been rejected by the Jewish Nation, He has at least, undoubtedly, fulfilled one part of the Mission prophetically assigned to the Messiah. Whether or not He be the Lion of the tribe of Judah, to Him, assuredly, has been the gathering of the nations, and the isles have waited for His law. [b]Passing the narrow bounds of obscure Judaism and breaking down the walls of national prejudice and isolation, He has made the sublimer teaching of the Old Testament the common possession of the world, and founded a great Brotherhood, of which the God of Israel is the Father. He alone also has exhibited a life, in which absolutely no fault could be found; and promulgated a teaching, to which absolutely no exception can be taken. Admittedly, He was the One perfect Man - the ideal of humanity, His doctrine the one absolute teaching. The world has known none other, none equal. And the world has owned it, if not by the testimony of words, yet by the evidence of facts. Springing from such a people; born, living, and dying in circumstances, and using means, the most unlikely of such results - the Man of Nazareth has, by universal consent, been the mightiest Factor in our world's history: alike politically, socially, intellectually, and morally. [b]If He be not the Messiah, He has at least thus far done the Messiah's work. If He be not the Messiah, there has at least been none other, before or after Him. If He be not the Messiah, the world has not, and never can have, a Messiah[/b]."

[u]Those[/u] are my thoughts precisely! Brother Edersheim has so well expressed the hope and the fulfillment of Israel's Messiah in the Person of Jesus, so well, that I can scarce believe that any Child of Abraham would not immediately see it and believe it.

Ah yes, blindness has fallen for a time upon Israel, until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Well, I believe that those times are no upon us!

And to my Jewish brothers, I say, forget the historical religion that you have come to know as 'Christianity', with all of its faults, and pogroms and inquisitions, and simply embrace the teachings of [u]your[/u] Messiah, and our Messiah, and say 'Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.'

Eric The(Believing)Hun[>]:)]

Har har, BenDover you started out OK but it went downhill quickly.

Can I get an Amen from the congregation?

How about an Omein?

Post from SNorman -

There is [u]no[/u] such thing as a 'spin-free' history of Israel/Palestine.

Never has been, never will be.

Eric The(Cynical)Hun[>]:)]

I'll just say....

There's lots I can agree with in your posts in this thread, Eric.

Let me just add -

[i]Ephesians 2

8   For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9   Not of works, lest any man should boast.

11   Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12   That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13   But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14   For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us[/i]

Post from garandman -

I hope so.

Edersheim is the Master of putting Christianity in the proper perspective.

If you want to know what Jesus 'knew' about farming in the rocky soils of Galilee, when He spoke of it in His parables, you must read this work. Edersheim went to Galilee to see what soils were present. He spoke with local farmers to see what their methods were.

And when Jesus talks of fishing in another parable, Edersheim went to the Sea of Galilee to speak with fishermen on its shores, whose methods had, by the late Nineteenth Century, changed little, if at all, from Jesus' day.

And Edershiem, becoming a Believing Jew, brought with him a wealth of knowledge of the entirety of Judaism, which he uses to illuminate the darkest corners of our knowledge of Jesus.

You can even figure out how old Edersheim believed that Mary [u]might[/u] have been when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.

Eric The(Impressed)Hun[>]:)]

Hey Guys:

Don't hit me too hard on the BC-BCE thing. If BCE  (whether denoting common or Christian) has come into general use, I'm all for it[:)].  

Post from shamayim -

Well, it certainly has [b]not[/b] replaced 'BC-AD' yet, but I am certain that it will one day.

But don't get too 'hep' about it. The very people that use it to denigrate the impact of the Birth of Jesus are not keen on anyone ever coming as a 'Messiah' or 'Christ' or 'Anointed One.'

So you may as well rip those pages from your Bible as well.

Eric The(AsAMatterOfFact,JustBurnYourBibleNow)Hun[>]:)]

It was a referrence to everything done by the Church, calculations and translations, to "supposedly" have been guided by the hand of God. Which you and I know is not true but I like to poke a little fun at them.




No I meant the MATH was not accurate. i really don't object to the term Before Christ so long as the math is correct. To me it is like the Ten Commandments of old government building and Egyptian gliphs depcting the sun god Raj. It is indicative of history and beliefs at THAT time. So since it is a part of factual history it doesn't offend me a bit.

And even the fact that the math is wrong really doesn't take away too much. Didn't screw up dating except in referrence to the actual birth of christ. And the mathematical error is ALSO part of recorded history.

Post from SteyrAUG -

I don't blame you!

Anyone who says that they know the Mind of God on a subject on which God has not deigned to show us His thinking, is, to put it politely, full of it!

Eric The(PlainSpoken)Hun[>]:)]

You know this is not some spin free timeline of israel vs. palestine! Whoever wrote this started number one totally wrong. God, who is the creator of all things, promised Abraham, which his named was changed to Israel by the way, right after he spent an evening wrestling with the angle of the lord, the land, and no one else. Unfortunetly because of poor choices and plain outright sin the land could not be inhabited by the Israelistes until Moses died, that is when Joshua, Moses apprentice, the new leader of the Israelis after moses died, led the Israelites into there land and began to defeat the inhabitants.

Then as history tells because the Isrealis did not follow gods commands to wipe out completely those people who inhabited the land, the Isrealites got themselves into trouble, thus produceing years of slavery, and exile from there own land.

Historically, and factually the land belongs to the Israelis because it was given to them by God, The Israelis are fighting for there own land and have used, and will use what ever means necessary to have there land.

In todays society we find acts of terrorism as an evil and barbaric term. Really these are just politically correct terms for the actions and consequences of war. People get killed in war, civilians also. We seem to think that we live in a much more civilized world today, to me this is BS. War is War and people of all designation get killed, or injured, that is the facts. Terrorism is a politically correct word for acts of war, and acts of war should be retaliated against.

Maybe if we went at war and war was fought with the mentallity  it was back in the early biblical times, we would not have this issue in Israel today. You keep killing the enemy, even when you have clearly won, you totally eliminate them off the face of the earth, so that later in time there decendents can not come back and haunt you. Barbaric, or wise?

To me why dont we just let the Israelis and the Palistinians just go at it. But pollitically that will never happen because we all know who would win, it would be the Israelis and to many other nations that have no business sticking there noses into the issue will call foul, and make the israelis look like the evil ones, all because they want there land back, land that was given to them by the creator himself, land that was very detailed in its borders, land that was very detailed in directions on how to obtain it.
So one could say that the current problem between the Israelis and Palistinians is a consequence of generations of Israelis before not doing what god had told them to do.

So how is that for a spin free history lesson.

Whoever wrote this so called spin free post is obviously a biased individual, and individual that is biased towards the palistinians cause.

Facts are only facts when you start out with the truth and the whole truth, if the whole truth is not in your facts, then basically it is a lie.

I find this spin free post a lie, because it does not even start out with the fact of who was promised the land in the first place. Just because some tribes were inhabiting the land in the first place does not mean that they had claim to it. God made a promise, and God does not break his promises! It is mans fault for not following gods commands, thus produceing consequences. Consequences that are seen generations down the road.

Actually, MinMan3, it was Abraham's grandson, Jacob, who wrestled with ??? and had his name changed to Israel!

Abram's name was changed to Abraham, but that's another story!

Amend your post and I'll delete this post!

Eric The(Helpful)Hun[>]:)]

Hope you and the Italians will get back to me on your willingness to pay the $5 Billion per year to Israel.
(That is if you can find out who is running the government of Italy this week !)

Salami.........

[b]subsailor[/b], you, Sir, are a bean counter!

An accountant, right?

Watch out, lest you get into the position where [b]you know the cost of everything and the value of nothing[/b].

Judging from your posts on this subject, you may already be there!

Eric The(OpenHanded)Hun[>]:)]

AHHHHHHHHH !  Another 'first'.  Never before have I been called an accountant.


The Israelis will not allow peace so long as the United States is willing to pay.

(Do you know who is running the Italian government this week ?)

Post from 5subslr5 -

But I meant it in the very nicest way![:D]

Lord, there was peace enough before and after the First Intifadah, and then right up to the beginning of the Second (and current) Intifadah that began September, 2000.

The Israelis want peace as much as anyone, they are just very particular about who their neighbors are!

You know, they want no murderers, suicide bombers, snipers, etc., living next door.

I know their names, but it's a guess as to whether they are actually running it or not.

But not to worry [b]subsailor[/b], the Italian government, much like the governments of most European nations, [b]feel the same way about Israel [u]as[/u] [u]you[/u] [u]do[/u]![/b]

You are in rarified company, 'mboy, rarified indeed!

And, sadly, to tell you the truth, those same governments don't feel much different about the United States, either!

Don't worry, that [u]alone[/u] should not convince you that you have chosen the wrong side in this fight.

Poltics makes strange bedfellows, right?[:D]

Eric The(HonestToGod)Hun[>]:)]

The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty cont'd.

"Crisscrossing the ship almost every forty-five seconds, the (Israeli) Mysteres let loose more 'NAPALM' -silvery cannisters of jellied gasoline that turned the ship (The Liberty) into a crematorium."

I can assure you [b]subsailor[/b] that Israel regrets the tragic attack on the USS Liberty a whole lot more than any Western European government regrets it.

And I can also assure you that Israel regrets its attack on the USS Liberty more than any anti-Israeli pinheads regret the attack!

Otherwise, what might they have to complain about?

I know that's not where you are coming from, but it should make you feel a tad bit uneasy about some of the company that support this view!

Eric The(AlwaysReturnToUSSLiberty)Hun[>]:)]

Israeli attack on the USS Liberty cont'd.

"Stan White raced for the enclosed NSA spaces, cutting through the sick bay.  Torn and mutilated bodies were everywhere."

But still the attacks continued.

Excerpted from:  Body of Secrets; Bamford, James; page 214

E.T. HUN,
FOX news reporting stopping a rent truck driven by and occupied by two ISRAELI nationals with dynamite and plastic explosives residue on the steering wheel and gear shift.
One Israeli was in the country legally and the other had an expired visa.

Oh, they were delivering furniture.

ETH - Just curious as I do not often come across people who have read Edersheim, but have you read "Sketches of Jewish Social Life"?

Eric I agree. Amounts and accountability are such trivial matters and of little consequence.


Can I borrow some money?

Didn't want this one to get lost.  Bet the media cover-up is already in full swing.

Post from Fox -

But, of course!

From Edersheim's preface to the First Edition, 'Sketches of Jewish Social Life':

"For, a careful study of the period leaves this conviction on the mind: that--with reverence be it said--Jesus Christ was strictly of His time, and that the New Testament is, in its narratives, language, and allusions, strictly true to the period and circumstances in which its events are laid. [b]But in another, and far more important, aspect there is no similarity between Christ and His period. "Never man"--of that, or any subsequent period--"spake like this man"; never man lived or died as He. Assuredly, if He was the Son of David, He also is the Son of God, the Saviour of the world.[/b]"

Amen, and amen!

This work was overshadowed by his later, 'Life and Times....' but both these, and his history of the Temple at the Time of Christ, are classics!

Eric The(WellRead)Hun[>]:)]

Post from 5subslr5 -

What possible 'media cover-up' would that be, [b]subsailor[/b]?

In Israel??? [:D]

The liberal elitist media in [u]this[/u] country would die, simply die, to have a good juicy story to embarrass the Israelis!

Here's the story:[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52681,00.html[/url]
Hmmm, what do you make of it?

Eric The(TheyWereNearANavalInstallation...)Hun[>]:)]