• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!


Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by fin, Dec 10, 2002.

  1. fin

    fin Regular Member

  2. David Gould

    David Gould Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

    That certainly sucks. And this is one of the reasons why I hate these debates. I just do not understand the arguments or position of the other side - I cannot even get to the point of agreeing to disagree.

    On just about any other issue, I can at least understand my opponent's position. This one, I can't. :cry:
  3. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    David Gould -

    You have missed the point, which is that the various invaders took over a pre-existing nation, not a desolate parcel of land. In other words, they invaded and controlled a nation which wasn't theirs.

    The Jews continued to remain in their land (though many of them were booted out) and that land continued to be the nation of Israel. At various points, the invaders (a) withdrew of their own accord, (b) were ousted by the Jews, or (c) were replaced by other invaders.

    In every case, the bottom line remains unchanged - that the Jews continued to dwell in their own land, comprising a distinct and (when it wasn't being invaded) independent nation. The fact that other nations occasionally controlled the land, is irrelevant. The nation of Israel did not spontaneously cease to exist with every new invasion, nor did the Jewish people evaporate into thin air. My argument remains unchallenged.

    History shows that the nation of Israel has been invaded and controlled by many different people. Those same people did not establish a state of their own - they merely ruled over a pre-existing state which was never theirs in the first place. Your argument requires (a) the land itself to have changed hands, (b) the land itself to have been resettled by a new ethnic majority, and (c) the land itself to have been designated an entirely different nation by that new ethnic majority.

    In short - your argument requires the nation of Israel to have been totally eliminated, which it never was.

    The Jewish claim to the land is very simple: clear, irrefutable, historical facts.

    Well, that's too bad. The men I quoted, have done nothing but recite historical fact. If you won't hear the facts from the "Palestinians" themselves, who will you hear them from?

    But let's take a closer look at one of those chaps, shall we...?
    • The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said:

      Palestine was part of the Province of Syria

      and that,

      politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity.
    • A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri (later the chairman of the PLO) told the Security Council:

      It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.
    Hmmmm. Well, we have (a) the representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations, and a man who later became the chairman of the PLO.

    These men submitted official statements to the United Nations, on behalf of the "Palestinian" people.

    Are you still going to tell me that these official statements are totally irrelevant?


    Yep. They came into Israel's historic homeland and lived there for a very short period of time.

    No, they were not pushed out at all. The whole point is that it was the invading Arab armies of 1948 who told the "Palestinians" to get out of the way because they were about to wipe Israel off the map. Those same "Palestinians" were promised the spoils of war. Those same "Palestinians" were denied entrance into the Arab states after the war had ended. (Yep, you heard right - their Arab "brethren" refused to take them back in again!) The "Palestinians" had never owned the land on which they were currently squatting - they had merely infiltrated it over the years. Most of them had originally come from Syria and Jordan.

    Why? It was never theirs to begin with! They just wandered in from the surrounding Arab nations, and started to make themselves at home!

    The Israelis offered to share, but the "Palestinians" refused, because they wanted it all!

    Here's the history - again:
    • Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in Palestine continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea.
    • Many Jews were massacred by the Crusaders during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years. By the early 19th century-years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement-more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel.
    • When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades.
    • Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century.
    • The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the United Nations two years before. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by Egypt (occupying the Gaza Strip) and by Trans-Jordan (occupying Judea-Samaria (the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and Jerusalem.
    • In the next year (1950) Trans-Jordan formally merged this West Bank territory into itself and granted all those Arabs living there Jordanian citizenship. Since Trans-Jordan was no longer confined to one side of the Jordan River, it renamed itself simply "JORDAN." In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine. Astonishingly, they wanted even more...
    • From 1948-67, when all of Judea-Samaria (the West Bank, including Jerusalem!) ended up under Arab (Jordanian) control, no effort was ever made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there.
    • Yes, that's right - the idea to create a Palestinian state was first proposed after this land had already left Arab hands! The Jordanians certainly had no intention of creating an Arab Palestinian state - and if I was a Palestinian, I'd be somewhat peeved at the fact that my Arab brethren possessed the most disputed sections of Israeli territory for nineteen years, and didn't do anything with it! If the Palestinians really belonged there, why didn't they create their own state while they had the chance? Why didn't they do what the Jews had done?
    BTW, you might want to study Zionism some time. You'll find that it was the Jews themselves who first had the idea of re-establishing the nation of Israel. The wheels were set in motion long before the UN vote of 1947. It wasn't a Western idea - it was a Jewish idea. :cool:
  4. tamtam92

    tamtam92 Veteran

    What are your sources, evangelion, please ?

    I think this debate will never end, but at least we could try to find solutions, even if we cannot do anything efficient. First, i have the feeling that some of you have a biased judgement and love a people better than another...
    To me, I want Israeli and palestinians to live free in their own country. If palestinians want to become a nation, why not ? They're not attached to a country for the moment.
    The problem of nationalism is common --see corsica, ETA in Spain...-- but often it is a "nation" which wants to separate from a country.

    Our debate is very different.

    If i understand well, Palestinians were living in a land for a relatively recent period. But then Israeli come back, and there was a clash.
    Now this two people are fighting for this one land.

    Why not give each one a part of the land according to the number of people they are ?

    Why does america defend Israel rather than Palestine ? They shouldn't. They should only defend peace.

    I'm quite astonished that you want to do politics. I want people to live free, and everyone have the same rights, and be able to know and serve God in peace.
  5. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    TamTam -

    They are:
    • Commonly known historical facts.
    • Official statements by "Palestinian" representatives.
    • The Jewish Virtual Library (see here.
    I have not made any claim which cannot be independently verified by reference to objective sources.

    Well, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. It's not really what I feel at all.

    I don't mind if they want to become a nation - but I do object to their attempts to steal Israeli territory.

    I agree.

    True. In this case, a bunch of Syrians want to steal pieces of Israel.

    The "Palestinians" came from Syria, and lived in Israel for a few decades. Later, they were promised Israel as a gift, by the Arab nations who joined forces in 1948, hoping to destroy the Jewish state and wipe Israel off the map.

    At the end of the war, the Arabs would not let these settlers return to their original places of residence, so Jews told them that they could remain in Israel. Much later, the settlers began to claim that they were the true owners of Israel. (Despite the fact that their own leaders admitted that this was not true.)

    Because it belongs to Israel, and nobody else.

    Because Israel has a right to the land, while the "Palestinians" are trying to steal land which never belonged to them in the first place.

    If it was your land that the "Palestinians" were trying to steal, I believe you might feel a bit different about it.

    That would be possible in an ideal world.

    But we do not live in an ideal world.

    I may discuss politics, but I take no active part in it. I also refuse to vote.

    So do I.

    Which is why I wait for the Kingdom of God on Earth. :cool:
  6. fin

    fin Regular Member

    "Why not give each one a part of the land according to the number of people they are ?"

    This is an interesting idea. The Palestinians would probably end up with even more land then they are asking for now. Even more important than land is water. Israel is controlling most of the water leading to a severe shortage in Palestine.

    Right now the Palestinians just want Israel to return to their 1967 borders. They also want to be recognized as a country. Is that too much to ask?
  7. vegan

    vegan Soaking in the Florida Sunshine

    Well, they are the same in that Hitler was a madman intent on killing the Jews and the arabs that attacked (and continue to attack) israel are madmen who are intent on killing jews and driving them into the sea.

    no one just gave germany back to the germans.&nbsp; first of all, Germany was occupied by the four powers (France, who did nothing to win the war, the U.S., England, and the USSR). These powers helped rebuild the economic and political infrastructure of Germany (the West succeeded while your socialist utopia enforced theirs with a gun).

    Germany was united in the 19th century.&nbsp; There was a sense of nationalism.&nbsp; It was easy to allow self-rule of Germany.&nbsp; There was already a unity and a willingness to work together for the good of the nation. This political reality is anathema to the tribal arab and muslim countries of the middle east.&nbsp; tom friedman, a liberal NY Times colomnist even points this out!&nbsp; The situation is quite different.&nbsp; Heck, even muslim/arab leaders in this area can hardly hold on to power.... and if they do, it is usually as brutal than any communist regime.&nbsp; Again, it is because of the tribal nature of the land.

    In this climate, baby Israel did what it had to do - it held on to the land.&nbsp; they knew to hold on to it would be suicide.
  8. vegan

    vegan Soaking in the Florida Sunshine

    David - why no respnse to the Castro question? Is it because you support Castro? Is it because you have no problem when the person seizing property agrees with you politically? THis is not a personal attack. I just think you owe all us God-fearing Christians a full accounting of where you are coming from. We need to see where the inconsistencies are!!!!
  9. David Gould

    David Gould Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

    I did answer the question - it is probably lost back a few pages.
  10. David Gould

    David Gould Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

    I should add that I do not support Castro for the simple reason that he does not follow the same ideology I do. Saddam Hussein's political party&nbsp;claims to be a socialist, but that does not make&nbsp;it so.
  11. David Gould

    David Gould Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

    Just out of interest, why is it that you fear your God?
  12. vegan

    vegan Soaking in the Florida Sunshine

    It is relevant for this reason:

    1. You came out against Israel seizing land.&nbsp;

    2. You cited historical examples where giving back land to its "rightful owners" was the just thing to do."

    3. Now you are saying the seizure of property is not ABSOLUTLY wrong..... it all depends on how ownership was achieved.

    So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that sometimes property can be confiscated.&nbsp; Am I correct?&nbsp; Who then shall decide what can be taken and what can not?&nbsp; Will not the decision be influenced by nationality, political beliefs, religion, etc.?&nbsp;

    I imagine you could produce a list of "reasons" to support seizing the land of the middle and upper class.&nbsp; The Jews of baby Israel had such a list in 1948.&nbsp; They have to live there; we don't.&nbsp; Take their word for it - they were attacked and know what to do to survive.

    May God, praise His Holy Name, watch over Eretz Yisrael and protect her from the infidels.
  13. David Gould

    David Gould Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

    Yes, there are circumstances in which I believe the keeping of seized property is justified. However,&nbsp;all of those circumstances involve the resolving of systematic and systemitised inequities in the distribution of resources.

    Thus, in the Cuban instance I am sure that there were some seizures of porperty that were justified, although&nbsp;the vast majority&nbsp;of them would not have been. (class and individual score settling would have been the main motive for these seizures, unfortunately - the revenge motive, again).

    "Take their word for it"? Why not take the Palestinians word for it - after all, they live there too?
  14. fin

    fin Regular Member

    "Well, they are the same in that Hitler was a madman intent on killing the Jews and the arabs that attacked (and continue to attack) israel are madmen who are intent on killing jews and driving them into the sea."

    Do you see the irony in this statment? I was reading an article that quoted an Israeli who said that the Palestinians should be "driven into the sea". Who is driving who?