What the Arabs intend for Israel

Originally posted by The Old American
Historical fact and political fact are mutually exclusive. Right now Israel is the bad guy and "Palestinians" are being picked on. People habitually root for the underdog. It's human nature to feel bad for someone. The fact that Philistines were Myceneans, Canaanites were non-Semitic, and both were either absorbed, bred, or killed out of existence is washed away by politically charged propaganda.

Well, to be honest, if we were to turn historical fact into political reality, things would get pretty messy. If we want to reverse the clock for this corner of the world back to 3000 BC, then do we need to do the same everywhere else, too? or can we just pick and choose where we want this time-reversal to go? For instance, is France going to be part of England, or is England going to be part of France? Is Anatolia Hittite, Greek, Roman, Turkish, or Mongol? Should we abolish hte United States and send all the white people back to Europe? Should we give Koreaa and manchuria back to the japanese?

"This is the way it used to be" is not a valid argument when talking about current events.

I've posted the same things above many times and some people either refuse to believe it, or just don't care because it's not part of their agenda. I've personally given up on anyone on ATS accepting historical, archeological, and anthropological fact when it comes to Israel. Emotions win, thought loses. Every time.

/TOA

edit on 6-6-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)

Because you operate on the presumption that people are going to drop everything and agree that yes, we should return borders to how they were five thousand years ago.

That's stupid.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


we either all go back to africa and start again, like the amazing race, or

stop trying to reset history and what is now.

equally stupid.

What the Arabs intend for Israel is written in the Koran and Hadiths - it is not a matter for political debate.
Namely that every Jew on earth must be beheaded, likewise every other person on earth that does not convert to Islam must be killed.

The 'Palestinians' and the PLO were created by the KGB simply as propaganda devices to appeal to Western idiots, by packaging it all as a 'human rights story' instead of Jihad.

Hithertoo it had been 'Brave, tiny Israel' twice beating the Goliath of the invading Arab armies.

So they created the 'Palestinians' to play as the David against Israels Goliath - a propaganda technique known as moral inversion, something the Nazis pioneered and the KGB perfected.

Similarly to undermine the sympathy/Guilt of the world for allowing the Holocaust - they sought to play the Israelis as Nazis against the perpetual victims the Pals.

Similarly the Khazar nonesense.

The Marxist media of course plays along with all the Pallywood production nonesense.

As for the ordinary liberal, left leaning sheeple! who thinks of the Israelis as 'oppressors' - it is frightening just how utterly asleep and so effortlessy led along they are by what is after all just crude obvious propaganda techniques - truly frightening

Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

we either all go back to africa and start again, like the amazing race, or
stop trying to reset history and what is now.
equally stupid.

As far as I'm concerned the "Middle East" forum on ATS is about current topics..

The Israel/Palestine conflict started in 1948 or earlier if you wish to get into the Balfour Treaty etc..
It's from then till now that MOST people on ATS are interested in and focused on..

IMO, if anyone wishes to discuss "Ancient Civilizations" or "Religious Conspiracies" then both of them subjects have alternative forums..

Me? I'd rather THIS forum stuck to the present...

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


Amazing post.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by backinblack


"stop trying to reset history and what is now. "

i guess you missed this?

which means right now.

Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by backinblack

 

"stop trying to reset history and what is now. "
i guess you missed this?
which means right now.

Mate, sorry but my post wasn't against you..
Your post just gave me a chance to add my view.

reply to post by backinblack


cheers!

no prob!

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

This is the way it used to be" is not a valid argument when talking about current events.

Because you operate on the presumption that people are going to drop everything and agree that yes, we should return borders to how they were five thousand years ago.

That's stupid.

You are correct, prior to 1967 the borders were one way. Now they are another. By your own words you believe:

"This is the way it used to be" is not a valid argument when talking about current events.

Because you operate on the presumption that people are going to drop everything and agree that yes, we should return borders to how they were 44 years ago.

That's stupid.

/TOA

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Sort of like how "Italian" didn't exist until roughly 1880, or how "Indian" (As in south Asia) didn't exist until the 1930's? or how "Russian" once meant the people under the Kiev princes, then came to encompass the whole of Northern Eurasia, and now is again reduced to a west Eurasian nation that doesn't even contain the principalities of the Kievan Rus? "Saudi" only came into being in 1917. "German" is another new one, as well. There were no Tanzanians until the 1960's. There were no Timorese until the 90's.

There is a major difference. Indians, more or less share the same culture. They are a "people". They also share the same religion, more or less - Dharmic - and history. Same thing with the Germans, and Russians (to a lesser degree) .. But Palestinians?? Show me proof of how a Palestinian is any different from a Syrian, Egyptian, Jordanian, or Lebanese person. This would be like breaking India into a bunch of different countries. And even there it would make much more sense then it does with Palestine.

And that you are almost undoubtedly some variety of Celtic / German hybrid from Europe. Yet here you are, in the Western Hemisphere.

Me? How would you know what I am? Im actually Portuguese. I probably do have a Celtic/Germanic aspect on my moms side.. A few generations earlier an ancestor of mine was a Murano Jew of the last DaSilva. On my Dads side, there is definitely some North Africa/Berber influence. Im much too dark skinned, and have curly hair to be 'considered 'celtic/germanic'.

In anycase, i identify with Judaism, and it is a mighty large coincidence that i happened to have a Murano Jew as an ancestor.

then the rabbit chews its cud, otters are a kind of fish, bats are bird, and women turn into seasonings. Referring to the bible for your history of the Middle East is no different than using Lord of the rings as a source document for historical western Europe.

Right. Do you read over your comparisons? Do they not seem a bit exagerrated?

I mentioned Canaan, not because im trying to prove anything, but because Palestinians often resort to biblical peoples like the philistines - an aegean people, and Canaanites, who biblically speaking, are Hamites. Im not using this to convince you of anything. I am much too aware of your complete disdain for everything Jewish.

Semites - that is, speakers of semitic languages - are not "native" to the near East. Ancient Hebrew,what we can tell of it, was basically just a dialect of Egyptian, while Arabic is most similar to some languages in Somalia and central Ethiopia. The majority of Semitic languages are found in north-central Africa. This indicates that their point of origin is somewhere near the Niger river.

Do you read Hebrew? Nope? OK. I do. Do you know what makes Hebrew different from anicent Egyptian? The latter is a hyroglyphic writing system that conveyed IDEAS, and were not pronounced. Hebrew, on the other hand, like Akkadian (which it shares a much deeper relationship with) was a spoken language. Each symbol - each letter - 22 of them, corresponds to a consonant sound. In the case of Ancient Egyptian, this is not so. And as for your attribution of Arabic to North African languages. Where do you get this? Arabic was most influenced by Aramaic - atleast enough to be regarded as its mother tongue. Was their influences from elsewhere? Probably. The Hedjaz is very close to the horn of Africa, and there was probably some inter-relating going on. But, to discount Hebrew (as we know from the Quran and Muslim commentators, Mohommad was quite fond of the Jews of Banu Qurayza and Nadir. This is pretty much where he got most of his ideas of Shari'a law, Jerusalem etc from) or Aramaic from exercizing an influence - when like Hebrew and Aramic, The Arabic language shares 22 letters, many word roots etc, is simply nonsense.

Civilization arose from the orient, on the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris,. Until we can find proof of something older,dont make things up. The oldest we know to date of a major center of civilization was Eridu, Ur and other cities along the Euphrates and Tigris region. This is the Sumerian civilization. From here arose the Akkadian empire, from which Abraham - of Ur Casdim - came from.

Actually they didn't conquer diddly-squat. I've explained this to you dozens of times now. The Israelites never actually had the huge kingdoms that are talked about in the Bible. Just like they never actually killed millions and millions of people, like it says in the Bible. These accounts are falsified for posterity; must has how the Romans were strangely able to kill millions upon millions of barbarians without suffering any losses, to hear them tell it, just as the Chinese had the highest culture anywhere and have never ever been conquered by anyone, to hear them tell it, so too did the Israelites have a mighty and large kingdom, wrested from unrightful squatters who hated god - to hear the Israelites tell it.

You get thats all theory, right? What you believe is someones theory. And youre treating it as if it were fact.

In anycase, the bible never says "millions" were killed. It actually desribes a fairly modest and human campaign where the Israelites defeated 7 canaanite nations (myth here, is reflected in actual history) and took control of their land. They killed those who refused to make tribute (for logical reasons. They would revolt if ever in a position to do so) and allowed those who wanted to flee, flee.

I'm against ethnic nationalism, period. it'd be pretty hypocritical to be for Arabism but against Zionism, don't you think? Nah, a modern nation cannot operate on the notion of "only OUR ethnic group are rightful members of this state!"

Oh.. I finally get where youre coming from. I get it now. You hate ALL forms of distinction. Distinction in peoples, in Language, in Morality. You hate all distinction. Just like your messed up, "beyond good and evil" philosophy, everything must become confused and chaotic as it was before creation.

There cannot be peoples with their own states, living in peace and respect with their neighbors (which is completely possible), and there cannot be people moralizing whats good and whats bad. There cannot be ANY DISTINCTIONS, lest this be a reason (paranoid enough) for later conflict and turmoil...

You are very much the Amalek that skyfloating talks about in his thread. You lie and distort information about Jews because ideologically they represent the exact opposite of what you believe. And youre threatened by them (for good reason) and all 'fundamentalist' thinkers, whether in Judaism, Christianity or Islam - the Abrahamic faiths.

This is why Kurds cant have their own state? And yet you tell me youre not for Pan Arabism, when it is patently apparent that the entire Arab world is made up of only Arab states - with an Arab identity, interested in nothing less than Arabizing the rest of the Middle East and North Africa.

I really dont get this nonsense.

reply to post by dontreally


What we have here is a real zionistic false jew!

Can you give me your source to where in the koran all this things is written.
Can you describe who the khazars are?
You are nothing but an ignorant zionist who dont understand the meaning in what you are reading, I will pray for you.
Lets se what the talmud is all about shall we
Now I just gonna put up a vid about and then you can search for your self to get the full story about it.
ENJOY
Your pathetic lies are done!

From the same source
To say he speaks for all Palestinians is incorrect

Zuheir Mohsen (Arabic: زهير محسن, also transcribed Zuhayr Muħsin or Zahir Muhsein) (b. 1936, d. July 26, 1979) was a Palestinian leader of the pro-Syria as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.

He was around at a time when Pan-Arabism was a prominent ideology. Rember Gadaffi came to power on a wave of this Pan-Arabism. It was a belief that all Arab states should unify.

Mohsen essentially followed the line of as-Sa'iqa's Syrian-Baathist ideology, which interpreted the Palestinian question through a perspective of pan-Arab nationalism

Today Pan-Arabism had dwindled into almost non-existance, even Gadaffi one of the main advocates of this ideology had turned to African unity instead.

I find it dispicable and hilarious how you propogandise one statement from an ex pro-Syrian faction of the PLO. Keep in mind that especially at this time the PLO and Hezb' allah were not unified orginizations. They comprised of many ideologically and politically divided factions. Many scholars speak of the Syrian sections of Hezb' allah, Hamas and the PLO as entirely different factions for the main body.

Since the partition plan and the war of Israeli independence of 1947-1949 Palestinians were resisting both Jordan and Israel. They wanted independence. This was constantly argued about in the Knesset when Liberals disagreed with Ben Gourins plan to leave the West Bank to Jordon.

Nice try attempting to trick us.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
From the same source
To say he speaks for all Palestinians is incorrect

Zuheir Mohsen (Arabic: زهير محسن, also transcribed Zuhayr Muħsin or Zahir Muhsein) (b. 1936, d. July 26, 1979) was a Palestinian leader of the pro-Syria as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.

He was around at a time when Pan-Arabism was a prominent ideology. Rember Gadaffi came to power on a wave of this Pan-Arabism. It was a belief that all Arab states should unify.

Mohsen essentially followed the line of as-Sa'iqa's Syrian-Baathist ideology, which interpreted the Palestinian question through a perspective of pan-Arab nationalism

Today Pan-Arabism had dwindled into almost non-existance, even Gadaffi one of the main advocates of this ideology had turned to African unity instead.

I find it dispicable and hilarious how you propogandise one statement from an ex pro-Syrian faction of the PLO. Keep in mind that especially at this time the PLO and Hezb' allah were not unified orginizations. They comprised of many ideologically and politically divided factions. Many scholars speak of the Syrian sections of Hezb' allah, Hamas and the PLO as entirely different factions for the main body.

Since the partition plan and the war of Israeli independence of 1947-1949 Palestinians were resisting both Jordan and Israel. They wanted independence. This was constantly argued about in the Knesset when Liberals disagreed with Ben Gourins plan to leave the West Bank to Jordon.

Nice try attempting to trick us.

reply to post by dontreally


What validity does the fact that most Arabs share the same culture, religion and language have to do with statehood?

Nations will always be divided. Infact there are only two actual Nation-States in the world. These are Israel and Japan. Nations are a collection of people within a defined geographic area who may share the same history, relgion or language whereas a State is the process of governing a specifically defined are with territorial borders. However a state may not necassarily be historically, religously or culturally Hegemonic. Examples of these States are the U.S.A, Australia, Russia, India, Germany and countless others. What validity does the fact that Palestinians are Arabs have to do with the fact that there should or should not be a Palestinian state. According to your logic you are stating that if the Palestinians recieved independence they would unifiy into part of a great Arab state that does not even exist. The validity of your claims is nill as there is no Pan-Arab state.

Nations are oftenly politically divided, especially in the ME where many societies still hold tribal roots and affiliation. The political process which is the state dosen't necassarily encompass the Nation.

You are just providing an irrelevant twist on PA intentions. Nations aren't always states and states ussually aren't nations. The viability of a Palestinian state isn't changed by the fact that Palestinians share relgious and cultural ties with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


You call propoganda but you fail to state that this statement:

Hithertoo it had been 'Brave, tiny Israel' twice beating the Goliath of the invading Arab armies.

Itself is a propagandised version of events.
Avi Schlaim the author of the Iron Wall - Israel and the Arab World takes a minute to explain the course of the Israeli war of independence. In this he footnotes Flapan: the Birth of Israel www.amazon.com... and the Iraqi report of the Parliamentary Committee of the Inquiry on the Palestine Problem.
He states with evidence that while Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and Jordan all went to war wit Israel it was infact Israel that outnumbered the Arabs militaristically.

In mid May 1948 the total number of Arab troops, both regular and irregular, operating in the Palestine theater was under 25,000, whereas the IDF fielded over 35,000 troops. By the final stage of the war the IDF's superiority ratio was 2:1.

The turn of events stating that Israel was attacked first is also false. Jordan only went to war with Israel after the battle for Jerusalem was initiated by an Israeli offensive a few days before the end of the British mandate. To this King Abdullah responded by sending the Arab Legion on the defensive. You can find this on page 110 of Sir John Bagot's, A Soldier with the Arabs (London 1957).

You are being hyporcritical and reverbarating propoganda yourself.

reply to post by dontreally

The Israels enemies are alive because of mercy.God said kill the last remaining survivors but they were pitied and allowed to survive.
Now Jihadists want a world holocaust for the entire western world for PAX Islam,Seig Allah.
Aren't they a grateful bunch?

See what is Israel!
www.lchaim.nl...

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
no legitimate Arab states,

He has a point even discounting the Pan Arab Baathism, every border in the entirety of "Arabia" North Africa, Persia and the baby Stans owes its current internationally recognised borders to imperial decisions by the UK, France or Russia, with imperial concerns, economics or yesteryear's geopolitical motivations and the divide and conquer rule being paramount in their creation.

Originally posted by OldHag
See what is Israel!
www.lchaim.nl...

SO? Israel belongs NOT to the zionistic false jews! and by that post you meaning? IT IS NOT THEIR COUNTRY!