User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/21/2001 6:36:00 AM EDT
[#1]
I think most people who study religion know that the Muslim claim to Jerusalem is a political, rather than religious, claim.
Good article though... had some stuff in there I had not known before or at least forgotten! It's been a while since my religion classes in college. Av. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2001 1:05:18 PM EDT
[#2]
What we have here is the classic case of a new religion trying to absorb the tenants and locations of older faiths- but in this case failing.
Christianity did the same when it absorbed the cults of Mithras and Sol Invictus. They had the support then of a still vibrant Imperial Rome to pull it off. Mohammad did not... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2001 3:33:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: The Muslims claim that Mohammed ascended in to heaven mounted on his steed from the vary spot on The Temple mount in Jerusalem where the Dome of the Rock sits today. If he did he would have had to fly through the roof of the Christian Church that stood on that spot at the time. Was this the same church where Justinian's Mom, St. Helena supposedly "found" the True Cross? Or am I confusing it with some other church in the area? You know you will Never EVER get a Muslim to admit this... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2001 9:19:13 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: What we have here is the classic case of a new religion trying to absorb the tenants and locations of older faiths- but in this case failing. Christianity did the same when it absorbed the cults of Mithras and Sol Invictus. They had the support then of a still vibrant Imperial Rome to pull it off. Mohammad did not... What the hell are you talking about?Islam is not a new religion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2001 11:04:22 PM EDT
[#5]
I didn't read the article, but on this subject, viewed on other points of view, the claim of the Muslims for exclusive rights on Jerusalem and their denial of the presence of the Jews in the Mount of the Temple is stinking, and make them LIARS.
I am starting to think that maybe it was a mistake not to demolish the Al Aqsa mosque in 1967. All in all they did a lot of times the same with churches and sinagogues (like Hurva sinagogue in Jerusalem... )in the M.E. history. Ok... the last statement is only a provocation... [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 1:11:24 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Quoted: What we have here is the classic case of a new religion trying to absorb the tenants and locations of older faiths- but in this case failing. Christianity did the same when it absorbed the cults of Mithras and Sol Invictus. They had the support then of a still vibrant Imperial Rome to pull it off. Mohammad did not... What the hell are you talking about?Islam is not a new religion. Think about this for a minute. What year did Mohammad start his religion? Compare that to when Jesus had his ministry, to when Siddhartha Gautauma found enlightenment, to when Moses receved the Ten Commandments... This is not even considering true ancient cults like the Greek Pantheon or the Egyptian gods.. No as religions go Islam is pretty young. Especally to those that is VIOLENTLY contesting with for supremacy in Palistine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 1:56:12 AM EDT
[#7]
How many of you have forgotten that Moses sent spies to Canaan and discovered the Palestinians and country of Palestine? Judea was a legitimate state for only 75 years in biblical times and only 50 years in the present, making it only 125 years old or so. Palestine rightfully belongs to the Palestinians.
Attempts were made to create a state of Israel in Argentina and West Africa......they weren't welcome there. So, where do you think the Zionist movement naturally wanted a Jewish state? Palestine of course. The Balfour declaration dissolved the state of Palestine to create a joint Israeli-Arab state, does that sound fair? What if the British dissolved the District of Columbia and declared it a joint Israeli-American nation? Jerusalem is an occupied city, occupied by the Israeli Army. The Palestinian Muslims have a legitimate beef, there are over 3.7 million Palestinians that have been displaced since 1947 and Israel does not want them to return back to their homes because Jewish Isreali's will become an instant minority. I say, move the state of Israel to Argentina, give the land of Palestine back to Palestinians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 9:49:39 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: How many of you have forgotten that Moses sent spies to Canaan and discovered the Palestinians and country of Palestine? Judea was a legitimate state for only 75 years in biblical times and only 50 years in the present, making it only 125 years old or so. Palestine rightfully belongs to the Palestinians. Attempts were made to create a state of Israel in Argentina and West Africa......they weren't welcome there. So, where do you think the Zionist movement naturally wanted a Jewish state? Palestine of course. The Balfour declaration dissolved the state of Palestine to create a joint Israeli-Arab state, does that sound fair? What if the British dissolved the District of Columbia and declared it a joint Israeli-American nation? Jerusalem is an occupied city, occupied by the Israeli Army. The Palestinian Muslims have a legitimate beef, there are over 3.7 million Palestinians that have been displaced since 1947 and Israel does not want them to return back to their homes because Jewish Isreali's will become an instant minority. I say, move the state of Israel to Argentina, give the land of Palestine back to Palestinians. There wasn't such a thing like "Palestinian State". Palestine it's an invention of the Romans. Palestine was a protectorate. And furthermore: who is a Palestinian? According to the UN, it's anyone that before 1948 lived in Palestine for almost 2 years. So many Lebanese, Syrians, Jordans Arabs (as well many immigrant Jews) became Palestinians. Oh yes... the states designed in 1947 were TWO: Jewish state with Arab minority, and an Arab state with a jewish minority. Israel is artificial? Not more that USA, Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordany... only USA and Israel were born by the will of their people, the rest were puppets state designed by the British Empire... and still now we're paying the consequences... The problem of the refugees is due mainly by the Arabs: the Arab Council in 1948 (while assaulting Israel the same day of it's birth against the UN resolution) asked Arab Palestinians to leave the Palestinian cities "to clean up the Jews" so they (the Arabs) can be back and take also the place of the Jews. The truth is that before the Jews start to immigrate nobody wanted the Palestine... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 10:05:17 AM EDT
[#9]
Islam is middle aged. When I think of newly invented religions the list includes, Christian Science, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness and Scientology.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 2:34:15 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: ... I say, move the state of Israel to Argentina, give the land of Palestine back to Palestinians. How ironic! Isn't Argentina the country that took in fleeing Nazi officers at the end of the war? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 3:19:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Some people need to read their bibles and history books a hell of a lot more. It must be embarrassing to show such ignorance on a public forum.
3'RD MILLENNIUM BC 3'rd millennium BC : The Canaanites were the earliest known inhabitants of Palestine. They became urbanized and lived in city-states, one of which was Jericho . They developed an alphabet. Palestine's location at the center of routes linking three continents made it the meeting place for religious and cultural influences from Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor. It was also the natural battleground for the great powers of the region and subject to domination by adjacent empires, beginning with Egypt in the 3d millennium BC. 2'ND MILLENNIUM BC 2'rd millennium BC : Egyptian hegemony and Canaanite autonomy were constantly challenged by such ethnically diverse invaders as the Amorites, Hittites, and Hurrians. These invaders, however, were defeated by the Egyptians and absorbed by the Canaanites, who at that time may have numbered about 200000. 14th century BC : Egyptian power began to weaken, new invaders appeared: the Hebrews, a group of Semitic tribes from Mesopotamia, and the Philistines (after whom the country was later named), an Aegean people of Indo-European stock. 1230 BC : Joshua conquered parts of Palestine. The conquerors settled in the hill country, but they were unable to conquer all of Palestine. 1125 BC : The Israelites, a confederation of Hebrew tribes, finally defeated the Canaanites but found the struggle with the Philistines more difficult . Philistines had established an independent state on the southern coast of Palestine and controlled the Canaanite town of Jerusalem. 1050 BC : Philistines with there superior in military organization and using iron weapons, they severely defeated the Israelites about 1050 BC . |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 3:21:32 PM EDT
[#12]
1'ST MILLENNIUM BC
1000 BC : David, Israel's great king, finally defeated the Philistines, and they eventually assimilated with the Canaanites . The unity of Israel and the feebleness of adjacent empires enabled David to establish a large independent state, with its capital at Jerusalem. 922 BC : Under David's son and successor, Solomon, Israel enjoyed peace and prosperity , but at his death in 922 BC the kingdom was divided into Israel in the north and Judah in the south . 722-721 BC : When nearby empires resumed their expansion, the divided Israelites could no longer maintain their independence . Israel fell to Assyria. 586 BC : Judah was conquered by Babylonia, which destroyed Jerusalem and exiled most of the Jews living there. Nebuchadnezzar entered Jerusalem. The Temple was sacked and set fire to, and razed to the ground. The Royal Palace and all the great houses were destroyed, the population carried off in chains to Babylon. And they lamented on their long march into exile. 539 BC : Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylonia and he permitted the Jews to return to Judea, a district of Palestine. Under Persian rule the Jews were allowed considerable autonomy. They rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem and codified the Mosaic law, the Torah, which became the code of social life and religious observance. The Jews were bound to a universal God. 333 BC : Persian domination of Palestine was replaced by Greek rule when Alexander the Great of Macedonia took the region. Alexander's successors, the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria , continued to rule the country . The Seleucids tried to impose Hellenistic (Greek) culture and religion on the population. 141-63 BC : Jews revolted under the Maccabees and set up an independent state. 132-35 BC : Jews revolts erupted, numerous Jews were killed, many were sold into slavery, and the rest were not allowed to visit Jerusalem. Judea was renamed Syria Palaistina. 63 BC : Jerusalem was overrun by Rome. Herod was appointed King of Judea. He slaughtered the last of the Hasmoneans and ordered a lavish restoration and extension of the Second Temple. A period of great civil disorder followed with strife between pacifists and Zealots, and riots against the Roman authorities. 37-4 BC : During the rule of King Herod the Great Jesus of Nazareth, peace be upon him was born. And years after, he began his teaching mission. His attempts to call people back to the pure teachings of Abraham and Moses were judged subversive by the authorities. He was tried and sentenced to death; "yet they did not slay him but only a likeness that was shown to them." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 3:24:52 PM EDT
[#13]
1-999 AD
70 AD : Titus of Rome laid siege to Jerusalem. The fiercely defended Temple eventually fell, and with it the whole city. Seeking a complete and enduring victory, Titus ordered the total destruction of the Herodian Temple. A new city named Aelia was built by the Romans on the ruins of Jerusalem, and a temple dedicated to Jupitor raised up. 313 AD : Palestine received special attention when the Roman emperor Constantine I legalized Christianity. His mother, Helena, visited Jerusalem, and Palestine, as the Holy Land, became a focus of Christian pilgrimage. A golden age of prosperity, security, and culture followed. Most of the population became Hellenized and Christianized . 324 AD : Constantine of Byzantium marched on Aelia. He rebuilt the city walls and commissioned the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and opened the city for Christian pilgrimage. 29-614 AD : Byzantine (Roman) rule was interrupted , however , by a brief Persian occupation and ended altogether when Muslim Arab armies invaded Palestine and captured Jerusalem in AD 638 . 638 AD : The Arab conquest began 1300 years of Muslim presence in what then became known as Filastin. Eager to be rid of their Byzantine overlords and aware of their shared heritage with the Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael, as well as the Muslims reputation for mercy and compassion in victory, the people of Jerusalem handed over the city after a brief siege. They made only one condition, That the terms of their surrender be negotiated directly with the Khalif 'Umar in person. 'Umar entered Jerusalem on foot. There was no bloodshed. There were no massacres. Those who wanted to leave were allowed to, with all their goods. Those who wanted to stay were guarantee protection for their lives, their property and places of worship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 3:25:48 PM EDT
[#14]
Palestine was holy to Muslims because the Prophet Muhammad had designated Jerusalem as the first qibla (the direction Muslims face when praying) and because he was believed to have ascended on a night journey to heaven from the the old city of Jerusalem (al-Aqsa Mosque today) , where the Dome of the Rock was later built. Jerusalem became the third holiest city of Islam. The Muslim rulers did not force their religion on the Palestinians, and more than a century passed before the majority converted to Islam. The remaining Christians and Jews were considered People of the Book. They were allowed autonomous control in their communities and guaranteed security and freedom of worship. Such tolerance was rare in the history of religion . Most Palestinians also adopted Arabic and Islamic culture. Palestine benefited from the empires trade and from its religious significance during the first Muslim dynasty, the Umayyads of Damascus.
750 AD : The power shifted to Baghdad with the Abbasids, Palestine became neglected. It suffered unrest and successive domination by Seljuks, Fatimids, and European Crusaders. It shared, however, in the glory of Muslim civilization, when the Muslim world enjoyed a golden age of science, art, philosophy, and literature. Muslims preserved Greek learning and broke new ground in several fields, all of which later contributed to the Renaissance in Europe. Like the rest of the empire, however, Palestine under the Mamelukes gradually stagnated and declined. 1000-1899 AD 1517 AD : The Ottoman Turks of Asia Minor defeated the Mamelukes, with few interruptions, ruled Palestine until the winter of 1917-18. The country was divided into several districts (sanjaks), such as that of Jerusalem. The administration of the districts was placed largely in the hands of Arab Palestinians, who were descendants of the Canaanites. The Christian and Jewish communities, however, were allowed a large measure of autonomy. Palestine shared in the glory of the Ottoman Empire during the 16th century, but declined again when the empire began to decline in the 17th century. 1831-1840 AD : Muhammad Ali, the modernizing viceroy of Egypt, expanded his rule to Palestine . His policies modified the feudal order, increased agriculture, and improved education. 1840 The Ottoman Empire reasserted its authority, instituting its own reforms . 1845 Jewish in Palestine were 12,000 increased to 85,000 by 1914. All people in Palestine were Arabic Muslims and Christians. 1897 the first Zionist Congress held Basle, Switzerland, issued the Basle programme on the colonization of Palestine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 3:27:34 PM EDT
[#15]
Breif modern history of Palestine
Aided by the Arabs, the British captured Palestine from the Ottoman Turks in 1917-18. The Arabs revolted against the Turks because the British had promised them, in correspondence (1915-16) with Shareef Husein ibn Ali of Mecca (1856-1931), the independence of their countries after the war . Britain , however, also made other, conflicting commitments in the secret Sykes -Picot agreement with France and Russia (1916), it promised to divide and rule the region with its allies . In a third agreement , the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Britain promised the Jews a Jewish "national home" in Palestine. This promise was subsequently incorporated in the mandate conferred on Britain by the League of Nations in 1922 . During their mandate (1922-48) the British found their contradictory promises to the Jewish and Palestinian communities difficult to reconcile. The Zionists envisaged large-scale Jewish immigration , and some spoke of a Jewish state constituting all of Palestine . Palestinians , however, rejected Britain's right to promise their country to a third party and feared dispossession by the Zionists; anti-Zionist attacks occurred in Jerusalem (1920) and Jaffa (1921). A 1922 statement of British policy denied Zionist claims to all of Palestine and limited Jewish immigration , but reaffirmed support for a Jewish national home. British proposed establishing a legislative council, Palestinians rejected this council as discriminatory. After 1928, when Jewish immigration increased somewhat, British policy on the subject seesawed under conflicting Arab-Jewish pressures . Immigration rose sharply after the installation (1933) of the Nazi regime in Germany; in 1935 nearly 62,000 Jews entered Palestine. Fear of Jewish domination was the principal cause of the Arab revolt that broke out in 1936 and continued intermittently until 1939. By that time Britain had again restricted Jewish immigration and purchases of land. The struggle for Palestine, which abated during World War II, resumed in 1945 . The horrors of the Holocaust produced world sympathy for European Jews and for Zionism , and although Britain still refused to admit 100,000 Jewish to Palestine , many Jewish found their way there illegally. Various plans for solving the Palestine problem were rejected by one party or the other . Britain finally declared the mandate unworkable and turned the problem over to the UN in April 1947. The Jews and the Palestinians prepared for a showdown . Although the Palestinians outnumbered the Jews (1300000 to 600000), the latter were better prepared . They had a semiautonomous government, led by David Ben-Gurion , and their military, the Haganah, was well trained and experienced . The Palestinians, on the other hand, had never recovered from the Arab revolt , and most of their leaders were in exile. The Mufti of Jerusalem , their principal spokesman, refused to accept Jewish statehood . When UN proposed partition in November 1947, he rejected the plan while the Jews accepted it . In the military struggle that followed, the Palestinians were defeated . Violence was used on both sides. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 3:28:38 PM EDT
[#16]
Israel was established on May 14, 1948. Five Arab armies , coming to the aid of the Palestinians , immediately attacked it. Uncoordinated and outnumbered, they were defeated by Israeli forces. Israel enlarged its territory . Jordan took the West Bank of the Jordan River, and Egypt took the Gaza Strip. ( Israel occupied these lands after the Six Day War of 1967. ) The war produced 780,000 Palestinian refugees. About half probably left out of fear and panic , while the rest were forced out to make room for Jewish immigrants from Europe and from the Arab world. The Palestinians spread throughout the neighboring countries, where they have maintained their Palestinian national identity and the desire to return to their homeland.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 4:59:26 PM EDT
[#17]
[b]14th century BC : Egyptian power began to weaken, new invaders appeared: the Hebrews, a group of Semitic tribes from Mesopotamia, and the Philistines (after whom the country was later named), an Aegean people of Indo-European stock. [/b]
I've heard it debated that Seminites were not Hebrew, but forefathers of Hebrews and arabs as well. Therefore the two stem from Seminites and they both lay claim to the same land because of similar forefathers. This claim is covered in M.E. history books as well. ~don't ask me to dig them up, it's been a long time since college and I don't care enough to look. [[:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 5:12:56 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: [b]14th century BC : Egyptian power began to weaken, new invaders appeared: the Hebrews, a group of Semitic tribes from Mesopotamia, and the Philistines (after whom the country was later named), an Aegean people of Indo-European stock. [/b] I've heard it debated that Seminites were not Hebrew, but forefathers of Hebrews and arabs as well. Therefore the two stem from Seminites and they both lay claim to the same land because of similar forefathers. This claim is covered in M.E. history books as well. ~don't ask me to dig them up, it's been a long time since college and I don't care enough to look. [[:)] You are correct, Sir. Jews are decendants of Issac, Arabs of Ishmael........and as you know from your bible studies......Issac and Ishmael are brothers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 8:02:00 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: The Canaanites were the earliest known inhabitants of Palestine. Yeah, Canaanites, not Palestinians. I can see how the 2 tribes could be mistaken for each other. new invaders appeared: the Hebrews, a group of Semitic tribes from Mesopotamia, and the Philistines (after whom the country was later named), an Aegean people of Indo-European stock. Where the Hell are the Palestinians? You have yet to prove me wrong here. Joshua conquered parts of Palestine. I don't think he was a Palestinian either. Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but wasn't he the successor to Moses? Sounds like a Hebrew to me. Philistines with there superior in military organization and using iron weapons Well, at lest this tribe has a P in the name, but I don't think they are Palestinians either. Yawn, you are beginning to bore me. David, Israel's great king, finally defeated the Philistines, and they eventually assimilated with the Canaanites . The unity of Israel and the feebleness of adjacent empires enabled David to establish a large independent state, with its capital at Jerusalem. Was David a Palestinian? I'm not entirely sure, but (whispering) I think he was a Hebrew. Umm..... You didn't prove that the Palestinians have any more right to the land than the Jews. Besides, what I said still stands. [size=2]They that have the power to take and keep, own.[/size=2] If you are content to question historical facts then it is your business to live in ignorance. Palestine is a historical region, those who lived there are Palestinians.........just like America is a region and we, who occupy it are Americans. It's not my business to change your mind, it's up to you to learn and so what you say still stands? It is wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 8:22:07 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: It, [b]AS YOU POINTED OUT[/b], has been occupied by many [b]different tribes[/b], so what exactly makes the current conquerers any different. You sir, are a dumbass. I'm not living in ignorance, I'm pointing out that many, many different peoples have lived there and none have any more right to it than the others. just like America is a region and we, who occupy it are Americans. Edited to add: The natives who lived here for tens of thousands of years before the "Americans" arrived might dispute that statement. And I'm the one being called ignorant? Again, you are a dumbass. Why don't you do a little research instead of living in ignorance? Go ahead and make with the namecalling, it just shows that maybe you're 53 but you behave like you're 5. Must feel nice to make guesses and call them facts, I don't take that luxury. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 9:13:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Smeghead, what is your point? Do you think that the Palistinians of today have any cultural continuity with those civilizations that lived there in the 14th century BC? I would say that is a very, very weak argument from a anthropological standpoint.
The Jews have a much closer and continuous connection culturally to the Hebrews that enhabited this region in the 8th-6th Centuries BC. In fact their cultural connection is stronger than their biological relationship to those people... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 9:15:38 PM EDT
[#22]
i'm just going to ignore you Red.......no sense trying to have a discussion with you getting all bent out of shape over the Palestinian issue.
all i ask is to goto google.com and do a search for the ancient history of Palestine.......... as for the america remark, native americans were a bunch of tribes all living in the same geographical region, so what did they all call it before Amerigo Versucci named it America? So, who has more of a right to claim America? According to your logic, Native Americans have more right to claim North America than us? And no, I'm not white, I'm of mixed Hawaiian and Caucasian descent. Hawaii was taken by force and you don't hear my whining about it. my "timeline" is right out of encyclopedia britannica, i'm not just making it up. i researched the topic and made no claims other than the fact that Palestine is a region, was a Nation-state until dissolved by the Balfour Declaration that mandated a land for the Jews. it's all a part of history, i can't prove it to you one way or another if you're too thickheaded to research the topic on your own and post facts instead of making guesses. I don't think he was a Palestinian either. Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but wasn't he the successor to Moses? Sounds like a Hebrew to me. Well, at lest this tribe has a P in the name, but I don't think they are Palestinians either. Was David a Palestinian? I'm not entirely sure, but (whispering) I think he was a Hebrew. you sir, are the dumbass, goat nutsack licker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 9:27:53 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Smeghead, what is your point? Do you think that the Palistinians of today have any cultural continuity with those civilizations that lived there in the 14th century BC? I would say that is a very, very weak argument from a anthropological standpoint. The Jews have a much closer and continuous connection culturally to the Hebrews that enhabited this region in the 8th-6th Centuries BC. In fact their cultural connection is stronger than their biological relationship to those people... Sir, you don't think the modern day Palestinians have any cultural connection to Palestinians of the 14th century? I'm sure the Palestinians occupying refugee camps in squalor would have something to say about that. In modern times when the League of Nations, a defunct global body, dissolves the state of Palestine and the UN mandates a Jewish State in it's place that it should be okay to do so and that we should turn our back on trying to create a new Palestinian state? Have you ever spent time in the middle east? I've had the pleasure of filming in the region for a few years and got to speak to many Palestinians and Israeli's. Is it cooincidence that just recently at a conference on racism that there was a huge discussion about declaring Zionism a racist set of principles? maybe we, as americans are too used to placating to zionist wishes and succombing to the jewish lobby. 12% of the United States senate are Jews......if you are jewish, your loyalties are to Israel.....not to America. Only 2% of the American population is Jewish, don't you see where their agenda's lie? I'll say it again: If you are Jewish, living in any country in the world......your loyalties are to the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 9:33:49 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: i'm just going to ignore you Red.......no sense trying to have a discussion with you getting all bent out of shape over the Palestinian issue. all i ask is to goto google.com and do a search for the ancient history of Palestine.......... as for the america remark, native americans were a bunch of tribes all living in the same geographical region, so what did they all call it before Amerigo Versucci named it America? So, who has more of a right to claim America? According to your logic, Native Americans have more right to claim North America than us? And no, I'm not white, I'm of mixed Hawaiian and Caucasian descent. Hawaii was taken by force and you don't hear my whining about it. my "timeline" is right out of encyclopedia britannica, i'm not just making it up. i researched the topic and made no claims other than the fact that Palestine is a region, was a Nation-state until dissolved by the Balfour Declaration that mandated a land for the Jews. it's all a part of history, i can't prove it to you one way or another if you're too thickheaded to research the topic on your own and post facts instead of making guesses. I don't think he was a Palestinian either. Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but wasn't he the successor to Moses? Sounds like a Hebrew to me. Well, at lest this tribe has a P in the name, but I don't think they are Palestinians either. Was David a Palestinian? I'm not entirely sure, but (whispering) I think he was a Hebrew. you sir, are the dumbass, goat nutsack licker. Aided by the Arabs, the British captured Palestine from the Ottoman Turks in 1917-18. The Arabs revolted against the Turks because the British had promised them, in correspondence (1915-16) with Shareef Husein ibn Ali of Mecca (1856-1931), the independence of their countries after the war . Britain , however, also made other, conflicting commitments in the secret Sykes -Picot agreement with France and Russia (1916), it promised to divide and rule the region with its allies . In a third agreement , the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Britain promised the Jews a Jewish "national home" in Palestine. Where does this say there was a "nation state" in Palistine. It was a province of the Ottoman Empire before England conqurerd the region in the First World War. The Muslim people of Palistine were promised a state, independant Turkey. Then the British turned on them and split it between BOTH the Jews and Muslims. Nowhere does your encyclopedia entry say anyting about the ethnicity of the people that were living there, it just blankets them (as many Western texts do) as "Muslim". Now I can tell you that most Muslims that helped the British were Bedouin Arab. And we know they only arrived in the region in the 600's AD. The key is the ethnicity and culture of the people. Course ultimately it doesnt matter. The Jews eventually TOOK the place, but since European Americans also took over the land by force we hardly can be ones to bitch about it. The dependancy on Arab oil is the only reason we even CARE what the other Arab States think. The Muslim clame to Jerusalem exists only to unite non-Palistinan Muslims with Palistinian Muslims and get them to fight Isreal and the US. It is otherwise a fiction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 9:38:26 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: 12% of the United States senate are Jews......if you are jewish, your loyalties are to Israel.....not to America. Only 2% of the American population is Jewish, don't you see where their agenda's lie? I'll say it again: If you are Jewish, living in any country in the world......your loyalties are to the STATE OF ISRAEL. Shit, NOW I am pissed with myself. I fell for the bait of a TROLL who wants to rant about the Zionist ocupation government again. Who just wants to rant that Jews are evil and vent his hatred for them. I thought you had a serious argument here, didnt even see this coming. You, sir are a anti-jewish biggot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 10:16:42 PM EDT
[#26]
Just like our own history, we can't be much more accurate than 80%, when debating history 300 years in the past.
As we all know, history is written by those who have the money or power. That shit hole in the desert, was a major trading route, that is why it was claimed by so many. My beef is the freaking tax dollars that are sent over there. And the only reason we do send money over there, is the political influence by wealthy people Israeli is the US watch dog in the middle east. Waterdog |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2001 10:20:20 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: 12% of the United States senate are Jews......if you are jewish, your loyalties are to Israel.....not to America. Only 2% of the American population is Jewish, don't you see where their agenda's lie? I'll say it again: If you are Jewish, living in any country in the world......your loyalties are to the STATE OF ISRAEL. Shit, NOW I am pissed with myself. I fell for the bait of a TROLL who wants to rant about the Zionist ocupation government again. Who just wants to rant that Jews are evil and vent his hatred for them. I thought you had a serious argument here, didnt even see this coming. You, sir are a anti-jewish biggot. Here we go again, distorting emotions with fact. I ain't no biggot, I challenge you to find one single statement I've made saying I hate the Jews because I do not. I hate the disproportionate way they use our M16's, Apache helicopters, F16, F15's and 300 million dollars in aid each year to oppress the majority Arab population under their control in the Gaza strip and West Bank. Arabs living in Palestine (Israel) are taxed to support the Israeli population, it is a fact! Zionism is RACIST, PERIOD. It's equal to what the US government did to the American Indians, but I guess you would say that the "Trail of Tears" never happened and was a figment of their imagination. What did we do? We rounded them all up and put them on reservations, but you don't hear American Indians protesting for their own state which they would deserve as their right. It's about time the Zionist movement were label what is rightly is. What I hate is when the RACE card is played by ignorant, illiterate, thickheaded, narrowminded, un-edumacated hacks like you, sir. You're the one who shouldn't be playing the race card when you don't know what you're talking about and accusing an ethnically mixed person such as myself as being a racist. See, Mr. Armed Liberal it's people like you, the product of a public school education that is the first to call an honest person racist. It pisses me off to no end that people like you should be allowed to live and breed and produce more armed liberal, ignorant sheep. I erred, the timeline I posted was from an Arab Palestinian group.....yes, even Arabs can be unbiased when it comes to their own history.....you'd think they'd know one way or the other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 2:49:43 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Here we go again, distorting emotions with fact. I ain't no biggot, I challenge you to find one single statement I've made saying I hate the Jews because I do not. I hate the disproportionate way they use our M16's, Apache helicopters, F16, F15's and 300 million dollars in aid each year to oppress the minority Arab population under their control in the Gaza strip and West Bank. Arabs living in Palestine (Israel) are taxed to support the Israeli population, it is a fact! Zionism is RACIST, PERIOD. It's equal to what the US government did to the American Indians, but I guess you would say that the "Trail of Tears" never happened and was a figment of their imagination. What did we do? We rounded them all up and put them on reservations, but you don't hear American Indians protesting for their own state which they would deserve as their right. It's about time the Zionist movement were label what is rightly is. What I hate is when the RACE card is played by ignorant, illiterate, thickheaded, narrowminded, un-edumacated hacks like you, sir. You're the one who shouldn't be playing the race card when you don't know what you're talking about and accusing an ethnically mixed person such as myself as being a racist. See, Mr. Armed Liberal it's people like you, the product of a public school education that is the first to call an honest person racist. It pisses me off to no end that people like you should be allowed to live and breed and produce more armed liberal, ignorant sheep. I erred, the timeline I posted was from an Arab Palestinian group.....yes, even Arabs can be unbiased when it comes to their own history.....you'd think they'd know one way or the other. In my experience, anti-zionism always hided anti-semitism. It's only the same thing called with another name. I replyed, in my previous post, with FACTS and you didn't answered to one single statement. The facts that you pretend to quote, are quoted in a distorted way. -In your little narrow mind the equation is Arab=Palestinian. What about the Palestinian Jews? According to the UN gave in 1947, a Palestinian is ANY person that lived in Palestine for a minimun of two years before 1947. So are Palestinians immigrated Jews, Syrians, Lebaneses, Jordans that also immigrated in Palestine. -Zionism is not racism. Only Communists and Arabs have such a view. It's a RESPONSE to RACISM of two kind: antisemitism inducted by the Christians (religious) and inducted by the Marxists (political). If the pogroms wouldn't have taken place, now there wouldn't be any Israel. -Your onesideness don't consider the excessive use of the force that the Arabs tried to use in the attempt not to give a land to Arab Palestinians but to exterminate Jews and to "throw them in the sea" not once, but 4 times in 50 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 5:25:17 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Israel was established on May 14, 1948. Five Arab armies , coming to the aid of the Palestinians , immediately attacked it. Uncoordinated and outnumbered, they were defeated by Israeli forces. The Arab armies were outnumbered? That sounds like revisionist history trying to make excuses for a humiliating defeat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 6:11:39 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: In my experience, anti-zionism always hided anti-semitism. It's only the same thing called with another name. I replyed, in my previous post, with FACTS and you didn't answered to one single statement. The facts that you pretend to quote, are quoted in a distorted way. -In your little narrow mind the equation is Arab=Palestinian. What about the Palestinian Jews? According to the UN gave in 1947, a Palestinian is ANY person that lived in Palestine for a minimun of two years before 1947. So are Palestinians immigrated Jews, Syrians, Lebaneses, Jordans that also immigrated in Palestine. -Zionism is not racism. Only Communists and Arabs have such a view. It's a RESPONSE to RACISM of two kind: antisemitism inducted by the Christians (religious) and inducted by the Marxists (political). If the pogroms wouldn't have taken place, now there wouldn't be any Israel. -Your onesideness don't consider the excessive use of the force that the Arabs tried to use in the attempt not to give a land to Arab Palestinians but to exterminate Jews and to "throw them in the sea" not once, but 4 times in 50 years. If Anti-Zionism equates to Anti-Semitism then the world is steadily turning Anti-Semitic again. Reference this years NGO conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa. Why don't you also do some research into the language Zionists use and the policies they enforced in Palestine. Maybe you'd feel different if the state of Israel was mandated in YOUR COUNTRY, I understand you are from South America......Isn't it ironic that they'd consider Argentina as the State of Israel. Would you have stood idly by while the Jews took your home and gave it to Jewish families all with the mandate of the UN? Point #1. How is it "narrowminded" to acknowledge the right for the Palestinian Arabs to have their own state? Would the Israeli Jews want to be Jewish members of a Palestinian state? NO. I never said Palestinian = Arabs, you are making shit up. I say and will say again, Palestine is a historic region made of Arabs, Jews and Christians. What part of that don't you understand? You're putting words in my mouth that I never said. Do not try that shit on me. Point #2. The sad truth is that over a century after its founding, zionism seems to be grander and more honorable than its reality. Arabs have suffered from Zionism's belligerence and exclusivity, and many have blamed the United States, and the West, for this because of their unshakeable support of zionism. Israeli aggression over the past seven months has finally renewed international recognition that zionism is racism. Point #3. Hey, if the Arab armies of the region want to push the Jewish military back into the sea with overwhelming force, then so be it. Alls fair in love in war. Where does it say that Israel must employ United States made weapons against the civilian population when they riot against the oppressive and restrictive policies that Israel measure against the civilian population with military force??? You sir, are a fool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 6:29:00 AM EDT
[#31]
No disrespect intended Smeg, but I find your opinions/views rather disappointing. You present yourself as if you have the knowledge and the intelligence to distingwish between reality and falicy, but your are displaying productivity that represents otherwise. Zionism is not racism, and the Israelis have a right to call Isreal (or the land its on) their own. Your views are a bit too far to the extreme (in what direction,its hard to tell?), in my opinion.
JRB |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 6:35:20 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Did you know, f'rinstance, that the Muslims, for almost two years (622-624 AD), prayed toward Jerusalem in an effort to win over the Jews? When it failed, they went back to praying toward Mecca! Now that's something I did not know! Eric The(AndIThoughtIKnewEverything!)Hun[>]:)] Don't mean to say "I told you so" BUT I told you so. That is actually a rather insignificant illustration of the greater point to be made - which is this: In between the Jews and the Muslims, there PLENTY of blame to go around on BOTH sides. Neither side wants peace. They ALL want to kill the other sides innocents. And there is scant little reason we, as Americans, should be allying ourselves with EITHER side. The ONLY possible worse policy than allying with one side or the other, is to ally with BOTH sides, alternating back in forth, which is pretty much the short version of what American Mid-eastern policy has been over the last 100 years or so. garand(TheyAre[b]ALL[/b]aBunchaDirtbags)man |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 6:54:08 AM EDT
[#33]
Originally Posted By JRB L1A1: No disrespect intended Smeg, but I find your opinions/views rather disappointing. You present yourself as if you have the knowledge and the intelligence to distingwish between reality and falicy, but your are displaying productivity that represents otherwise. Zionism is not racism, and the Israelis have a right to call Isreal (or the land its on) their own. Your views are a bit too far to the extreme (in what direction,its hard to tell?), in my opinion. JRB JRB, no offense taken, none will be returned. If you know who Rrotz is at the FALfile then you might see similarities in views to him and I because we are one in the same. I have the knowledge and intelligence to have an opinion of my own and back it up with facts which is more than can be said for those who want to make up fantasy. Garandman, you are SPOT ON! Our policies in the Middle East is a direct cause to the problems we are having today and atrocious loss of life lost in the WTC. I say take away all the weapons and ammo we've supplied to the Israeli's and let them throw stones at each other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:00:45 AM EDT
[#34]
Originally Posted By JRB L1A1: Zionism is not racism.... JRB WOW. GOTTA disagree with this one. Read "Letters of the Learned Elders of Zion" (I'm pretty sure that the right title) and learn what REAL racism is all about. Goyim = gentile dogs. Which is pretty much the WORST insult available within Zionist circles. In summary, the Zionist hates ****** EVERY ***** race BUT the Jewish race. Americans who dislike blacks PALE in comparison to Zionists racial hatred. "Letters" is actually writings by the Zionists themselves, about Zionist beleifs and world goals. It is NOT an anti-Semitic smear, cuz it was WRITTEN by Jews about Zionism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:04:36 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: If Anti-Zionism equates to Anti-Semitism then the world is steadily turning Anti-Semitic again. Reference this years NGO conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa. Why don't you also do some research into the language Zionists use and the policies they enforced in Palestine. Maybe you'd feel different if the state of Israel was mandated in YOUR COUNTRY, I understand you are from South America......Isn't it ironic that they'd consider Argentina as the State of Israel. Would you have stood idly by while the Jews took your home and gave it to Jewish families all with the mandate of the UN? Point #1. How is it "narrowminded" to acknowledge the right for the Palestinian Arabs to have their own state? Would the Israeli Jews want to be Jewish members of a Palestinian state? NO. I never said Palestinian = Arabs, you are making shit up. I say and will say again, Palestine is a historic region made of Arabs, Jews and Christians. What part of that don't you understand? You're putting words in my mouth that I never said. Do not try that shit on me. Point #2. The sad truth is that over a century after its founding, zionism seems to be grander and more honorable than its reality. Arabs have suffered from Zionism's belligerence and exclusivity, and many have blamed the United States, and the West, for this because of their unshakeable support of zionism. Israeli aggression over the past seven months has finally renewed international recognition that zionism is racism. Point #3. Hey, if the Arab armies of the region want to push the Jewish military back into the sea with overwhelming force, then so be it. Alls fair in love in war. Where does it say that Israel must employ United States made weapons against the civilian population when they riot against the oppressive and restrictive policies that Israel measure against the civilian population with military force??? You sir, are a fool. So, when Israel use all the weapon in war is "excessive use of the force, when Arabs try to exterminate Jew, or (I guess)when they send kamikaze to kill civilians everything is legitimate. This explain very much about your mentality. The Durban conference didn't state that Zionist is racism. There was an attempt made by the Arab countries. Would you consider to stop the war in Afghanistan if the UN (that has many members that denies democracy and look to USA with ostility) order to Bush to stop it? Durban was a conference held for noble purposes and turned by the Arabs (the biggest traders of slaves in the past) in a antisemitic conference. Ah yes, I was about to forget, if the Jews shouldn't fight with USA made weapons(and they didn't for a lot of time) maybe I should say that Arabs shouldn't fight with USSR made weapons. By the way, Italy is not in Argentina. You don't need to study only history but also geography. Or you have a distorted perception of the reality, or you are an arrogant liar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:13:06 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Originally Posted By JRB L1A1: Zionism is not racism.... JRB WOW. GOTTA disagree with this one. Read "Letters of the Learned Elders of Zion" (I'm pretty sure that the right title) and learn what REAL racism is all about. Goyim = gentile dogs. Which is pretty much the WORST insult available within Zionist circles. In summary, the Zionist hates ****** EVERY ***** race BUT the Jewish race. Americans who dislike blacks PALE in comparison to Zionists racial hatred. "Letters" is actually writings by the Zionists themselves, about Zionist beleifs and world goals. It is NOT an anti-Semitic smear, cuz it was WRITTEN by Jews about Zionism. The letters are a FAKE produced by the Zarist Police to justify pogroms. Goyim means = peoples. Can be regarded as "Gentile" in good or bad acception, depending if is saying that is racist or not, like "Jew" can be said in a bad or good way, depending who is saying it is Nazi or not. Garandman, I still waiting to read a post on the "Israel" issue based on facts (your sister in law apart...) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:20:28 AM EDT
[#37]
Dateline Durban: Durban Update: Final Declaration Recognizes Palestinian Right of Return; Omits Language Critical of Israel September 8, 2001, Durban — The World Conference Against Racism ran a full day beyond its scheduled conclusion on September 7 and ended with the adoption of a "compromise" proposal on the Middle East reached between the European Union and Arab countries and facilitated by South Africa. At the final plenary session, Arab delegates led by Syria and Pakistan sought to add three paragraphs of the earlier anti-Israel language that had prompted the U.S. and Israel to abandon the conference. South African Foreign Minister Zuma, chair of the conference, appealed to government delegates to conclude with a consensus declaration and to "focus on not doing anything to cause this conference to collapse." In an acrimonious debate, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara was determined to add language accusing Israel’s "foreign occupation" of giving rise to racism. Brazil offered a "motion of no action" requesting that, having reached a compromise on the Middle East, delegates move forward to accept the declaration and leave aside paragraphs on which they were unable to agree. The motion was approved by a vote of 51-38. Voting against this motion were Arab and Muslim states and others that sought to include anti-Israel language, and the South African delegate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:26:27 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By JRB L1A1: Zionism is not racism.... JRB WOW. GOTTA disagree with this one. Read "Letters of the Learned Elders of Zion" (I'm pretty sure that the right title) and learn what REAL racism is all about. Goyim = gentile dogs. Which is pretty much the WORST insult available within Zionist circles. In summary, the Zionist hates ****** EVERY ***** race BUT the Jewish race. Americans who dislike blacks PALE in comparison to Zionists racial hatred. "Letters" is actually writings by the Zionists themselves, about Zionist beleifs and world goals. It is NOT an anti-Semitic smear, cuz it was WRITTEN by Jews about Zionism. The letters are a FAKE produced by the Zarist Police to justify pogroms. Goyim means = peoples. Can be regarded as "Gentile" in good or bad acception, depending if is saying that is racist or not, like "Jew" can be said in a bad or good way, depending who is saying it is Nazi or not. Garandman, I still waiting to read a post on the "Israel" issue based on facts (your sister in law apart...) Paolo, if you want to be an Israeli apologist.......that's your business. I'd be wise to know what you are backing up before opening your fat cake hole. Oh, I forgot.....Italy was once a Facist dictatorship and one of Hitlers biggest ass kissers. So, I hear Musolinni is making a trendy return to fashion among Italians, what side of the fence are you on there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:26:45 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Dateline Durban: Durban Update: Final Declaration Recognizes Palestinian Right of Return; Omits Language Critical of Israel September 8, 2001, Durban — The World Conference Against Racism ran a full day beyond its scheduled conclusion on September 7 and ended with the adoption of a "compromise" proposal on the Middle East reached between the European Union and Arab countries and facilitated by South Africa. At the final plenary session, Arab delegates led by Syria and Pakistan sought to add three paragraphs of the earlier anti-Israel language that had prompted the U.S. and Israel to abandon the conference. South African Foreign Minister Zuma, chair of the conference, appealed to government delegates to conclude with a consensus declaration and to "focus on not doing anything to cause this conference to collapse." In an acrimonious debate, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara was determined to add language accusing Israel’s "foreign occupation" of giving rise to racism. Brazil offered a "motion of no action" requesting that, having reached a compromise on the Middle East, delegates move forward to accept the declaration and leave aside paragraphs on which they were unable to agree. The motion was approved by a vote of 51-38. Voting against this motion were Arab and Muslim states and others that sought to include anti-Israel language, and the South African delegate. Ok... Where is the statement that says "Zionism is a form of racism" or something like that? I don't see it... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:29:51 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Quoted: Dateline Durban: Durban Update: Final Declaration Recognizes Palestinian Right of Return; Omits Language Critical of Israel September 8, 2001, Durban — The World Conference Against Racism ran a full day beyond its scheduled conclusion on September 7 and ended with the adoption of a "compromise" proposal on the Middle East reached between the European Union and Arab countries and facilitated by South Africa. At the final plenary session, Arab delegates led by Syria and Pakistan sought to add three paragraphs of the earlier anti-Israel language that had prompted the U.S. and Israel to abandon the conference. South African Foreign Minister Zuma, chair of the conference, appealed to government delegates to conclude with a consensus declaration and to "focus on not doing anything to cause this conference to collapse." In an acrimonious debate, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara was determined to add language accusing Israel’s "foreign occupation" of giving rise to racism. Brazil offered a "motion of no action" requesting that, having reached a compromise on the Middle East, delegates move forward to accept the declaration and leave aside paragraphs on which they were unable to agree. The motion was approved by a vote of 51-38. Voting against this motion were Arab and Muslim states and others that sought to include anti-Israel language, and the South African delegate. Ok... Where is the statement that says "Zionism is a form of racism" or something like that? I don't see it... What, are you blind as well as illiterate? It says those words were taken out as a compromise because the US and Israel pulled out of the conference and left the rest of the delegates high and dry with an Arab delegation that had a legitimate beef. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:30:06 AM EDT
[#41]
In case anyone is interested, here's a link ([url]http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/ProtocolsHistory.html[/url]) to a site with a story of how the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" were allegedly fabricated.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:34:49 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Garandman, I still waiting to read a post on the "Israel" issue based on facts (your sister in law apart...) My sister-in-laws accoutn is EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY as to Isreali prohibition of non-Judaism proseltyzing. If you don't beleive eye-witness accounts, what more can I say to you. Probably even God Himself couldn't convince you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:37:21 AM EDT
[#43]
Reintroducing "Zionism is racism." UN secretary-general Kofi Annan has said that even with the repeal of the "lamentable" resolution equating Zionism with racism, "deep and painful scars remain," and "its negative resonance even today is difficult to overestimate." But now the conference stands poised to reintroduce the "Zionism is racism" theme into the international human rights debate: "The World Conference recognizes with deep concern the increase of racist practices of Zionism, anti-Semitism (sic) in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular, the Zionist movement which is based on racial superiority." Buttressing this language are calls for "Israel to revise its legislation based on racial or religious discrimination such as the law of return," and for "all relevant UN organs to endeavor to bring the foreign occupation of Jerusalem by Israel together with all its racist practices to an end." It bears noting that in the draft documents, no other country in the world is condemned by name for any violation of human rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:43:40 AM EDT
[#44]
For The Record Number 81 6 September 2001 Abdelwahab El-Massiri, professor emeritus at Ain Shams University, Cairo, and Phyllis Bennis, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, discussed Zionism, racism, and U.S. policy toward the Middle East at the Center on 30 August 2001. El-Massiri argued that in the U.S., "there are certain premises, certain cognitive maps in our minds" that are used as the backdrop for discussion on the Middle East. The Jewish experience is seen as the primary frame of reference. For example, the 1917 Balfour Declaration, advocating a Jewish homeland in Palestine, refers to "90 percent of the population of Palestine . . . as non-Jewish communities." This "cognitive map" affects U.S. policy toward the Middle East. When policymakers refer to Palestinians, their approach becomes "pragmatic." They argue that Palestinians should settle elsewhere, accept what economic aid they may receive, and be content. But when U.S. policymakers refer to the Jewish relationship to Israel, they speak about an "ancestral homeland." At the "center of the discourse there is an organic metaphor that sees [a] certain inevitability of union between the Jew and the 'promised land'." Nonetheless, Zionism is "not a Jewish phenomenon. . . . Zionist thought was fully formulated" by non-Jews and even anti-Semites. This "sheds light" on the creation of Zionism-it is "actually a scheme to rid Europe of its Jews." When Arthur James Balfour was prime minister, he sponsored an act to prevent Jews from immigrating to England and later supported their immigration to Palestine through the declaration named after him. Balfour "admitted" that he was an "anti-Semite, that he hated Jews." He referred to Jews as a "'burden to western civilization.'" Moreover, El-Massiri pointed out, "the only member of the Lloyd George cabinet . . . to protest against" the Balfour Declaration was the one Jewish member, Edwin Montagu. Jews did not begin to support Zionism until the end of the nineteenth century. At its heart, Zionism "is a western phenomenon. And we can understand it within the discourse of settler colonialism" in which "a block of people is transferred from Europe to somewhere else." The language used vis-à-vis Zionism is "typical of nineteenth century imperialist discourse." A country solves its problems "by exporting them." Therefore, "if you have 'surplus Jews', as they were referred to, then you export them." The colonialists are transferred to the new location with the "full awareness" that the move involves expelling people who live there. As one of the leading founders of Israel and the state's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion acknowledged: "'We are the aggressors. The land is theirs [the Arabs']. They are living in it. We come and take it from them.'" As to the racism that exists within Jewish Zionism, El-Massiri said that "all societies have racial discrimination." However, countries generally attempt to protect against racism through their laws. "The distinctness of Zionist racism is the following: that [the] category 'Jew' is a legal category." Under the laws of the Jewish National Fund, "the land of Israel is owned by the Jewish people, it cannot be owned except by the Jewish people, it cannot be sold to non-Jews, they cannot rent it, they cannot work on it." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:43:43 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Dateline Durban: Durban Update: Final Declaration Recognizes Palestinian Right of Return; Omits Language Critical of Israel September 8, 2001, Durban — The World Conference Against Racism ran a full day beyond its scheduled conclusion on September 7 and ended with the adoption of a "compromise" proposal on the Middle East reached between the European Union and Arab countries and facilitated by South Africa. At the final plenary session, Arab delegates led by Syria and Pakistan sought to add three paragraphs of the earlier anti-Israel language that had prompted the U.S. and Israel to abandon the conference. South African Foreign Minister Zuma, chair of the conference, appealed to government delegates to conclude with a consensus declaration and to "focus on not doing anything to cause this conference to collapse." In an acrimonious debate, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara was determined to add language accusing Israel’s "foreign occupation" of giving rise to racism. Brazil offered a "motion of no action" requesting that, having reached a compromise on the Middle East, delegates move forward to accept the declaration and leave aside paragraphs on which they were unable to agree. The motion was approved by a vote of 51-38. Voting against this motion were Arab and Muslim states and others that sought to include anti-Israel language, and the South African delegate. Ok... Where is the statement that says "Zionism is a form of racism" or something like that? I don't see it... What, are you blind as well as illiterate? It says those words were taken out as a compromise because the US and Israel pulled out of the conference and left the rest of the delegates high and dry with an Arab delegation that had a legitimate beef. I'm with Paolo on this one- all I see is Arabs with a long standing animosity to Israel wanting to push their agenda, and being unsuccessful. Just because they want it be perceived that way (in South Africa, of all places...) doesn't mean it *is* that way. Who's apologizing for who here, Smeg...? I also had to comment on your earlier statement implying that if you're of mixed ethnicity, you somehow can't be a racist (or by implication biased or bigoted)... wrong! Your statement was: What I hate is when the RACE card is played by ignorant, illiterate, thickheaded, narrowminded, un-edumacated hacks like you, sir. You're the one who shouldn't be playing the race card when you don't know what you're talking about and accusing an ethnically mixed person such as myself as being a racist. Not letting emotion distort facts now, are we? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:44:40 AM EDT
[#46]
Bennis began by addressing how the U.S. has responded to the UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. The U.S. decision not to send Secretary of State Colin Powell to the conference because of the debate about Zionism's links to racism is not surprising, she said. This decision highlighted two key points: (1) The "United States continues to view itself as bound not by international law," although it holds all other countries to it, "but by a law of empire that applies only to the United States." (2) The "commitment of U.S. policy" to provide support to Israel "trumps whatever claims it would like to make to the world, true or false, about its commitment to fighting racism." Bennis argued that "it's a serious problem that the conference is not going to take up in a full way . . . issues of a whole host of racist practices around the world." Singling out Israel is not "appropriate." It is not the only country with racist practices, even if it is high on the list. Unfortunately, "the intensity of the U.S. opposition . . . [has] given an excuse to diminish all of these other serious questions of racism" as well. The argument that "Zionism equals racism is a sloppy formulation." The issue is more complex; "it's not solely racism." Bennis concurred with El-Massiri that "Zionism is essentially [an] issue of settler colonialism." Like all settler colonialist projects, she continued, it is "thoroughly racist, but it is not only racist." There are "absolutely important parallels" between racism and Zionism and apartheid South Africa and Israel, but "there are vast differences as well." Despite the discrimination Palestinians experience, Americans do not even know that Israel is militarily occupying Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. "And that's why I'm not thrilled that the debate over Zionism and racism is emerging the way it is, because I don't think it is something that most Americans can grasp." U.S. citizens are not simply ignorant, but "mis-educated." They "not only don't know the history, but they think they know everything they need to know." They believe "Israel is like us, Israel is a democracy, the Palestinians are terrorists." These beliefs are "fundamental" and "infuse[d]" in the culture. In order to challenge the inaccurate perceptions Americans hold, activists must say "we stand against occupation and for equal rights. . . . [T]hat's a way of talking that people can begin to come to grips with even in the midst of this propaganda war." They must explain "how discrimination looks" on a daily basis. Discussion on how to implement a cease-fire and the Mitchell report "is nonsense because it doesn't address occupation." It is not realistic to insist on stopping violence before negotiating an end to the occupation. The occupation must end first. Bennis referred to a report issued by the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom after the bombing at an Israeli pizzeria a couple of weeks ago. They wrote: "'The occupation is killing all of us. It's killing Palestinians, and it's killing Israeli Jews.'" The above text is based on remarks delivered on 30 August 2001 by Abdelwahab El-Massiri, Professor Emeritus at Ain Shams University, Cairo, and Phyllis Bennis, Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Their views do not necessarily reflect those of CPAP or The Jerusalem Fund. This event was co-sponsored with the American Muslims for Jerusalem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:48:21 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Garandman, I still waiting to read a post on the "Israel" issue based on facts (your sister in law apart...) My sister-in-laws accoutn is EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY as to Isreali prohibition of non-Judaism proseltyzing. If you don't beleive eye-witness accounts, what more can I say to you. Probably even God Himself couldn't convince you. First of all I don't believe in God. Second, I believe in eyewitness, especially if the witness is ME. And, with me travelling in Israel for the last four years, I didn't see anything against proselitism coming from the Israeli govt. (not yet...) but only from a minorance of people. Then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2001 7:54:24 AM EDT
[#48]
The Egyptian press is still publishing articles denying that there was an Holocaust during WWII...
When I will see Arabs newspaper really free and Arab politics making autocritic like I see in the secular press in Israel and USA, then I will start to believe in what they wrote. Smedgehead, I undertand that you are too high leveled person to talk with me, a common mortal, so take a pin and punch yourself. A loss of gas from your brain can help to put your feet back on the ground where you live... Shalom |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
