It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Way to end the Arabs - Jewish conflict

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I am rather disappointed that the lengthy terrorist campaign mounted by Jewish terrorists against the British before they left has been left out of this little potted history of how Israel came into being.

Maybe a highly selective memory is appropriate and an accurate retelling is just not the done thing when the side being the terrorists and committing the terrorist attacks is your own, hmmm?

Hands up who remembers the King David hotel attrocity and the innocents killed without a pause by those who went on to become 'statesmen' in the world?

Anyone care to name the ex-terrorist who went on to become Israeli Prime Minister?
The ex-terrorists perfectly acceptable at the Whitehouse and around the world, later?

Not much noise about 'WOT' or 'never negotiate or talk to terrorists' then, huh?

.....or is it all somehow just so different when it is Israelis we're talking about, hmmmm?

Hypocrisy isn't much of a way to settle things IMO.

[edit on 8-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]




posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I am rather disappointed that the lengthy terrorist campaign mounted by Jewish terrorists against the British before they left has been left out of this little potted history of how Israel came into being.

Hands up who remembers the King David hotel attrocity and the innocents killed without a pause by those who went on to become 'statesmen' in the world?

[edit on 8-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Your disappointment is meager compared to the disappointment faced by the Jews towards the British for failing to protect the Jews for whom they had promised a nation and security against dissident Arabs and other extremists. Before WW2 the Jews policy was of self-restraint but due to British Apathy towards providing security and renewed Arab aggression towards the Jews it became evident that the only course of action was to meet this aggression head on. Besides this the British actively encouraged the Arabs and instigated them to appease the Arabs. The Jews tired of centuries of struggle and fleeing were forced to make a stand in ' The Promised Land' and that stand was made unfortunately with violence, which the Jews as a whole do not advocate. The main aim of Jewish "rebels" was to respond effectively to Arab aggression and to its supporters. These people were fanatical and did on many an occasion use excessive force but they were not under the Jewish leadership of that time, rebels like the IRA, which similarly do not represent the whole of N.Ireland!
Sharon was a member of Squad 101 but so were many Israelis, their are extremist in every sphere it is not possible to "fake " neutrality for an extremist!

IAF
here are some more views on this :www.motherbird.com...

[edit on 8-4-2005 by IAF101]



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
You can dress it up however you like but that just reads as a predictable and fairly typical 'our terrorism was perfectly understandable and to a degree justified, unlike theirs'.

The fact remains innocents were slaughtered in persuit of political ends - which were in the process of being worked out. The 'plausible denial' and arms length nature of that terrorism does not impress me either.
It's simply typical, again.

(and we can see how 'outside' and a "fanatic" someone like Begin was when he later became Israeli PM, right?)

I see little difference between that and what Israel and the US complain about with the Palestinians.

Sorry.

As for relating this to the topic?
Like I said such blatent hypocrisy is no basis to sort the issue out.

[edit on 8-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
...........and renewed Arab aggression towards the Jews it became evident that the only course of action was to meet this aggression head on.


Hmm...........

Well, this philosophy has not worked well for most other nations who choose this course of action. Take Bush for example.

And where do you get 'British Apathy' from? Do a little more research on that 'Apathy'. You might find that 'British Apathy' was was a lot less apathetic than you claim. Basically, demands were made of the British without consideration of anything but the people making the demands. Selfishness and zelot greed were motivating factors of the British inaction.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Kid,

It was my understanding that the British left because the Arabs and the Jews made the area completely unmanageable. In the end we were glad to go.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   


It was my understanding that the British left because the Arabs and the Jews made the area completely unmanageable. In the end we were glad to go.


That is my understanding too.

Also BillHickRules I answered your question so what do you think.

Also Kidfinger when I said "no offence" that was a joke. Of course I meant offense because you came in here and completely changed the subject of the entire topic and what you started talking about was not a reality and against all human history. Also it was one of the most "hippie" like comments I have ever heard therefore I presumed you were like a or are a hippie.

That is why I said what I said about which forum you should be in Kidfinger.



Now sminkeypinkey



I am rather disappointed that the lengthy terrorist campaign mounted by Jewish terrorists against the British before they left has been left out of this little potted history of how Israel came into being.



Sminkey the British on May 17, 1939 halted Jewish immigration to Israel right when the Jews needed to leave Europe! How many Jews could have escaped the gas chambers if the British would have let Jewish immigration to continue?

Prior to the War of Independence the British confiscated the Haganah's weapons ( Israel's pre-statehood underground military) right when the Tzahal (the newly formed Israeli Defence Forces) needed them the most against the invading Arab armies.

Also how is it possible to commit a terrorist act against a 100,000 man strong British Army garrison? A de-facto state of war existed between the British and Israel.

The British were the main arms suppliers to the Aabs during Israel's war of Independence.

The British disallowed Jewish immigration to Eretz Israel during the Jews darkest hour.

The British confiscated Israeli weapons during there most dire need by the Israeli Defence Forces.

The actions against the British were not terrorist acts but all out military attacks!

That said there were Jewish terrorist organizations such as the Lehi and Irgun terrorist factions who deliberately targeted Arabs in reprisals.

The State of Israel recognized those Jewish terrorist organizations as illegal and took action to rid Eretz Israel of Jewish terrorism. Meanwhile Arab terrorist organizations are recognized as legitimate political and military factions by the surrounding Arab countries.


[edit on 4/8/2005 by verfed]



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by verfed


It was my understanding that the British left because the Arabs and the Jews made the area completely unmanageable. In the end we were glad to go.


That is my understanding too.



Did I state anything to the contrary? No. But you are ignoring other events of the timeperiod. You are only seeing half the story.



Also Kidfinger when I said "no offence" that was a joke. Of course I meant offense because you came in here and completely changed the subject of the entire topic and what you started talking about was not a reality and against all human history. Also it was one of the most "hippie" like comments I have ever heard therefore I presumed you were like a or are a hippie.

That is why I said what I said about which forum you should be in Kidfinger.


So not only are you misinformed, but you are rude and condesending as well? Who ever would have thought


Look up Ad Homenim


Or better yet, just reread your post.


[edit on 4/8/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   
OK fine I take it back you're not a hippie. You just have opinions as have I.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by verfed
OK fine I take it back you're not a hippie. You just have opinions as have I.


Exactly. However, I believe you are basing your opinion on only half of the story. I'll give you a day or two and see if yopu can find the rest. If not, I will fill you in with the whole truth and give links as well to support my opinion.

I am not trying to flame you for your thoughts or ideas. I am adhering to the motto of this site. ' Deny Ignorance '. I just want my fellow ATS'r (that would be you) to know the whole story. I dont know if you are living in Isreal, or if you are just an Isreali supporter, or anything about your background. But I do know that you have studied the history abit from your previous post on this thread. However, you used a Non Sequiture argument to support Ad Misericordiam arguments in the Isrealis defence. Dig a little more. See what you can find..............I dbl dog dare you
(Now you have to
)


[edit on 4/9/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Well, this philosophy has not worked well for most other nations who choose this course of action. Take Bush for example.

When the people who promised to provide you with freedom from oppression and grant you security in a foreign land later 'back stab' you and actively encourage people to loot and slaughter you and your community, your options are closed and affirmative action being the only hope of survival even though this may be outside the law. At least Mr. Bush has the integrity to live up to his word in Iraq even though his popularity declines. At least America won't be judged as a nation that couldn't keep its word and sought to slaughter people under its protection!


Originally posted by Kidfinger
And where do you get 'British Apathy' from? Do a little more research on that 'Apathy'... Basically, demands were made of the British without consideration of anything but the people making the demands. Selfishness and zelot greed were motivating factors of the British inaction.


Again blanket propaganda to cover up for incompetence and ulterior motives is nothing new in our world. The communists in USSR were famous at it. What ever one does not wish to bother about or acts against ones standing as 'Justice personified' would be unreasonable even though thousands of people die and have left everything (life, property etc) behind in the hope of finally finding a land in which they need not fear persecution merely for being "JEWS". Little did they know that the British would resort to such perfidious claims while their actual attempt was to gain the stature of 'messiah' through this facade and maintain the shambles of their ‘empire’? Many Jewish lives would have been saved.

No, I suggest -you Kidfinger, to get to know about the 'holier than thee' British policy in the middle east, such policies and frequent politicking of putting one party against the other are traits that are most typical of British Colonial rule and it would have been led to chaos around the empire if WW2 hadn't taken place. Enlighten yourself of the Mc Donald White Paper of 1939 and the 'British Apathy' to live up to their word, thus losing face for the entire empire[British]. The only saving grace for the British was their withdrawal from Israel as soon as things began to get beyond their control, another trait that the British Colonial government exhibited widely. Infact Winston Churchill's personal hate for Jews was vented out during their League of Nations mandate for governing Israel.
Here are just some of the articles from the cornucopia of articles available for your education about British governance of Israel. DENY IGNORANCE!

British Betrayal
St. James Conference
www.eretzyisroel.org...
Isreali History
Forgotten History
I apologies if I tend to be a little bit offensive in some parts of my post but my intentions are well placed
. I hope you see this issue as the Israelis and Palestinians see it
. I do not live in Israel but have good contacts with many Israelis there.

[edit on 9-4-2005 by IAF101]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   


However, you used a Non Sequiture argument to support Ad Misericordiam arguments in the Isrealis defence. Dig a little more. See what you can find..............I dbl dog dare you


I don't understand kidfinger.


Also IAF101 what does the IAF stand for if I may ask?



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
OK, we obviously need a history lesson here.

Between 1805 and 1848, Muhammed Ali asserts egyptian indipendance from the Ottoman Empire.

Between 1914 and 1918, Germany and the Ottoman Empire form an alliance during WW 1. Due to this alliance and the resulting loss of the war, the Ottoman Empire is broken up into territories divided by Britsh and French rule. What is now modern day Turkey is able to defend the Greek invasion, allowing for them to be the only locally controlled territory of the former Ottoman Empire.

In 1916, a secret agreement called the Sykes-Picot agreement was made. The Sykes-Picot agreement between France and Britain secretly promises to divide Ottoman holdings in the Middle East between the nations.


Between July 1915 and March 1916, The White Paper, released by the British, placed severe limits on Jewish immigration into Palestine (This part is important, so pay attention.) and stated that the British government did not plan for Palestine to become a Jewish state.


Feb 8, 1922, Egypt gains its independence.

In 1932, Iraq and Saudi Arabia gain their independence.

In 1937, The Peel Commission, which was formed to look at the rising tensions in the middle east released their findings. The Peel Commission from Britain reports that great tension exists between Jews and Muslims and suggests a plan of partition for the region.


In 1941, Lebanon gains its independence.

In 1946, Jordan gains its independence.

In 1947, With the British mandate, a right to administer over the region of Palestine soon expiring, the UN proposes a plan of partition for the region, which would create both a Jewish state and an Arab state when the British mandate runs out.

In 1948, on May 14, I think, The State of Israel declares its independence immediately following the end of the British mandate. Immediately after that, the surrounding Arab nations invaded the new State of Israel. Following the war the Arab League placed an embargo, or prohibition against trading, on Israel

Between 1948 and 1949, Isreal was fighting a war in which they were vastly outnumbered agianst forces from the surrounding Arab nations, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Isreal with a little help is able to repel the attacks and actually make a land grab which extended greatly over the original UN partition plan before an armistice was signed.

In October and November of 1956, following breakdowns in talks with the Arab nations, and Egypt closing both the Suez Canal and the Strait of Tiran, Israel's access to the Red Sea, to Israeli shipping, Israel invaded Egypt. Israel quickly took control over Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula, and was aided by the French and the British who were angry with Egyptian President Abdel Nasser's handling of the Suez Canal. The UN, backed by the United States and the Soviet Union, ended the war and forced the invading nations to leave Egypt, but Israel only abandoned Gaza when the US promised to help keep the Strait of Tiran open.

This is all of the history lesson for now. Every bit of this can be verified on Wikpedia.

Now that I have presented a timeline that shows there was more to it than you think, maybe you two should try and accept that there is more to the story than you have admitted. You cant ignore the facts I have presented in the timeline.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
No, I suggest -you Kidfinger, to get to know about the 'holier than thee' British policy in the middle east, such policies and frequent politicking of putting one party against the other are traits that are most typical of British Colonial rule and it would have been led to chaos around the empire if WW2 hadn't taken place. Enlighten yourself of the Mc Donald White Paper of 1939 and the 'British Apathy' to live up to their word, thus losing face for the entire empire[British].


I really think you need to do dome more indepth research into this situation.
The British did not go back on their promise to the Jews because the British never promised to create a Jewish state in place of Palestine. It was to be within Palestine, alongside the Arabs.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION. (1922)

The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organisation, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of the peoples an undisturbed national development."


Here's another document from 1921:

AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE (1921)
The aspirations of these fourteen millions of people also have a right to be considered. They ask for the opportunity to establish a "home" in the land which was the political, and has always been the religious, centre of their race. They ask that this home should possess national characteristics--in language and customs, in intellectual interests, in religious and political institutions.

This is not to say that Jewish immigration is to involve Arab emigration, that the greater prosperity of the country, through the development of Jewish enterprises, is to be at the expense, and not to the benefit of the Arabs, that the use of Hebrew is to imply the disappearance of Arabic, that the establishment of elected Councils in the Jewish Community for the control of its affairs is to be followed by the subjection of the Arabs to the rule of those Councils. In a word, the degree to which Jewish national aspirations can be fulfilled in Palestine is conditioned by the rights of the present inhabitants.


Regarding the Sykes Picot agreement, that was being modified to work in favor of the Jewish homeland and it's presence was known prior to the Balfour Declaration:

www.mideastweb.org...

although Sir Mark Sykes, of the British Foreign Office, had himself negotiated this treaty with M. Georges Picot of the French Foreign Office, Sir Mark entered into negotiations with us, and gave us his fullest support, without even telling us of the existence of the tentative agreement! He was in effect, modifying his stand in our favour, seeking to revise the agreement so that our claims in Palestine might be given room. But it was not from him that we learned of the existence of the agreement, and months passed- months during which we carried on our negotiations with the British and other authorities- before we understood what it was that blocked our progress. (Haim Weizmann, Trial and Error, 1949, page 238).

I learned of its [ the Sykes Picot Agreement] existence on April 16, 1917, from Mr Scott [C.P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian and member of the British Palestine Committee] who had obtained the information in Paris. Haim Weizmann, Trial and Error, 1949, page 241).

Thus, the existence of the Sykes Picot Agreement as a tentative draft treaty was known during the negotiations for the Balfour declaration, and the later publication of its content did not shock the ZIonist movement.



Your comments about the British aiding and arming the Arabs against the Jews are false. If you actually read the year end reports on the situation in Palestine you'll see that they punished all who engaged in violence and the number of Arabs arrested was much higher than the number of Jews arrested.
Just read the the reports labeled 'Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the LoN' from the 1920s and 30s at the site below.
domino.un.org...!OpenPage


[edit on 9-4-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   


You cant ignore the facts I have presented in the timeline.


Kidfinger I agree with all that you stated there mostly. Why? Because it is true. Now what exactly are you trying to say with that information?

That Israel is an illegitimate country because it was never Britians aim to create a Jewish state in Palestine? I certaintly believe that the British didn't want a Jewish state. Just look how hard the British tried to prevent the creation of a Jewish Homeland.

But Israel took the legitimacy for itself without the British and they made their home themselves with some help from Czechoslovakia who provided some much needed weapons while most of the armies weapons were stolen from the British, looted from the Arabs or manufactured in crude underground factories.

Also about Israel grabbing more land then the UN alotted for them:

80% of the land designated for the Jews was arid desert.

and I won't go into the UN and its power or legitimacy in the eyes of Israel in 1947.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by verfed


Kidfinger I agree with all that you stated there mostly. Why? Because it is true. Now what exactly are you trying to say with that information?



You are about to answer your own question with the next quote.



That Israel is an illegitimate country because it was never Britians aim to create a Jewish state in Palestine? I certaintly believe that the British didn't want a Jewish state. Just look how hard the British tried to prevent the creation of a Jewish Homeland.


That is a start. British rule never intended for Isreal to be a soverign state. Nor did they intend for Isreal to maintain a National government.



But Israel took the legitimacy for itself without the British and they made their home themselves with some help from Czechoslovakia who provided some much needed weapons while most of the armies weapons were stolen from the British, looted from the Arabs or manufactured in crude underground factories.


And herin lies the problem. You are begging the question here. Why did they take it for themselves when it was never offered? This is the arrogance I reffered to in my first post on this thread that you called me a hippy for my views.



Also about Israel grabbing more land then the UN alotted for them:

80% of the land designated for the Jews was arid desert.


So what. It didnt belong to them.



and I won't go into the UN and its power or legitimacy in the eyes of Israel in 1947.


Though the UN is but a mere shodow of the nobility it once was, Isreal NEVER respected the UN and further more, they never respected the people from who the took the land from.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel Bill
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]


You forgot to post who the modern Jews are decendants from. I want to first see what you come up with before I blast your evidence into nothing.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I am rather disappointed that the lengthy terrorist campaign mounted by Jewish terrorists against the British before they left has been left out of this little potted history of how Israel came into being.

Maybe a highly selective memory is appropriate and an accurate retelling is just not the done thing when the side being the terrorists and committing the terrorist attacks is your own, hmmm?

Hands up who remembers the King David hotel attrocity and the innocents killed without a pause by those who went on to become 'statesmen' in the world?

Anyone care to name the ex-terrorist who went on to become Israeli Prime Minister?
The ex-terrorists perfectly acceptable at the Whitehouse and around the world, later?

Not much noise about 'WOT' or 'never negotiate or talk to terrorists' then, huh?

.....or is it all somehow just so different when it is Israelis we're talking about, hmmmm?

Hypocrisy isn't much of a way to settle things IMO.

[edit on 8-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


It gets even better. The Jews also slaughtered Americans, when "9-11" was attempted decades ago.
Google "USS Liberty"



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel Bill

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?




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

Um... yeah you know religion very well. And history too!



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.


1. Before Jesus (Yehushuah) began his official ministry in his 30's... he was 100% accepted by the Jews! Learn your history!
He was visiting Jewish temples/synaguogues while he was growing up. His family too.

2. Tell me something, is Psalm 83:18 part of the Old Testament? Do Jews accept the OT? Then how come in Old Hebrew/Hebrew and in the Aramaic New Testament, the same name of the same god is used?!

The reason why the ancient Jews stopped accepting Jesus was 2 reasons. You're not gonna like the 2nd one....
Reason 1: Before Jesus turned 30-34, only Jews were God's chosen people. 99% of the time only someone born a Jew could be a Jew. It was a tight knit club. Not open to anyone else. Jews would be saved, all the other heathens, errr... Gentiles... would die.
After Jesus turned 30-34, Jesus the Jew says, anyone can become Jewish. Anyone can become God's chosen people. Anyone can now join the club. Now its open to everyone else, including the heathens.... errr... Gentiles.

Reason 2: Satan was influencing the Pharasees, and Jewish leaders, to crush Jesus. To get rid of him.



Originally posted by Colonel Bill

Originally posted by AceOfBase
>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.


They have come. And it wasn't ever discussed. Re-read your Old Testament, or Torah. It exxxxplicitly states that the Caananites are the Philistines are the Palastines.



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.


Caananites had it longer than the Israelites.
But yeah it got conquested over and over and over. The Egyptians ruled it, the Babylonians ruled it. The Romans ruled it. On and on.




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.


Hahahah! So you're saying its up to each person to decide if they "feel" they're decendants of the ancient Jews? Then they can claim ownership?
Here's some homework for ya:

Google "Khazar, Khazar empire, Khazar jews"

Modern Jews are in no way related to the Jews in the Bible, or Torah.



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.


That's for you to decide on your own. For me, and everyone else to decide on our own. And you, me, everyone else then have to live with our decision after we all die.


[edit on 10-4-2005 by OpenSecret2012]



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I fail to see how baseless questioning of the heritage of a few million people is relevant to the way to end the conflict in the middle east.

The same way I have no right to say to someone who claims to be "Irish" that they're really not Irish because I have a feeling that sometime 1,000 years ago their great (to the 5th power) grandfather intermarried with a Polish woman, you don't have much base or cause to decide that today's Jews don't fit what you have decided is a "Jew".

We are not in the business of making assumptions of geneaology here. Nor were you or anyone else standing by over the last 2,000 years with a notepad deciding who was who.

Being that you can't prove this, I don't see how it's relevant to the fighting going on with Israel and Palestine. Let's not throw blanket insults at millions of people huh?



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
I fail to see how baseless questioning of the heritage of a few million people is relevant to the way to end the conflict in the middle east.


It's not "baseless". It's a fact. Modern Jews or more accuratly "Jews" claim they should be in that area because it's their ancestorial homeland. If it can be publically shown that they're not in any way related to the ancient Jews of the Bible, well then... they have no claim at all on that land. They are in the wrong.


Originally posted by Djarums
The same way I have no right to say to someone who claims to be "Irish" that they're really not Irish because I have a feeling that sometime 1,000 years ago their great (to the 5th power) grandfather intermarried with a Polish woman, you don't have much base or cause to decide that today's Jews don't fit what you have decided is a "Jew".


The definition of someone who's Irish is someone who's Born in Ireland. Or has family that were born in Ireland. Even your example supports my point. In your example you still admit the person 1,000 years ago was Irish, but married a Polish woman.
The modern Jews can go back 1 million years ago, 1 billion years ago, they still have no relation at all to the Jews in the Bible they claim they're related to.
To use your example, what if a Polish man and a Polish woman said they're Irish? What if you woke up next week and decided you were Chinese? That's litterally what it's like.



Originally posted by Djarums
We are not in the business of making assumptions of geneaology here. Nor were you or anyone else standing by over the last 2,000 years with a notepad deciding who was who.


No assumptions are needed.
Everything is hardcore, proven, fact.
The modern Jews theirselves quietly admit it's true they have no genealogy at all with the Jews in the Bible. Yet they still claim the land is theirs because ancient Jews (who they're in no way related to) lived there 2,000 years ago. They've been "going with the flow" for so long without question, that they won't think about stopping.

Go to the MOMA in Manhattan, NYC. And the Guggenhiem Musem in NYC. (Both are on 5th Ave, between 60th st and 90th sts.)
Both have running shows on the Khazar Empire, and the origins of modern Jews.


Originally posted by Djarums
Being that you can't prove this, I don't see how it's relevant to the fighting going on with Israel and Palestine. Let's not throw blanket insults at millions of people huh?


Like I said, google "Khazar, Khazars, Jews" everything all together in between the quotes, with the commas. have fun reading!
If your not afraid of books, go to any major bookstore (Barnes & Noble, or whatever) in the history section you'll find tons of books about the true origins of modern Jews. All have no origins or relations to the Jews in the Bible OT or NT.

Or do I have to do everything for ya?


www.orange-street-church.org...

Small excript:


In about 740AD, a stunning event took place. The Khazars had been under continual pressure from their Byzantine and Moslem neighbours to adopt Christianity or Islam, but the Khazar ruler, called the Khakan, had heard of a third religion called JUDAISM. Apparently for political reasons of independence, the Khakan announced that the Khazars were adopting Judaism as their religion. Overnight an entirely new group of people, the warlike Khazars, suddenly proclaimed themselves Jews - adoptive Jews. The Khazar kingdom began to be described as the 'Kingdom of the Jews' by historians of the day. Succeeding Khazar rulers took Jewish names

Kinda simular to how Roman Emperor Constantine when from killing and slaying Christians for years, to suddently saying he's now a Christian.

(He continued slaying and killing
)

BTW, if you have cable TV, watch A&E Biography whenever they profile Ghenghis Khan. Or the History Channel when they profile Ghenghis Khan. They cover a bit of the Khazars, and the true origins of modern Jews.
Khan's the guy who destroyed the Khazar Empire as he moved west in his goal to slay the Pope, and destroy the Christian Church because the Crusaders were forcing the "heathens" to adopt Christianity... even when they said they don't want to convert to Christianity. He even sent the Pope a lovely, heartwarming letter, which still exists to this day.

[edit on 11-4-2005 by OpenSecret2012]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join