Israel vs. Palestine

Originally posted by marg6043
sp23,

You are right on this issue and it brings me to something another ATS member point out on another thread.

Will the lives of the Palestinians would have been different been they of Christian believe rather than muslin?

There lives definatly would have been different, for the simple fact that you would have had all of christandom up in arms, and that means much of western society, but I think if they were of christian belief their would have been a 2 state settlements long ago, as the UN has requested in their general assembly, but which has been ignored by Isreal.

A quick interesting fact, Isreal has gone against more UN recomendations then any other country in the world.

"Now, the important thing is Better life = easier to execute terror attacks. They don't murder because they live in "captive markets", they live there BECAUSE they murder. Note that ALL israeli restrictions came as a reponse to terror attacks, attacks which started happening when (and partly because) the palestinians waren't restricted yet. More food, more water, more land, more money means only more weapons, more suicide bombers, more missiles, and more dead Israeli citizens, thats why they were restricted in the first place. Besides, how do you explain the fact that Military operations and restrictions only decreased terror attacks, while peace negotiations only increased them?

[edit on 11/8/04 by Transc3ndent]

Are you serious. Your saying that Isreal oppresses the palestinians because if you try to help or give them a better life that just makes it easier for them to carry out attacks. Wow, is that the line their feeding Isrealis over their. I wasn't aware how indoctrinated Ireal was, but considering their just a US client State, they have had the best teachers.

lol, lol lol lol lol lol

sp23,

Funny the way the land was divided actually the division of land started by the british after they started to leave the middle east creating the birth of most of the now middle eastern nations.

Actually 22 arab (not iran) engulf the Israeli nation so it is funny how does Israel can claim expanshion of their state.

After the world war the land was mandate by the british to be the palestine state and even part of Jordan was part of that state. The british gave the Jewish palestinians the other side of the Jordan River giving the 75% of the original land to form the Arab palestinian homeland.

The arabs started to fight agaisnt the jewish palestinian to take them out of the land, the british did not do anything about it because at the same time oil was discovered in the arab land and they needed to keep in good standing with the growing arab nations.

This link shows how during these years the land has been partitioned over and over again, and how the Arabs propaganda has played against Israel.

www.masada2000.org...

Are you serious. Your saying that Isreal oppresses the palestinians because if you try to help or give them a better life that just makes it easier for them to carry out attacks. Wow, is that the line their feeding Isrealis over their. I wasn't aware how indoctrinated Ireal was, but considering their just a US client State, they have had the best teachers.

Heh, that's pathetic . "Lets say something real dumb without actually saying anything, so it will look like I know what I'm talking about and he doesn't know anything". Nice way of thinking.

I too can hide my ignorance in certain fields of knowledge by saying "Is that the line they are feeding you over there (whereever you live)?", (heh, it will probably even be pretty close to the truth), so? Saying that will make my opinions right?

Unlike you - I don't need to make empty statements. What I say is supported by facts which you and everyone else can varify. You think you are the one who is right? Prove it!
There are more than enough prooves for most of the things I said, I can show you why each Israeli action was taken and when, so that you will see it by yourself.

And unlike the Palestinians - we are not getting brainwashed in schools. Actually most of the focus (as you can see from dozens of reports about education in Israel) is on understanding the other side and about how important it is to achieve peace. The only reason I think they way I think is because I can't ignore the facts. You woldn't be able to ignore them too if you at least were aware of them. But I guess your mind is poisoned enough already, so it will be pretty hard to change it.

I live in Israel, I know most of the things which are going on because I feel it on my skin. I remember terror attacks which happened every day or so untill our military started doing something about it. I remember when the palestinians blowed up a bus full of people during a cease fire treaty, and the only thing the world (and people like you) remembered is when we killed the responsible terrorist a week later.

I'm just sick of it.




[edit on 11/8/04 by Transc3ndent]

Originally posted by marg6043
sp23,

Funny the way the land was divided actually the division of land started by the british after they started to leave the middle east creating the birth of most of the now middle eastern nations.

The division of land by the British and French to create independent Arab States had been decided even before the lands came under their control.
They made promises to the Sherif of Mecca in 1915 that, in the event of an Allied victory, the greater part of the Arab provinces of the Turkish Empire would become independent. The Arabs understood that Palestine would be included in the sphere of independence:
UN report on Palestine problem
Anglo-Arab understandings on Arab independence

These assurances appear in correspondence 2/ during 1915-1916 between Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, and Sherif Husain, Emir of Mecca, who held the special status of the Keeper of Islam's most holy cities. He thus acted as a representative of the Arab peoples, although not exercising formal political suzerainty over them all.

In the course of the protracted correspondence, the Sherif unequivocally demanded "independence of the Arab countries", specifying in detail the boundaries of the territories in question, which clearly included Palestine. McMahon confirmed that "Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca".

After the world war the land was mandate by the british to be the palestine state and even part of Jordan was part of that state. The british gave the Jewish palestinians the other side of the Jordan River giving the 75% of the original land to form the Arab palestinian homeland.

They did not give the land to the Jewish people, they merely said that a Jewish homeland could be created in that area. It was to be shared with the Arabs.

The arabs started to fight agaisnt the jewish palestinian to take them out of the land, the british did not do anything about it because at the same time oil was discovered in the arab land and they needed to keep in good standing with the growing arab nations.

The British did try to suppress the rebellions and hoped that the Jews and Palestinians could live in peace. The spent millions of pounds trying to secure the nation.
Report by the Peel commission 1937
Although expenditure on public security rose from �265,000 in 1923 to over �862,000 in 1935-36 (and �2,230,000 in 1936-37, the year of the disturbance) it is evident that the elementary duty of providing public security has not been discharged.

[edit on 11-8-2004 by AceOfBase]

AceOfBase,

Thanks for the info; I guess the Jewish after all has been fighting for their peace of land all this years while surrounded by the Arabs.

It is funny how a little nation like Israel has been able to stand to the Arabs in the area.

Some said and even me will said is because US influence but it has to be something more than that.

I am starting to simpitize with them.

Originally posted by Transc3ndent
- It is proven that the jews were here long before the Arabs (but thats not even the point), and the arabs who were here didn't belong to some special ethnic group which is called "Palestinians". They never had a state, they never wanted a state, and they lived in a very primitive way of life (similar to the way they live today). The argument and the whole problem is not about "God promised us this land", no one in Israel even cares about those stuff. Only people from foreign countries seem to think that this has something to do with it. Most of the land didn't even belong to the "Palestinians"! We bought it legally from Britain, we didn't just come here and started kicking out arabs while shouting "God promised us this land!".

Actually, the Arabs in Palestine did want independence.
A good summary of what was happening in Palestine at that time and the attitudes of the Jews and the Arabs is outlined in the report by the Peel commission in 1937.

Peel report 1937
Arab nationalism is as intense a force as Jewish. The Arab leaders' demand for national self-government and the shutting down of the Jewish National Home has remained unchanged since 1929. Like Jewish nationalism, Arab nationalism is stimulated by the educational system and by the growth of the Youth Movement. It has also been greatly encouraged by the recent Anglo-Egyptian and Franco-Syrian Treaties.

BTW Transc3ndent, I do appreciate your participation on this debate even though we may disagree on some things.
You do try and present an intelligent insight into the discussion and seem open to opposing views, willingly reading through materials that others have presented in order to understand their viewpoint.

Much better than the rantings of 'Eternal Leader of Truth'

To answer the questions you say I avoided ealier, I do condemn the suicide bombings. I don't think they are justified but I do understand why they are doing them. They are unable to fight a conventional war just as the insurgents in Iraq are unable to fight a conventional war against an army so much more powerful than they are.


[edit on 11-8-2004 by AceOfBase]

Transc3ndent, I have to apologise if I may have offended you, my last post was a little harsh.

Let me give you my opinion, and tell you where I'm coming from. I see it like this, (and incidentally most of the world besides Isreal and the US see's it this way), you have two groups that are claiming rights to the same territory. Both sides does have an argument as to why it should be their land. The only way at resolve this is some sort of two state settlement, no matter what the economic or government details, their has to be a settlement that recognizes the rights of the Isreali's and the Palestinians. And everybody knows where the Palestinian state would be, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

A lot of people around the world have come to this conclution, but the reason it hasn't happend yet is because, of course Isreal is opposed to it, but more importantly the US has blocked it, just like they have blocked the
peace process in the middle east since the 70's.

Take the 1990 annual U.N. vote on the Palestinians, the result was the same as always 144 to 2, with Isreal and the U.S standing along against the rest of the world, rejecting any kind of recognition of Palestinian rights.

Next comes the gulf war in 1991, and after the U.S was done bombarding Iraq it set up the Madrid Conference and the U.N didn't even bother to hold anymore votes on the Palestinian question after that. The agenda of the Conference was basically, Isreal takes what it wants from the occupied territories, and the relationship between the U.S. oil monarchies(like Saudi Arabia) and Isreal sort of became more apparent, and the palestinians are offered nothing.

And I think that was the whole point of the Gulf war, it was just a show of power by the U.S. to let everybody know that they will do what they want now that the soviets are gone. Take Europe for example, they argued for Palestinian rights for the longest time, since the gulf war the issue doesn't even come up anymore.

Then you have the Oslo agreement in 1994, which gave the U.S and Isreal exactly what they wanted, rejection of the possibility of Palestinian national rights flat out.

Now the situations is starting to look a little different, with Bush talking about supporting a possible settlement if the Palestinians elect new leadership.

Another issue is the water, the West Bank provides probably over a third of the water in Isreal, and thats a big reason why Isreal will probably never give up the West Bank.

Econically, if the Isreali's were smart they'd use the territories sort of like the U.S. uses Mexico, a source of cheap labor. But theirs just too much racism and violence on both sides which is probably why that hasn't happend yet.

All and all it is a very complicated situation, but in my view the Palestinians have been getting the #ty end of the stick if you know what I mean.

I have no sympathy to the Islamic cause, and I don't think that the size of the territory designated as Israel should be of paramount importance, either. The discussion about who "genetically" has the rights to the land is moot. There are very few places in the world that didn't change hands many times, and whose population is not ethically mixed over the centuries.

I think that the bus bombings are apalling, and I think that the state of misery in which the Palestinians apparently live is also apalling. There has to be a practical solution to this, even though in the end nobody will be 100% happy. There have to be people in Palestine that would be willing to accept a large portion of the West Bank in return for strict policing of their own militias. Instead of spending money on weapons, the US and Israel can spend it on bribes. That is if they are willing to see it not as a religious, but as a practical matter (which they don't). There must be people in Israel willing to work for this. The cost of continuing the current situation is just too high.

Originally posted by DJAghetto
there are threads where people are arguing whose land it belongs to? im sick of this!!! im gonna set the record straight...once and for all...

People lived in Palestine LONG prior to "Jews." So that line of argument is dead.

Now on "the deal" line-
Property bought and sold, O.K.. But what happened to the rest of the deal?

The British were the deal makers and failed to ensure the other half of the deal was delivered.

Sure the Arabs are 'hacked,' they got cheated!

my point is

1) Isral in some extent is a bit thick to palestinien, but the whole arabs seems somewhat horrible to israli,it's the truth.
2) Isral should think over the problems of palestinien's survival condition
,don't only think of their own little interests.if that ,peace would have come.
3)according to functionalism, Isral and palesitine shuoud be combined, I think, diffrent religion shuould not be an obstacle to do it.
4) The most important mission for US is not anti-terrorissm,but in isral.only when isral-palesitian problem be solved ,US would become more safer.
5) US take the Israli sides ,this we all know ,but can you act it skillfully ,not so clear? much trouble comes feom here.


I come from China ,I hope you could understand my poor Englsh.

What a load of back alley vomit. You need new software to translate your rants into english. Your current software makes you look like a retarded child.

dont be so insulting to children, I suspect that he has trouble getting the square brick through the round hole

what was he going on about

If the Palestinians would spend that terrorist money on schools and infrastructure, instead of guns and bombs, or put their kids in school vs teaching them how to fire an AK47, then maybe, just maybe, they'd be better off, hmm?

They were offered soveriegnty. Sure it wasn't everything they wanted, but it would have been a step. They could have then used that step, shown themselves to be good international citizens, and then negotiated for more of their desires after proving the right to do so.

Instead, they walk away, as they will be happy with nothing less than the destruction of Isreal. I for one, am through pitying them. They've dug their own hole...now they must lie in it.

The plight of the Palestinians simply points to an excuse used by extremists. If they REALLY cared about their plight, they'd be aiding with constructive diplomacy, infrastructure building, education, etc. instead of guns and bombs. No, and the reason is because the extremists haven't outgrown their tribal warfare mentality, and the Palestinian plight is a romanticized notion for them of the Muslim vs the infidel...instead of the economic-based plight it really is.

Religion may be used to cloud the issue, but never forget that all wars have an economic basis as well.

Originally posted by Gazrok
If the Palestinians would spend that terrorist money on schools and infrastructure, instead of guns and bombs, or put their kids in school vs teaching them how to fire an AK47, then maybe, just maybe, they'd be better off, hmm?

They were offered soveriegnty. Sure it wasn't everything they wanted, but it would have been a step. They could have then used that step, shown themselves to be good international citizens, and then negotiated for more of their desires after proving the right to do so.
Instead, they walk away, as they will be happy with nothing less than the destruction of Isreal. I for one, am through pitying them. They've dug their own hole...now they must lie in it.

They were offered a plan to give 55% of their land to an immigrant population who they outnumbered 2 to 1.
What country would accept a plan like that?

Should India have the right to obliterate Pakistan and expel/exterminate all its muslim citizens?

That's the closest parallel. Israel has at least as much right to exist as Pakistan. Both are invented states in the 1940's. However, Israel has a long history, and Pakistan doesn't (the name itself was invented in the 20th century.)

Arab nationalism has met its goals: after the defeat of the Ottomans, these Arab countries are independent:

Egypt, Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Sudan, Morocco, Oman, Yemen, etc. Algeria is no longer a colony.

Zionism, i.e. Jewish nationalism, is about having a physical permanent state.

Why is it that Arab nationalism must also include the extermination of the Jewish majority state and its residents?

For all those who want a shared "1-state" solution (mostly Western leftists), think about this:

when was the last time the Arab nationalists called for peaceful coexistence with Jews in a single state? When was the last time your average radical Imam said "We are not against Jews at all, we can live with them fine, but we want a different political structure?"

Or, is it more how Jews are evil bloodsucking monsters taking over the world?

Is there anybody who doesn't believe that a "1-state solution" is a codeword for genocide?

The western lefitsts would surely tsk-tsk about it, like in Sudan and Rwanda. Maybe they'd threaten to drop a resolution on the bad guys. And then they'd be happy the problem has been Finally Solved. gag.

AGAIN, THERE IS A LOT OF MISINFORMATION ABOUT "JEWS" AND "JUDAEA" ON THIS THREAD

The Ancient "Israelites" (benei Yisra'el) and Judaeans were a loosely mixed amphyctiony of orignally semi nomadic "Arabic" tribesmen to start with or as the writer of Deuteronomy said about Abraham with whom they share paternity with the Arabs according to their own legends ("a Wandering Syrian ready to starve was my father: a Canaanite was my mother!" already the creeds testify to mixed gentile blood) ; the "people of the Bible" are now virtually extinct as a race thorugh miscenegenation with other races and people whom they later lived with after more than 8 crushing defeats by powers stronger than the tiny mixed kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and finally Rome who in AD 70 destroyed the country and in AD 136 "cleansed" the region of Palestine of its "jewish" inhabitants)...

Modern day Israelis who are living in "The modern Jewish State of Israel" are NON SEMITIC on the whole (i.e. 75%) being (racially) of mixed European (non Semitic) Ashkenazi descent (The Khazarian Forced Conversion of more than 1 million Goyim "gentiles" to Judaeism in an area around Kiev in the Ukraine between 780AD and AD 1000) and have more of a "land claim" to the area around present day Ukraine (that is, if you base any of their specious Zionist claims purely on bloodline lineage) than they would have any legitimate claim to the West bank or Gaza, or the land of "Israel" generally as it appears on the modern western map today.

Only "Jews" who are descended from the so-called "Mixed Sephardim Families" (mixed descendants of the socalled Israelitish tribes scattered all over the world since before Rome destroyed Israel for the 2nd time in AD 136) and other scattered groups of mixed descendants (e.g. Yemenite Jews) e.g. the very mixed and very black skinned Ethiopian Fallashas would have any tangible "Shemitic" blood connexion to claiming that part of the world at all based on blood lines, and only tentatively at best --------considering 3,000 years of Sefardi and Fallasha miscegenation (interbreeding) with the goyim (non Jews).

In point of fact, over 75% of Modern Israelis are of SLAVIC/EUROPEAN EXTRACTION and ARE NOT related by blood AT ALL to ANY of the varoius Israelitish clans (whether you count 10 or 12 or 16, see the Song of Deborah which leaves out 4 including JUDAH and LEVI and adds 4 different ones like MACHIR and GIDEON) that were in existence 3,000 years ago, and any argument supporting such land claims based on race or blood lines is fallacious.

People tend to use the word "Jew" very loosely today, especially in "dumbed down America" and most people do NOT know the origin of the word, nor do they understand that 90% of people who call themselves "Jews" today (some 12 million persons, just a few less than the total number of Kurds in the world) are descended from 9th century AD (non Semitic) Ashkenazim "converts" in present day Kiev (Ukraine) formerly the kingdom of Khazaria---hemmed in as they were with Byzantine Christians fighting to the West and militant Muslims fighting from the East, the King of Khazaria (renamed himself �Joseph�) converted to Judaeism in 780 AD (from solar paganism) because he wanted to steer a "Bava Metzia" ("middle gate") between two warring entities.

For more than 200 years Khazaria was a propsperous "middle man" kingdom in negotiating trade (and war weapons, slaves etc.) between the two warring Empires until "Christian"Moscow, tired of having a middle man selling weapons and materiel to both sides, came swooping down in the year 1003 AD and destroyed Khazaria, sending 1 million NON SEMITIC OFTEN BLUE EYED Jewish converts westward in the direction of present day Lithuania, Poland, Latvia, Hungary, Estonia, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, England and other places in Russia.

Even most Modern Day "Jews" are often under the delusion f that they are somehow blood related BY BLOOD to the Israelitish tribal clans...and are therefore "chosen by their clan-god (YHWH) " in some magical way. This is racist nonsense and one would have to CONSIDER THE SOURCE FOR THE TEXTS THAT STATE THIS RACIST IDEA OF ELECTION or "being CHOSEN" by some made up clan god (i.e. the Hebrew Scriptures written by "Jews" for other "jews" making their own people and their own local clan god YHWH the "hero of the Universe" naturally)

The physical remnants of the so-called �Israelites� are called Sephardim (from the Hebrew for Spain: Sefard) and had been wandering abroad since before Rome again destroyed the province of "Palestina" in 136 AD (during the 2nd Revolt against Rome under Shimeon Bar Kosiba ("Bar Kokhba") which also failed.

It is estimated that 900,000 Palestinian born "Israelite descendants" were annhialiated between the two Wars of Rebellion against Rome (AD 70 and AD 136), virtually exterminating any "Israelite" blood-descendants.

One could say that anything closely related to "Israelite blood" in any one group of people today is virtually absent today: gone, extinct---yet ironically the population that shows the GREATEST GENETIC AFFINITY to the ancient "Israelite" blood (if you read the modern Genetic Medical journals this year) is....hang on to your hats.....the present day Palestinian population, who drew their own blood from the same blood genetic pools as the ancient Israelitish clans !!

Maybe the modern day Israelis should think about that one (or read some of the latest modern Genetic Research journals now coming out in print!!)

And even if you were to locate a real, full blooded the "Israelite" you'd quickly discover that he/she is not in any way racially "pure" in terms of being related to a single genetically related tribal group.

Don't forget that even David's grandmother "Ruth" was a NON JEW i.e. a Moabitess... and the Torah specifically states in words placed into the Mouth of Moses (in late fake-Mosaic Hebrew however) :

NO MOABITE SHALL EVER ENTER THE CONGREGATION OF ISRAEL, NOT EVEN BEYOND THE 10th GENERATION, EVER...

The tribal clan chief ("king") David was a member of this mixed blood confederation of Judah, with all of his own Moabite blood mixed in, and thus according to the torah could not even call himself an Israelite !!

As I mentioned above, oddly, the name of the (Tribes of) "Judah" (Greek: Iudoaios from whence the word JEW comes from) does not even occur in the oldest writings in the Old Testament (e.g. the Song of Deborah) but seems to have been a large "fake tribe" which was later made up of smaller, less politically powerful tribelets.

And its "fake" origin is also "made up" in the Bible to account for its political dominance after the fall of the 10 northern tribes in 721-701 BC when Assyria attacked Palestine and annexed the Northern Kingdom.

Read WHO WROTE THE BIBLE? by Elliot Friedmann for a layman's backgrounder on the subject of the many layers that went into writing the Torah over 600 years and on the generalised subject of "HISTORY CAN BE MADE UP...IF YOU KNOW HOW... "

The socalled "Old Testament" (or Hebrew Bible) was not even set into recogniseable form until the time of Ezra in 480 BC -----long after the events it purports to relate, and long after the "tribal confederation" of Yehudah had established dominance in Palestine (they survived the Assyrian attacks to continue on politically until 587 BC).

As always, the "Winners" generally end up writing the "history books" as "history" shows...and they usually wind up by writing history in "their favour.." and with the Winners coming out as Heroes.

The Tribes of Judah became the largest of the Tribes and were able to lord it over the others---and were responsible for most of the editing of the material in the Old Testament:

Now, take a look at the very word : "Judah" which derives etymologically from the Heb. "Yehudah" (the legendary "4th son of Yakkov") but actually refers to MORE THAN ONE TRIBELET in ancient times: the name derives from "Yad" meaning "hand" and the cognate "Yahad" meaning "tribal joining of hands" i.e. an amphyctiony or tribal "confederation".

The Greek word "Iudaioi" ("judeans") from which we derive "Jew" from today, is the translated equivalent of Yehudah---i.e. the many tiny unrelated tribelets that comprised Yehudah.

Even Michah 5:2 says "Bethlechem-Ephratha, you who are not the least among all the tribelets ("clans") of Judah... " so the tribe of Judah was not ONE tribe but many. And Zechariah and others in the OT refer to the "clans" of Yehudah.

Notice the RACIALLY MIXED COMPOSITION of the CLANS OF JUDAH:

Kalebites (in the territory around Hebron; Josh. 14:13-15; Judg. 1:20), Kenites (in the area around Arad; Judg. 1:16), Kennizzites (in the environs of Debir; Josh. 15:15-19; Judg. 1:11-15), Jerahmeelites, and Othnielites.

NB There is NO RACIAL PURITY AMONG EVEN THE ANCIENT TRIBELETS OF JUDAH (i.e. Iudaoio, ancient "Jews").

If you read the socalled SONG OF DEBORAH in Judges chapter 5:14-19 you will notice something rather strange: THE TRIBE OF JUDAH (YEHUDAH) IS COMPLETELY MISSING FROM THE LIST OF 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL! (so is the tribe of Gad and the tribe of Levi)

The tribes mentioned are: Benjamin, Issachar, Zebulun, Reuben, Asher, Dan, Naphtali, & Ephraim---FOLLOWED BY FOUR UNKNOWN TRIBES (presumably to keep the astrological number 12 in tact):

9. GILEAD (not one of the "big" 12 in the Torah, unless related to GAD)
10. MACHIR ( ??)
11. BARAK (??)
12. MEROZ (??)

So much for the so called 12 Tribes.

If you read the Book of Revelation chapter 12 (written during the 1st Jewish Revolt against Rome in AD 67-68) you'll notice Manasseh mentioned as a full tribe and the Tribe of DAN completely missing altogether...

It is clear the ancient writers did not have a clear idea of their true history, but were trying to force the magic number 12 on the tradition by whatever means necessary (12 being astrologically signficant, and related to an ancient prophecy that Abraham's sons would be as the Constellations of Heaven...notice how Ishmael--legendary father of the Arabs--- also has 12 sons...)

Even as far back as the time of David on, the confederation of Judah had incorporated considerable numbers of gentile, non-Israelites, leading to an alternation between pro-Canaanite, non-Yahwist religious policies on the part of some kings and the reversal of such policies in periodic religious reforms.

Adding to that was the fact that Palestine had been run over so many times by older, larger, more sophisticated Gentile nations (Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Syria, Rome) whose soldiers and inhabiants were imported into the land and married into the local population, further eroding any sense of tribal unity based on bloodline.

Witness the socalled Samaritan Schism in the north after 420 BC. which was based on blood differences as well as ritual separateness (i.e. Mount Gerazim verses Mount Moriah, see the Gospel of John chapter 3)

Here is what the "Jewish Encyclopaedia" has to say on the subject (as a rounded overview from their own publishers)

"It is a common assumption, ineradicable even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, that "Jews" today constitute a "race, a homogeneous entity" that is easily recognizable....it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they once occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of non semitic communities. . . .Thus, the diversity of the racial and genetic attributes of various Jewish colonies of today renders any unified racial classification of them a contradiction in terms.

(Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 3, p. 50).

So not only is the ancient Israelite ampohyctionies non-identifiable with any accuracy, even more so are those who call themselves their "descendants" and therfore have some kind of "divine right" to the land of Israel.

Whatever National Borders the Community of Nations gave to the Nation of Israel in 1948 (following an understandable worldwide sympathy of the after effects of the German Holocaust) should NEVER be regarded as somethning that has anything to do with made up Divine Promises in Israelite folklore (i.e. the so called "bible"--).

Modern day illegal settlement building and other forms of illegal and immoral land-grabbing in "Israel" (e.g. permanently moving perimeter walls deeper and deeper into the West Bank on some phony notion of national security) with the lame excuse that they are doing this because "GOD gave us this land" purportedly based on some phony racial links to the "Israelites" (who made up most of their "glorious and divine" history 1000 years after the events they relate---to judge from the evidence of modern archaelogy) has no place in the modern world and will only perpetuate the slaughter of innocent lives which is now seemingly out of control in the region.

Originally posted by mbkennel
Should India have the right to obliterate Pakistan and expel/exterminate all its muslim citizens?

That's the closest parallel. Israel has at least as much right to exist as Pakistan. Both are invented states in the 1940's. However, Israel has a long history, and Pakistan doesn't (the name itself was invented in the 20th century.)

It's not quite the same.
The area of Pakistan already had a muslim majority population at the time of it's creation. Non-Muslims accounted for less than 15% of the population.
Israel, at the time of it's creation, had just become a majority by a slim margin in the area that was to be made a Jewish state. That was achieved through immigration that the Arab population had tried to stop.

www.wordiq.com...
The population for the proposed Jewish State would be 498,000 Jews and 325,000 non-Jews. The population for the proposed Arab State would be 807,000 non-Jews and 10,000 Jews. The population for the proposed International Zone would be 105,000 non-Jews and 100,000 Jews.

Why is it that Arab nationalism must also include the extermination of the Jewish majority state and its residents?

The Arabs wanted Palestine to become an independent Arab country long before the Jewish immigrants became a majority.
They viewed Jewish immigration as an impediment to their goals.
They opposed the creation of the Jewish state since the time it was first proposed and have not changed their view on that.

Jesus, cant we all just get along.