Originally posted by ArchAngel
You missed the part where the Israelites stole the land from the Cainanites, and you ignored the fact that Israel violated the covenant so the Roman
occupation was Gods curse upon them as promised.
See Deuteronomy 28 for details.....
Way to go after him MM
Now let's see if I can say this just a little bit more clearly, since apparently I'm speaking some kind of strange foreign language. 1. The
Caananites were a semetic people- cousins of the Jews. 2. The Caananites never established a unified nation independent of foreign rule in that area-
nobody but Israel has ever done that. The Kingdom of Israel was the first unified state to occupy those borders.
You argue for giving control of that land to Arabs on the grounds that the Philistines and other Caananite peoples- all cousins of the Jews- once had
city states in the region, but were eventually had their territory forged into the nation of Israel?
If that claim doesn't hold up, you are willing to completely change the major premise that the people who inhabit and settle the land are its
rightful owners and instead claim that devine mandate is the determining factor. You make this claim in ignorance of the fact that God has always
promised the Jews that they would not be exiled forever, has promised them the rebuilding of their temple, and that against all odds they have infact
been given their homeland back, which if we are to work under the assumption that God's will is the issue, would have to be considered strong
evidence that God has infact given Israel a new lease on life. You'd be better off staying on the sinking ship that is your argument for Caananite
sovreignity. If you do move on to the "devine mandate" argument, you take an untenable position which ultimately must concede not only to the
legitimacy of zionism, but even to the right of the Jews to reclaim the Temple Mount. If you ask me, that's a can of worms we don't even want to
open, and is so on many levels.
So going back to the Caananite sovreignity argument, would you concede that Athens has a right to declare sovreignity and undertake a war of terror
against the rest of Greece, not only to reestablish their ancestral city state, but to claim and consolidate power over adjoining territories which
were never technically theirs? Really you'd have to if really believed the logic of your position and were not just an arbitrary enemy of Israel. It
hardly stops with Athens either. You have to restore the feudal states of China; that of course would require one heck of a war, but your support for
the Palestinian side implies that you consider such causes legitimate no matter what the human cost.
Finally, I note once again that there is no such thing as a Palestinian anymore- the Philistine civilization is long dead, and was so even in the 1st
Century when Rome renamed the area for them. There is no more a Palestinian anywhere in the world than there is a Tartar or a Visigoth. The
descendents of the Visigoths are no longer Visigoths- they belong to European nationalities, their cultural identity has been assimilated into the
proceeding societies. The descendents of the Caananites are no longer Caananites- they are Arabs- except for some Philistines, who belong to Cyprus
either as Turks or Greeks.
Not so for the Jews however. The Jewish identity has endured. The Jews still exist as a people, retaining a name, a religion, and a tradition of their
own, influenced but not assimiliated by the many cultures they have come in contact with. They retain the birthright of the Jewish people because they
have continued to be the Jewish people, and have not been made Russians or Germans or Britons. Ironically, if they had not been scapegoated whereever
they went they may not have endured. That seems to be the nature of bullying- the anvil will always outlive the hammer. You'd think people would
figure that out and learn to ignore the people who they truly hate. Give it a shot. It'll be good for you and the Jews.