Pro-Palestinian supporters at Columbia University confront Jews ‘to push them out of camp’

[ralliann]

So with all of this insightful historical and political analysis you have gifted us with and so much factual and faultlessly documented evidence, I may have lost track of what your point was to begin with. As far as I can tell, what you are trying to prove is that of all of the modern nation states carved out of the remains of the Ottoman Empire, some of the people living there deserve their status as nations more than others.

Well yeah. The violent ones who reject nation status of others should not be acceptable.

 

[BCP1928]

Well yeah. The violent ones who reject nation status of others should not be acceptable.

Looking at the history of the region, that would be all of them.

 

[ralliann]

Looking at the history of the region, that would be all of them.

Well The Arabs yes. They began a war with Israel. Things have much improved since the 1967 war.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What about an engraved inscription from the actual time and people involved that states these Philistine cities becoming part of Isreal even 3,000 years ago.

You have a 3000 year old engraved map of Israel? Show it.

Despite not declaring themselves the city states, the places that contained the majority of people and culture were the nation regardless of what declarations were made later. Where else were the majority who make up the actual nation as a people but not in the most powerful and influentual cities.

Certainly not in the mountains from some ruling elite or self appointed ruling family or religion. Or some bureaucratic determination by foreign occuppiers millenia later. Like I said we have evidence that these powerful city states were nation like and acknowledged so way before the French or League of Nations made their declarations.

The city states of Phoenicia hadn't been independent for more than 2000 years before new territories called Lebanon were declared. (Does this story sound familiar?)

This is what I don't understand with the logic that many protestors against Isreal claim. They call them occupiers and colonialist and yet that is exactly what the Arabs and Muslims did. Now you are making an arguement that this is ok and part of becoming a nation. Perhaps it is but at least we have to be consistent with who qualifies under this definition as its no different to Isreal.

Do you not understand what went on in the last 80 years? (Especially the last 60 years?) There was a Jewish state and Arab territories. Then Israel started occupying the Arab territories in the old "Mandatory Palestine" and colonizing it with their "settlers" in the West Bank and Gaza. This is what is going on *RIGHT NOW* and not what happened more than 1000 years ago. We could stop right here since that is the point of this thread.

But we're going to continue aren't we?

In fact its worse as at least Isreal is the actual original people of that land who formed a nation. But the Arabs and Islam came into those lands and took it and then forced their culture onto another people. In the case of Lebanon so did the Christians.

Christianity, Islam, and Arabic all came into what be came Lebanon. Certainly some people came with those, but there is no genetic differentiation between different religious groups in Lebanon. People mostly converted to Christianity and then to Islam. They adopted Arabic just as they had adopted Aramaic and Greek before that.

So perhaps most of the still current conflict in Lebanon is because foreign powers came in and forced their culture on what was the natural culture of that area, the Phoenicians who were different.

What continuity of Phoenician/Canaanite culture remains, or even did 1000 years ago?

In fact Lebanons continual civil conflicts may be a good example of how mixed cultures cannot exist together in reality.

This is a bleak view of the world.

I disagree. Canaan was a mixture of hunter gatherers and nomads. People then began to settle with farming but still many were nomads. From settling came powerful cities with destinct cultures and peoples. It is at this point I think is the basis of the culture as it comes out of the land once people settle in that particular land.

We don't have any records of the people called Canaanites until *AFTER* those city states were founded. We don't know who they were before that.

You cannot change that and it should never be denied or reduced as the basis of that culture of people and many will have come from that place originally. Others come in later and that adds to the basic culture but its never lost. The problem comes when people try to change that with a less related culture.

So Lebanon and Isreal though originally Canaanites went their different ways because of where they were located. Phoenician is different to Isrealite.

One adapted a new religion that became central to their identity (Yahwehism) and one did not. The southern part of Canaan was more likely to be conquered by the Egyptians, the northern part more likely by the Assyrians or Hittites.

Lebonese are basically Phoenicians which comes with a different culture to the Arabs. They are two destinct cultures and I don't think you can make one culture out of them as they are fundementally different. One has to be the dominant culture and that should be Phoenician and everything that went with that up until they were denied that culture by some outside force.

This is some sort of weird Phoenician cultural essentialism that you seem to be just making up.

Just like the Spanish should not be forced to become Pheonesian culture or beliefs just because the Phoenicians once occupied them as they had their own culture developing before that which came from that land, the original cities and culture that came out of the land once people began to settle there.

This is getting very weird.

The question is why. Perhaps the Tower of Babel lol. People were once one people with a common language and never seen themselves as seperate peoples. On the other hand evolution has it that this was an inevitable consequence of survival where people became tribal and territorial.

Yep weird.

Seems more a spiritual thing as it goes beyond just land and into evil from reading some of the ways the occupiers treated the people of the lands.

Ok then Phoenicians spread their culture far and wide beyond their own land where they originated. Still it has the same hallmarks of an Empire in that its spreading a certain culture and way of life onto other cultures and people from a different background.

Why do I bother trying to explain things?

But this like the Islamic Druze should not be used to define Lebonese status as a nation. These were later additions to the Phoenician culture that was already there.

Again, what Phoenician culture?

It would be like the Muslims who came to Isreal much later claiming Isreal, Jerusalem and the Temple are fundementally Arab and Muslim when it is clearly Jewish and Isreali.

Ahh, the real point of all of this. To classify all of the Southern Levant as historically Jewish and therefore Israeli in the modern context.

The increase in Muslims in the Levant came primarily from conversion, not invasion, and the transition from other Semitic languages for the common people to Arabic came with it.

The Phoenician state was the Phoenician people and their culture and that never been broken. The core and dominant culture of Lebanon is Phoenician and always has been. The people that came later from other cultures with other beliefs were an addition but did not replace that core culture and history.

Prove it.

We could use my nation Australia. Modern Australia looks nothing like the nation of Aboriginals before it.

I've been there, and the only thing Aboriginal I saw were names of things. Not so different from the land I grew up in.

That doesn't change the fact that Aboriginals are indigenous Australians and that Australia is an Indigenous Aboriginal nation. And that actually counts for a lot as far as rights are concerned especially to land.

They did the same in all nations but that didn't change that the dominant culture was still the original culture which continued to develop despite having been influenced by other beliefs and cultures.

Have you thought about going back to whatever island your ancestors came from and leaving Australia to the Australians?

The Jews had the Muslims come in and introduce Islam and their culture.

HAHAHAHAHA. No.

"The Jews" did not have the Muslims do anything. The Muslims came as a conquering army and the (Eastern) Romans were in charge and lost that war. No one was invited in to introduce new religion and culture.

But that doesn't mean that Jewish religion took second place and become Arab culture or religion like the Muslims want or like how past conquerers tried to push. Nor should it.

The Jewish religion was already at least in second place. Christians of various sorts were dominant.

The Jews were the people from that land of Isreal and the Muslims were not.

Now you are conflating things. Muslims are people practicing a particular religion (like Christians, or Hindus), not a "people" or ethnic group. Jews (confusingly) are both an ethnic group and a group of people practicing a particular religion (with very high overlap). Is Islam a religion native Levantine religion? No. Are Judaism and Christianity? Yes. Both of those were present in the Levant before the Arabian army swept in, and afterwards, so was Islam. Arabic (the language of the conquers) became the dominant language in the region largely replacing other Semitic languages.

They brought their culture and beliefs to a foreign land so should be subject to the culture and peoples that were already there. Not the other way around.

How do you conform to Aboriginal cultural practices? Is it your religion? Language? Manner of dress? Cuisine?

Sure foriegn peoples bring their culture and it influences the dominant culture and this adds it it. But its a refinement of the dominant culture and not a replacement. If that nation naturally evolves away from that dominant culture then that is natural. But it should not be forced.

But as far as linking people to the land and their rights to it its the original culture and people that grew up out of the land and not the people and cultures that came later trying to claim its theirs.

Look around for the glass house you are living in.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well The Arabs yes. They began a war with Israel. Things have much improved since the 1967 war.

Hamas began the war, not "The Arabs". The Arabs of Lebanon did not start this war, nor the Arabs of Jordan or Syria or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or even the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank.

 

[BCP1928]

Well The Arabs yes. They began a war with Israel. Things have much improved since the 1967 war.

Is that all the middle eastern history you know?

 

[ralliann]

Is that all the middle eastern history you know?

For this conversation, it is all one needs to know...

 

[FredVB]

The ongoing war there is destabilizing everything, there and further in this world, along with other things already doing something for that. None of the things being stopped will really have those of us remaining seeing terrible changes coming beyond what could be expected. This had to be said, even while now none might listen to it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I also support Marjorie Taylor Greene's decision to vote against the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023, and support her right to say:

“Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews,” Greene wrote.

Greene’s comment was accompanied by a photo of the bill text, which said it would use the “definition of antisemitism” adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016. The text noted this includes “claims of Jews killing Jesus,” which it described as “classic antisemitism.”

Republicans have made sure people can say the Jews Killed Jesus.

Why the Antisemitism Awareness Act now has a religious liberty clause to protect ‘Jews killed Jesus’ statements​

The added language, which is referred to as a “manager’s amendment” and proposed by the committee’s chair, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, states that the legislation would not “diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, including the free exercise of religion.”
At least two Republican members of the Senate committee that will vote on the bill, Tommy Tuberville from Alabama and Roger Marshall of Kansas, have expressed their objections due to concerns about religious liberty and the ability to express certain views.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Republicans have made sure people can say the Jews Killed Jesus.

Why the Antisemitism Awareness Act now has a religious liberty clause to protect ‘Jews killed Jesus’ statements​

The added language, which is referred to as a “manager’s amendment” and proposed by the committee’s chair, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, states that the legislation would not “diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, including the free exercise of religion.”
At least two Republican members of the Senate committee that will vote on the bill, Tommy Tuberville from Alabama and Roger Marshall of Kansas, have expressed their objections due to concerns about religious liberty and the ability to express certain views.

Alexa, play Entrance of the Gladiators by Julius Fučík.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Valletta]

Republicans have made sure people can say the Jews Killed Jesus.

Why the Antisemitism Awareness Act now has a religious liberty clause to protect ‘Jews killed Jesus’ statements​

The added language, which is referred to as a “manager’s amendment” and proposed by the committee’s chair, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, states that the legislation would not “diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, including the free exercise of religion.”
At least two Republican members of the Senate committee that will vote on the bill, Tommy Tuberville from Alabama and Roger Marshall of Kansas, have expressed their objections due to concerns about religious liberty and the ability to express certain views.

And "Jesus was a Jew" as well.

 

[Desk trauma]

Republicans have made sure people can say the Jews Killed Jesus.

Why the Antisemitism Awareness Act now has a religious liberty clause to protect ‘Jews killed Jesus’ statements​

The added language, which is referred to as a “manager’s amendment” and proposed by the committee’s chair, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, states that the legislation would not “diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, including the free exercise of religion.”
At least two Republican members of the Senate committee that will vote on the bill, Tommy Tuberville from Alabama and Roger Marshall of Kansas, have expressed their objections due to concerns about religious liberty and the ability to express certain views.

What, no protection for publicizing the use of Christian blood to make matzahs or offenses against the Eucharist?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

What, no protection for publicizing the use of Christian blood to make matzahs or offenses against the Eucharist?

Christian children. Adult blood is to meh. It's like the difference between lamb and mutton. You can eat mutton but why?

 

[BCP1928]

Republicans have made sure people can say the Jews Killed Jesus.

Why the Antisemitism Awareness Act now has a religious liberty clause to protect ‘Jews killed Jesus’ statements​

The added language, which is referred to as a “manager’s amendment” and proposed by the committee’s chair, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, states that the legislation would not “diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, including the free exercise of religion.”
At least two Republican members of the Senate committee that will vote on the bill, Tommy Tuberville from Alabama and Roger Marshall of Kansas, have expressed their objections due to concerns about religious liberty and the ability to express certain views.

Perfectly reasonable, since the "antisemitism awareness act" is really the Christian Zionism advancement act.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What, no protection for publicizing the use of Christian blood to make matzahs or offenses against the Eucharist?

Since the law can't (and now explicitly doesn't) affect First Amendment free speech rights, that is of course protected speech.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And "Jesus was a Jew" as well.

There's nothing antisemitic about saying Jesus was Jewish. Because He was/is.

Claiming that the Jewish people are guilty of killing Jesus is antisemitic.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Valletta]

There's nothing antisemitic about saying Jesus was Jewish. Because He was/is.

Claiming that the Jewish people are guilty of killing Jesus is antisemitic.

-CryptoLutheran

Some Jews called for his death. Some Jews became Apostles.

 

[rjs330]

There's nothing antisemitic about saying Jesus was Jewish. Because He was/is.

Claiming that the Jewish people are guilty of killing Jesus is antisemitic.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't think its antisemitic. It's incorrect. The Jews just demanded rhat Jesus be killed. The Romans actually carried out the crucifixion. I mean its kind of a fine distinction since Jesus wouldn't have been in that position in the first place if it weren't for the Jews.

Peter acknowledged this himself.

Acts 2:22-23 ESV
[22] “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— [23] this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 2:22-23 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, de | English Standard Version Revision

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, de

bible.com

 

[rjs330]

The real anti-semites are those who have called for death of jews and eradication of Israel. Some of them are on our campuses.

 

[RDKirk]

Some Jews called for his death. Some Jews became Apostles.

I would argue that it was specifically the Jewish leadership and their employees (dare I say the "Deep State?")

We know the temple hierarchy had hundreds in their direct employ.

We also know Jesus' trial was held at night and rushed specifically to avoid the knowledge of the Jewish ordinary people.

We know his trial under Pilate was held early in the morning on Preparation Day prior to the Passover Sabbath.

And we know that being in Pilate's courtyard would render a Jew ceremonially unclean... on Preparation Day prior to the Passover Sabbath.

So...where were the good, hardworking, everyday Jews early in the morning on Preparation Day prior to the Passover Sabbath, not having any knowledge of what had transpired the night before?

I doubt they were in Pilate's courtyard.