Way to end the Arabs - Jewish conflict

Arabs are descendants of the Ishmael, a son of Avraam.

Avraam did send Ishmael away to avoid conflicts, to give the lands of Israel to his son Iczhak.

I think, it was a mistake. Descendants of two brothers from one father could live away with each other.

The way to resolve the today conflict is for each Arab to decide, is he a son of Avraam. If one feels he belongs to the Avraam descendants, he may live in Israel under his own authority. If one feels he doesn't belong here, he shall leave the Israel in peace and move to live somewhere else.

No one has no right to the lands of Israel exept Jewish. No other states exept the state of Israel may be present on these lands.

You have your lands, Jewish have Israel.

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Colonel Bill]

Fighting over the land is stupid. And trying to mediate over such a stupid conflict is just as stupid. At this point it's all about principle and racism. Each looks at the other with disgust. Purely a waste of energy.

Originally posted by Colonel Bill
No one has no right to the lands of Israel exept Jewish. No other states exept the state of Israel may be present on these lands.

How about the Chrisitans?
The land is holy to them.

Also, how about the descendants of the Kenites, Amorites, Hittites and Canaanites who all lived there before the Jews?

Here is an idea to stop the conflict. Believe that god exist and that he will punish the wicked.

How can the three branches of the same religion fight over naming rights to a piece of desert land for thousands of years, and still believe that they are faithful to God?

No one has any right to land.

With that said, land usually belongs to the last group who successfully killed a bunch of other people for it.

I mean, if we're talking about who has a right to certain areas, I would say that the Native Americans deserve North America back...


As to the Israeli-Arab situation: I suggest a single, unified state, with a evenly mixed Jewish-Arab government, which elects, from within itself, a Prime Minister, to break ties. Also, a united populace of Jews and Palestinians armed with the determination to stop anyone not interested in peace.
One government. One State. One populace.

So long as we insist on division, there will be.



*edit: for grammar.


[edit on 5-4-2005 by quango]

Short of one side successfully exterminating the other I don't think peace is feasible.

Colonel Bill,

But what about if someone doesn't belief in what the Bible or Torah say?

Blobber

Col Bill,

"No one has no right to the lands of Israel exept Jewish. No other states exept the state of Israel may be present on these lands. "

Why?

Cheers

BHR

Give the Holy Land back to the Turks! They governed that land for centuries. I believe they should have it. How about The French and British descendants of the Crusader Kings? Maybe Macedonia should have that land as Alexanders general Seleucus the first was a Macedonian by birth and he ruled that land for a few generations. New Kingdom Egypt, Ancient Assyria, Ancient Babylon, Persian and Median Empire,, Ptolemaic Egypt, Frankish Crusaders, Egyptian Saracens, British Imperial forces after The Great War. The Ottoman empire, The Canannites, Hyksos Egypt nearly conquered it, Alexander's Greek Empire, The Romans and Eastern Romans known as the Byzantines controlled it for centuries, Islamic Empire under the Caliphs, Ummayad Caliphate of Egypt.

Many people have controlled that land! But of no question to any serious historian the Hebrews have had the longest and most permanent posession of Eretz Israel. But does the length of time a people has occupied a land make a difference?

No. Well maybe but mostly not. I'll explain.

We all know that ownership is 90% posession. If you have it then it is yours. If someone wants it let them try to take it. If they fail repeatedly then it is officially yours.

Regardless of how the Jews came to being in that land they are their now on a piece of land smalled then New Jersey and the Arabs have a little bit more then the Jews so I think the Arabs should just be content to be spread much farther away from their ancestral homeland of Arabia already from Morocco to Iraq.

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by Colonel Bill
No one has no right to the lands of Israel exept Jewish. No other states exept the state of Israel may be present on these lands.

How about the Chrisitans?
The land is holy to them.

Also, how about the descendants of the Kenites, Amorites, Hittites and Canaanites who all lived there before the Jews?

>How about the Chrisitans?
The land is holy to them.

You can take the Jesus coffin and pray to him anywhere else.

You can come to visit the places where he walked. I like people visiting Israel.

You can pray in the Israel where your churches are, who cares.

Just in case you are not interested, I can explain to you why Jewish didn't accept Jesus. The God of Jesus was entirely different and opposite to the God of Tora. Why else would they reject him after so many miracles. And an interesting question arises, will real God give real Satan fake miracles as it is stated in the Appocalipsis profecy.


>Also, how about the descendants of the Kenites, Amorites, Hittites and Canaanites who all lived there before the Jews?

If they come to claim their rights it will be discussed. To my best knowledge, ressurection isn't planned for the near future. And should it be planned, it wouldn't be a problem. Those people has conqured those lands from someone too.

It is entirely unimportant that it was God, who gave the lands of Israel to the Jewish. Jewish state did existed on these lands for thouthands of years. The rein was stopped by conquest. The conquest was stopped by conquest and resurrection of the state of Israel. If Arabs conduct terror conquest, they shall be thrown out. If Arab feels he is a descendant of Avraam he is welcome to live here under his own authority, yet not in his own state.

You may wonder, how one can know he is a descendant. It cannot be traced who are descendants and who came from other lines. I believe God will give the feeling to the ones.

I must add. I don't think that a creature that thinks he is a God is a God. It's just another being given some abilities, anyone else could get them instead of him. And both with it, you can never know how it all did began. Maybe it was just that being that stood at the beginning. Somehow he is a God now.

Originally posted by verfed
Give the Holy Land back to the Turks! They governed that land for centuries. I believe they should have it. How about The French and British descendants of the Crusader Kings? Maybe Macedonia should have that land as Alexanders general Seleucus the first was a Macedonian by birth and he ruled that land for a few generations. New Kingdom Egypt, Ancient Assyria, Ancient Babylon, Persian and Median Empire,, Ptolemaic Egypt, Frankish Crusaders, Egyptian Saracens, British Imperial forces after The Great War. The Ottoman empire, The Canannites, Hyksos Egypt nearly conquered it, Alexander's Greek Empire, The Romans and Eastern Romans known as the Byzantines controlled it for centuries, Islamic Empire under the Caliphs, Ummayad Caliphate of Egypt.

Many people have controlled that land! But of no question to any serious historian the Hebrews have had the longest and most permanent posession of Eretz Israel. But does the length of time a people has occupied a land make a difference?

No. Well maybe but mostly not. I'll explain.

We all know that ownership is 90% posession. If you have it then it is yours. If someone wants it let them try to take it. If they fail repeatedly then it is officially yours.

Regardless of how the Jews came to being in that land they are their now on a piece of land smalled then New Jersey and the Arabs have a little bit more then the Jews so I think the Arabs should just be content to be spread much farther away from their ancestral homeland of Arabia already from Morocco to Iraq.

You left out the most important people with the longest reign of all of them combined, the phoenicians. Is it important that the phoenicians lived in the same time periods as the supposed Israel did in the bible? Does it matter that the ancient land of Israel only exist in a book? There are no actual solid proof that there ever was a country called Israel in ancient times. Does it matter that they gave the hebrews, romans, greeks their start to their alphabet?

Nah, let's just go with the make believe stories and the myths and continue killing each other over a god forsaken land, why stop tradition? Let's continue with the killings until we are all dead?

That land be holy to many, Jews and Muslims, it should be shared. Dividing that land, you create conflict. I'd say combine Israel and Palestine into a new country. Led by Liberals who have zero knowledge on religion so they don't go biased.

Well, if God came down and said "look you idiots, this is what I meant", it sure would solve things, wouldn't it?

Makes you wonder what's keeping him....

I know! I know!

Does it matter that the ancient land of Israel only exist in a book?

Whoa! Whoa! What history books are you reading? The connnection of Eretz Israel to the Hebrews has been well documented throughout history.

The Phoenicians had very good relations with the Hebrews. The Assyrians ruled a massive empire across the Fertile Crescent and they conquered Israel the Northern Hebrew Kingdom during the split kingdom era. You don't need a bible to read about the Assyrian conquests.

Here is a list of Assyrian kings who had contact with the Hebrews:

Shalmaneser III (858-824 B.C.)
Shamshi-Adad V (823-811 B.C.)
Adad-Nirari III (810-783 B.C.)
Shalmaneser IV (782-773 B.C.)
Ashur-dan III (772-755 B.C.)
Ashur-Nirari V (754-745 B.C.)
Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 B.C.)
Shalmaneser V (726-722 B.C.)
Sargon III (721-705 B.C.)
Sennacherib (704-681 B.C.)
Esarhaddon (680-669 B.C.)
Ashurbanipal (668-633 B.C.)
Ashur-eti-ilani (632-629 B.C.)
Sin-shum-lishir (628-624 B.C.)
Sin-shar-ishkum (623-612 B.C.)
Ashur-uballit (611-608 B.C.)

The Babylonians conquered Judah the Southern Hebrew Kingdom. That is well documented in the history of the Babylonians.

Of course their is also Alexander's relations with the Hebrew during his campaign. Then Antiochus III a descendant of Alexander's Diadochi who was defeated in Asia Minor by the Romans came down all angry and decided to take it out on the Jews whom were already conquered.

The Maccabis are not even in the bible. But their victory over the Antiochus III is a known fact of history. That was 164b.c.

And you cannot leave out the Destruction of the second temple by Titus in 70ad. Roman history is undeniable and we can still see evidence of the Roman destruction and subsequent diaspora of the Hebrews all over the world. There is a massive arch in Rome that was erected to celebrate the Roman victory over the Jews. This arch still stand today! You can touch it yourself!

note the Romans carrying away the temple menorah

To dispute the Jews ancient connection to the Holy Land will get you laughed out of every major center of learning. Any serious historian will point and laugh at your ignorance.

Roman arches prove that ancient Israel existed at one time? There are arches through out the region, there are roman buildings through out the region. A menorah? Are you sure that is not just a candle holder?

Ridicule is the only way the the naysayers can discredit a person. The history that they espouse do not jibe, meaning that the Phoenician culture and the supposed Ancient Israel over lap each other.

While you can find plenty of evidence that the Phoenician exist, alphabet for eg..., where is the proof for ancient Israel.

Showing me a Roman arch is not going to discredit actual history. Sorry.

Ridicule away, that will not change my opinion.

Verfed,

I have seen the Arch of Titus in the stone so to speak and it is quite impressive.

Back to this thread though.

I have had this thought for many years that the Holy Lands of the Middle East should be governed by the UN for the benefit of all mankind, sort of like what is done in Antarctica. Before anyone jumps on me I know that is not an exact analogy but I used it simply to make a point.

Make the Holy Lands a place of freedom for all.

No one religion dominant over another.

Sound like a plan?

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by BillHicksRules

I have had this thought for many years that the Holy Lands of the Middle East should be governed by the UN for the benefit of all mankind, sort of like what is done in Antarctica.

The original plan was for Jerusalem to be under International control instead of under control by either the Arabs or the Jews.

This was the case in the 1937 partition plan and the 1947 partition plan although the 1947 partition had a much smaller area for the International mandate.


1937 Palestine Partition plan
www.mideastweb.org...


1947 Palestine Partition plan


[edit on 6-4-2005 by AceOfBase]

Ace,

Do you think we should go down this road now?

Cheers

BHR

All of these partition plans were planned by people who have no link to the lands. Were the inhabitants consulted and asked about their opinion on some other group taking their land? No.

It's colonialism and it won't last.

ICWS,

I think you will find that the objectivity of those who inhabit the land is not what it could be.

Besides what does it matter to the average man in the street in Haifa or Tel Aviv where they pay their taxes too.

Surely if it can provide them with a bus system they can use without fear of being killed in a suicide bombing it is worth it?

Cheers

BHR