Seems like it, unfortunately. *le sigh* C'est la vie, malheursment...

 

~AJ

zergimmi posts:

leauki posts: [quote]The simple truth is that you write complete nonsense.

There is no "Palestinian race". There are simply Arabs, Jews and other peoples who live in "Palestine", with "Palestine" being the Roman name for a region in the Middle-East. ....quote]

While Leauki says what you write is complete nonsense....I think it's very insightful and right on the mark as is post 48.

It's just that in relation to things Jewish, we find most terms to be terminologically confused and confounded That's becasue in modern Judaism (all those Judaisms that sprung up after 70AD), there is no agreement whatsoever among persons calling themselves "Jews" as to the distinction between terms and so they are used interchangeably.  

leauki posts 43

Leauki,

Even though Zergimmi called them the "Palestinian people", you reminded him there is no "Palestinian race" and yet, it is the same of Jews. Jews are not a race in the ethnological sense of the term. Jews do not have any physical distinctiveness to warrant their being classified as other than a disticnctive cultural group of the white division of the human species.

In origin, Jews are an Eastern Mediterranean people, and so are many other groups not called "Jews".   

Zergimmi posts 42

Yes, this is true for the terms "Hebrews", "Isrealites" and "Jews" cannot rightly be used interchangeably.

Most people do call a Hebrew a Jew, and also an Isrealite a Jew. But calling them such does not give him a distinctive character and neither does it inform us whether he is a believer in Mosaic principles and practices as the term Hebrew did four plus centuries before Christ and the Christian era.

leauki posts:

First came the Hebrews....meant originally a stranger, a foreigner. According to Genesis 14:13, the first person designated as a Hebrew was Abraham (forefather of the Isrealites, and Abraham was not a Jew) becasue he was a foreigner in Canaan, who had come from the other side of the Euphrates River. Isaias 19:18 tells us the name "Hebrew" was later given to the "language of Canaan" and was applied to the "Jews" who spoke the holy language in contrast to the Hellenic "Jews" who spoke the Greek language only.

So, Abraham was the first Hebrew recorded in the OT, and he was not a Jew.

From Exodus 3:15, we learn the term "Isrealites" stems from Jacob, the son of Isaac, whose name God changed to Isreal. The name Isreal was later given at a later date to the 10 northern tribes that have disappeared. 1Kings 2:28-30.

From 4Kings 25:25, comes the first record of the term Jews. There it's applied to the people of Judah, It is related to a worshipper of the one God in the Book of Esther 2:5. That was about 1,000 years after Moses became the father of Old Testament Judaism about 250 years after Jacob's name was changed to Isreal.  

Historically, until 70AD, the advent of all the modern Judaisms, the term "Jews" was universally applied to believers and worshippers of the one God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob according to the Mosaic Law. The term Isrealites applied to the descendants of Jacob and to their nationality. The term Hebrew was applied to the language of the Jews.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to mention that "race" is a sociological construct; it was brough about as to stratify societies based on differences. An example that comes to mind is early america with: Whites/Caucasions, Blacks/Negroes, Indians/Savages, etc. There was a desire to be...in a sense...superior over another. Why? I don't know...just is what it is.

 

 

alecjourdain posts:

Leauki,

"Right"?

No such a "right" exists.....the Jewish oppression of others called "Palestinians" to the point of ethnic cleansing is not a "right".

 

 

I wrtie complete nonsense says you, I do not for one minute expect the dismantling of Israel, and I do not call all Jews European, only the ones from Europe. Just as the ones from Australia are Australian. Your problem mate is you quote everything above in response to what I said, while very little relates to the fact that you guys took land from other people (lets forget what we call them), and now you think we should support how you treat them, sorry you can blab all day but it's still bullshit, and if you think what I say is garbage then ignor me. By the way I only came on today to say I was soryy for some of my original comments yesterday, however even though I was wrong on many points, you can stick the apology up you tight little arse.

Out of interest are you Haredi, or your more run of the mill Jew, I can see you are not secular.

I suppose me being RC would make me secular, being that I have Jewish Blood, but am not Jewish (by religion).

I always remember those words that Jesus spoke when he was carrying his cross to his death at the hands of his own people, it go something like this, weap not for me woman, but for your sons and their sons, as there will not be a stone left upon a stone (in the nation of Israel). You people seem very good at making this a reality.

So go on and rant, I really don't care, at the end of the day it makes no difference, what you or I say, it changes nothing.

I was wrong on the Arab thing though I will admit that.

It seems to me Leauki, that most of what I wrote was closer to the truth, or facts, whatever , than you would have me believe, including the origins of your people, including my Granny (Lithuainan) and even Abraham.

It is you my friend who talks nonsense, I would imagin tinged with a bit to much emotion, it seems my dear old Granny may know a bit more than you my friend, however I was advised I was wrong to call Abraham an Arab, sorry he was Hebrew.

You referred to Israelis as "Europeans", despite the fact that the majority are from middle-eastern families.




Fair enough.




I was "closer to the truth". You really don't know much about Semitic peoples. I don't care whether your granny is Lithuanian. You very clearly don't know much about the origin of the Israelites.

That is OK.

But what isn't OK is to start ranting on a subject you know almost nothing about.

The Arabs from "Palestine" were NOT expelled by the Jews. The Jews didn't even have the manpower to do that, as any anti-Israel activist can tell you if you listen carefully. (They will tell you how few Jews they believe lived in the region in 1947 and how many "Palestinian" refugees there allegedly were. If you add up the numbers you will find that a very small Jewish minority somehow managed to make millions of Arabs leave while fighting the other Arabs. It's mathematically impossible and it didn't happen.)

The land was also not "stolen", but very simply bought.

Baron Rothschield and others started buying land in Israel in the late 19th century and that is the land the Jewish state was founded on. It wasn't "Arab land", it was Turkish land (by sovereignty). Individual parts of the land were owned by Turks, Jews, Arabs etc. And the Zionists started buying the land. It was cheap because nobody wanted to live there. Plus it was almost empty. (There lived fewer than 50,000 people, Jew and Arab, in Jerusalem in 1900. The newly-founded Tel Aviv would have more inhabitants 30 years later.)

If the Turkish authorities had not expelled local Jews every few years, the Arab majority would probably have been in danger a long time ago. But to claim that it is Arab land because the Turkish authorities kept expelling Jewish inhabitants borders on sarcasm.




Now, why would I bee Haredi? Whatever made you think that?

I am perhaps not secular, but "Haredi" goes a bit far. I don't even keep kosher. (But I do have the dark bearded looks, if it interests, and some of my friends indeed wear hats.)

I am masorti, traditional.

Middle-eastern Jews tried to cope with Ashkenazi secularism and tried to emulate the Israeli elite without giving up the traditional middle-eastern way of life. The result was masorti, a way to accomodote religion and modern life. Today in Israel Mizrachi families will often follow ancient traditions without even telling anyone. Some Mizrachim are Haredim. But mostly the very religious and very secular lifestyles are Ashkenazi things. (I am Ashkenazi myself.)




Whether you have Jewish blood or not is quite irrelevant to me.

As for religion, I have many friends in Israel who are Jewish by nationality but complete and utter atheists by belief and nothing by religion.




It was the Roman government of Judaea that had him killed, not "his people".

The sarcasm about "your people" is duly noted, although I find this a strange point in time to make that observation because Israel is more powerful now than it ever was in its history except perhaps under kings David and Solomon.

Maybe you should talk to your granny again. If she could tell you that Abraham was not an Arab then perhaps she can tell you other things about the ancestors of the Jews too.

What you wrote about how modern Israel came to be, however, was complete nonsense. You just repeated anti-Semitic lies about stealing land and expelling people. Perhaps you should read the history of some Arab villages during the Arab war against Israel. The Jews had neither the power nor the will to "expell" the Arabs and instead pleaded with them to help defend the country because chances were that the British-trained (and British-commandeered) Transjordanian army would simply destroy Israel.

SOME Arab inhabitants helped, notably the Druze and Bedouin. (One of Israel's top-three war heroes was a Bedouin. The other two were an Ashkenazi Jew born in Israel and a Mizrachi Jew from Iraq.)

When you lie this into a conflict between "European" Jews and Arabs you ignore the fact that it was really a conflict between European Jews, local Jews who were hunted down in the newly-created Arab countries, local Bedouin, and local Druze against British-supported nationalist pan-Arab forces on the other side.

And you would know that if you did some reading of original sources.

The University of Haifa has an archive of old newspaper articles. One was particularly impressive from 1947 where the first Jewish and last Muslim mayor of Haifa called on the Arab population of the city to stay and defend the city which was then under Arab siege. But guess what, two-thirds of the Arabs fled, following a call by the attacking Arab forces to leave. The remaining third remained and fought and they WON. The refugees were then eventually replaced with Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

What "oppression" of what "Palestinians"?

If you mean the _Arabs_ living in Israel and the disputed territories, they have a higher standard of living than Egypt.

And "ethnic cleansing" and whatever other anti-Semitic lies you can tell have little impact here. You can convince your fellow racists but not me.

 

You are confused Lula, you keep forgetting that I am speaking of "peoples", not "races".

There is neither a "Palestinian" nor a "Jewish" "race".

But there is a Jewish people.

There is no "Palestinian" people. But there is an Arab people.

There is nothing distinctive "Palestinian" in Palestinian Arabs that is not simply related to their location. They do not have any customs unique to them (i.e. not followed by other Arabs or other non-Arab Palestinians). They do not have a distinct religion or distinct language. And they do not have a history unique to them.

Jews, on the other hand, have distinct customs, a distinct language, and a distinct history. They are quite different from both other Europeand and other Middle-Easterners and other Palestinians.

 

That's about right.

But "lack of an Arab state" strikes me as ridiculous because at that point the Ottoman Empire was already divided up into several dozen Arab states and only two non-Arab states (Israel and Turkey).

"Lack of an Arab state" is hardly the problem.

I would think that perhaps "lack of non-Arab states" was an issue, as any Kurd and Massalith can tell you.

 

One final comment, forget the fact that you are Jewish, and forget the fact that the Palestinians are Arabs, and Iam of Scottish, Irish, Jewish decent, and get back to basics, ethnicly we are different, yet we are all the genetically, Human Beings. Then lets look at the teachings of Jesus, and then we can start to change the entire problem, because it is only then we can see we are all equal.

The other point is we all follow the same God, Jew, Christian and Muslim, yet we spend most of our time fighting, in the end it all seems quite pointless when you look at, men fighting men, with no concern for their families or those of their percieved enemy.  These are the inocent victims of war.

All the rest is just fluf to make our leaders look like big men, the day a Prime Minister, President or defense minister lead the troops into battle, is the day we all stop fighting, why? Because its easier to send someone else, than do it yourself. Think about that.

Fighting over land is just a stupid as any other excuse, and I find that most leaders who lead in war are incapable of finding peace, why, because all they know is how to fight a war, just look at the leadership of Fatah and Hamas, these guys are soldiers, so they want to keep fighting, because that is all they know. While this situation exists, there will be no peace, all the excuses are just that, they just don't know how to have peace, the same goes for your government, you have no new leadership, just the same ones recycled again and again.

The problem with peace in you neck f the woods is the fact that they try to fix the problem as it stands now, this won't work. Both sides need to wipe the slate clean and design new solutions that will work, instead of trying to fix the existing rpoblems. This is one of the first rules of problem solving at any level. Which I might add is my rpofession, solving problems for businesses. Countries are the same, with one glaring problem, politicans ( most of whom would not no their arse from their armpit), they are generally not any more qualified than you or I, and quite possible less, yet we expect them to be almost Gods, and they start to think so too.

Anywho, that's it for me, it's back to hospital for me, for another few months, hopefully when I get back I can control myself better, if I have offended anyone, please forgive me. Hopefully this stay will be shorter and get better results. It has been a long self imposed break from JU for me but judgeing by my comments in the last few days still not well enough to be a fully contributing member. It's not so much about controlling myself, just the other selves, who still take over at times, yes more than one personality, 3 to be exact. It's no big deal, just managing them sometimes can be a handfull, sometimes quite funny if we are all there together, how I got them is another story, which I don't share with anyone.

So once again guys thanks for the great read, and sorry for any hurt I may have caused anyone.

Will Miss you all, even you Leauki and with a bit of luck will be back soon, and in control.

This is weird.

I already explained what "Hebrew" meant and yet you feel a strange need to replace my explanation with something wrong.

It is always a bit of a shock to me when you tell people what Hebrew words mean because I cannot figure out what your sources are.

The word Hebrew from the root Ayin Bet Resh doesn't mean "stranger" or "foreigner" but "cross over" as I just wrote a few comments earlier. Here is a dictionary reference for you:

http://www.milon.co.il/general/general.php?term=%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%A8

You can also confirm this for Aramaic:

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/searching/fulldictionary_search.html

The root you are looking for is "(br".

And of course Abraham was not a Jew. As I explained (also in my previous comments), "Jews" are members of the three tribes of Judaea. All Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews. (For example, the Samaritans are Israelites but not Jews.)

 

That is religious nonsense. The definition of "Israelite" or "Jew" has nothing to do with Christianity.

It is perfectly appropriate to use the term "Jew" as a placeholder for "Israelite" since 95+% of Israelites are Jews. There are 1600 or so Samraitans, about 200,000 (perhaps) Ethiopian "Jews" (aka the tribe of Dan) and a few thousand members of other tribes. But the 10-15 million "Jews" you read about in encyclopedia are really the most representative tribe of the people.

Israel still celebrates the twelve tribes at every Independence Day so you don't have to be worried about them being forgotten. We remember them every year.

An Israelite does not have to believe in Mosaic principles to be an Israelite. (And neither does a German have to pray to Thor or whatever it is those people were doing 2000 years ago.)

 

 

You still misunderstand the point.

This is not about Arabs being "different". It is about them attacking us and trying to kill us. If they didn't do that, there would be no justification to "oppress" them or to fight them. And Israel never wanted to fight an enemy 12 times the size of the Israeli army.

As I have mentioned before I have nothing but the greatest respect for any Bedouin who fights for Israel and I don't care whether someone who helps protect Israel is a Jew or an Arab or a Darfuri refugee or whatever.

The issue I have is with, to go back to the original article, "We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood" announcement the Arabs made before 1967 and other intentions like that. The issue is NOT their nationality it's their ideology.

I am German, myself (as well as Jewish).

And my issue with Germany in World War 2 was NOT the fact that it was Germany (love the country) but its Nazi ideology.

And in the same vein my issue with the PLO and Hamas and Hizbullah and all those terrorists is not their Arab nationality but their Nazi ideology.

"Palestinian" television regularly shows those Hamas plays where they call for the extermination of all Jews. They don't do this because they are Arabs. They do it because they are fecking Nazis.

Israeli television never calls for the extermination of all Arabs. And while I want to believe that the reason it doesn't do that is because Jews don't advocate murder, it's really only true that Zionists don't advocate murder.

That's why an Arab can walk through a Jewish city in Israel and survive. (Heck, I myself shared a university dorm in Haifa with Arab students.)

Try the same trick as a Jew in an Arab city anywhere in the Arab world and you'll perceive a difference.

And if you don't think that difference justifies war then I suggest you practice what you believe and get yourself killed, not me.

 

Palestinians are not "Arabs". They are Jews and Arabs and Circassians and Armenians and Turks and countless other nationalities living side by side in Israel/Palestine.

Try finding a single reference to "Palestinian" as specifically Arab before the 1960s. (There are references to "Palestinian" referring to specifically Jews.)

Claiming that "Palestinians" are "Arabs" not only insults Jews because it uses a word made up by the Romans to insult Judaism as if it was a real name for a people or a region but it also denies the fact that there were indeed always non-Arab people who lived in the country. Denying their existence isn't helpful. (And it is ironic considering how many anti-Semites will tell you that Zionists deny that Arabs ever lived in "Palestine". I have never met a Zionist who denied that Arabs lived in "Palestine". But I know plenty of anti-Zionists who insist that "Palestinians" are "Arabs".)

Saying that "Palestinians are Arabs" is as wrong as claiming that "Americans are English". While it is true that many Americans are English or of English descent, Americans (named after the location) are also Irish and German and French and some few native Americans. In the same way "Palestine" contains people ("Palestinians") who are of mostly Arab descent but also of native (Israelite/Jewish) descent and of Armenian descent etc..

Plus the Arab-only simplification of the issue ignores the Druz and Bedouin who have different cultures still and do not necessarily want to be seen as a monolithic unit with other Arabs.

 

 

It's the smalles conflict in the Middle-East causing the fewest deaths.

In Israel fewer people die of all those wars and terror attacks than in traffic accidents.

And while the world spends hours every day to look at Jerusalem, wondering why the Jews consider themselves the "chosen people", the holocaust in Darfur continues and nobody cares.

Fatah and Hamas are not "soldiers", they are terrorists. Soldiers do not attack kindergardens and cinemas. Soldiers do not blow up shopping malls and hospitals. Fatah and Hamas ALWAYS target schools and hospitals and absolutely everything that contains many Jewish children. It is a miracle that so few Jews die in this conflict, but much of it really had to do with the evacuation plans (the population of Israel is often moved around the country depending on where the war is).

Israel has changed leadership many, many times. But Fatah and Hamas are always ruled by the same people.

Either way, this war has killed fewer people than most peaces have in the region.

And the "oppression" of the "Palestinians" has resulted in them having a higher standard of living then Egyptians and Syrians.

But for some reason the world seems to be unable to distinguish between "Arab" and "terrorist" and hence cannot get it into its collective mind that Israel might want to shoot at terrorists but not necessarily at Arabs.

Trust me, if a non-Arab army decided to invade Israel, Israel would shoot at those attackers too.

 

All Jewish and Druze and most Bedouin Israelis have been in the army.

I myself have been in two wars, in my position as civilian. I have seen rockets fly and hit things.

Most Israeli politicians have been in the army, most have been war heroes. Ariel Sharon was a tank commander. His second-in-command Majalli Wahabi was an infantry deputy brigade commander. Bibi Netanyahu was reconnaissanc. His brother died in abttle in Uganda. Ehud Barak was Head of Staff in the Israeli army.

I am thinking about it. What's the point? I cannot think of the relevance here.

The vast majority of leading Israeli politicians are highly-decorated war heroes, both Jewish and Arab. They never send anyone into a war they have not fought themselves too.

 

 

 

leauki posts:

I'm not confused...I've tried to be very terminologcially clear...

As far as "race" goes you said in post # 43...

43

Leauki posts 43

Again, let's try for terminological exactitude....The people who inhabit the state of Isreal are Isrealis, not Isrealites. Isrealites  from Exodus 3:15,  stems from Jacob, the son of Isaac, whose name God changed to Isreal. The name Isreal was later given at a later date to the 10 northern tribes that have disappeared. 1Kings 2:28-30.

Duh! That's a no -brainer.

Now, back to the topic...it IS THE JEWISH ARMY THAT INVADED, THEN OCCUPIED ARAB HELD LANDS THAT NOW MAKE UP THE STATE OF ISREAL.

 

leauki posts:

lula 52

leauki posts:

Everything I said is correct. I just added additional information to yours. Re; the highlighted....Actaully, Abraham didn't "found the Isrealites", he founded the Hebrews and it was Jacob the son of Isaac who founded the Isrealites.

 

My source was Sacred Scripture...read those passages and you'll find they support what I said.

I'm not going to nit-pick over this. I recognize that considerable differences of opinion exist as to the origin of the term "Hebrew". It's generally held to be a primitive word connected with Hebner....the region beyond the Euphraptes. The Septuagint renders it Perates..a stranger from a foreign land...and that is exactly who Abraham was...And again, Abraham is the first Hebrew recorded in the Old Testament.

In Gen. 40:15, Joseph said, "I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews." meaning his people in the land of Canaan.

All Jews were not Hebrews , yet all Hebrews were Jews at the time and for 3 centuries before the Coming of Christ.

 

Leauki,

Ya, we know...whatever you disagree with is labeled "nonsense".

But Leauki...it's time to GET REAL. Those defintions are what they are....the Messias came..."Emmanuel with us". Everything changed with the Christ's Life, Death and Resurrection.

 

 

Again...time to GET REAL.

The Palestinian people may be more in number but they are fighting with sticks and stones compared to Isreal's power and military might.

Isreal has got to stop playing the victim.

 

 

Israelis include Arabs. Israelites are Jews and Samaritans.




The land was BOUGHT, not invaded.

I realise that for you Jews buying land is probably the same as invasion, but that doesn't mean that it's morally the same for everybody else.

The land was also not Arab, it was Turkish when the Jews started buying it and British when Israel got its independence.

I think you are thinking of whatever Arab state Israel was a part of hundreds of years ago before the Turks invaded it.

You are a liar, Lula, and it's not that you are just re-telling lies others told you. You specifically and actively tell lies even when told the truth




Lula, I know that you are well aware of the fact that Israel's wars were against several Arab countries, NOT the "Palestinians".

You cannot have it both ways. Either you claim that Israel has been at constant war with all of its neighbours XOR you claim that Israel has been fighting only the "Palestinians". Only one of them can be true.

You are trying to blame the Jews for being at war with everyone and for being at war with a small impotent people.




In a way. There are those who simply read the Hebrew word and know what it means. And there are those who simply make up something they want it to mean.

That's a "difference of opinion", if you want. It's the same difference of opinion we might have about another random Semitic word that I happen to know and you don't.




You got it confused again.

All Jews are Hebrews but not all Hebrews are Jews. Neither now nor 2000 years ago.




Nope. I just happen to disagree with a lot of nonsense.

There are lot of things I disagree with that are not nonsense, like social welfare, specific public health insurance systems, the Christian religion (except your weird fanatical branch), Islam, Hinduism, stamp-collecting. You name it...

But sometimes, dear Lula, lies are being told, often by you. And I disagree with those because they are nonsense.

You have a problem in that you are trying to tell lies about the Talmud (in past discussions) to someone who has actually read the passages you think you were quoting. And you have a problem in that you are trying to tell lies about the origins of the modern state of Israel to someone who has actually seen original news paper articles from the time and spoken to the children of the very Arabs you claim the Jews wanted to drive out.

You *think* that the Zionists wanted (and want) to expel the Arabs and steal their land. And you tell people this thing as if it were a fact.

I *am* a Zionist and I *know* that I don't want to expel Arabs and that I have the greatest respect for the Druze and Bedouin who helped defend Israel when the Arab states attacked her. And I know the the Zionists bought the land because I am still giving money to the organisation that buys land and builds irrigation systems and plants trees.

It's also not completely impossible to find the original documents of sale of specific parts of Israel from Turkish and British times. It's only inconvenient for anti-Semitic liars, because a "Jewish army" with a deed to the land doesn't fit into the image of the plundering Jew, does it?

The Palestinian Authority has a law against seeling land to Jews. Do you know why?

Guess:

A: Jews buy land. Arabs sell it to them.

B: Jews steal land. Arabs never sell them land.

Which scenario do you think the law is supposed to deal with?

And I don't care what the "Palestinians" fight with. They are not supposed to kill Jews using ANY method. And as long as they try, there will be consequences.

You can either deal with that fact and call on them to stop trying to kill us, or you can whine and lie and hope to keep the conflict going, getting rid of a few Jews and Muslims in the process. I somehow doubt that a self-proclaimed "Catholic" really has such a great interest in Muslim control over what Christians think of as the Holy Land. I think you just happen to hate Jews a bit more than Muslims, that's all.

What you need is some perspective. Your hatred makes you blind for the realities. You can learn from this guy:

http://www.israellycool.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/bedouin-wall.jpg

He is not an Israelite (probably, unless he is from the Jewish Bedouin tribe), but an Israeli.




Some things didn't change.

The Romans still hate us and feel a desperate need to name our country "Invaderland" ("Palestine") and give it to other people.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22284600@N07/2183363738

This is a picture of a so-called "Blue Box", design from 1940.

It shows how much land the Jewish National Fund had bought by 1940.

You can see that it is almost the entire coast line, much of the Galil to the lake, and parts of the northern Negev as well as most of Jerusalem.

The JNF controlled a bit more than half the land owned by Jews in the country.

The land was then under British sovereignty.

The land shown on the map on the box was neither owned by Arabs nor under the sovereignty of any Arab state (and hadn't been for hundreds of years).

If you look at the original plan for partitioning the Cisjordanian part of Palestine, you can see that apart from Jerusalem, the Jewish state was made up of the land bought by Jews, the JNF plus the Negev which was (and is) inhabited by Bedouins allied with the Jews.

That's the plan the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected. And that's the Israel that was founded and then attacked by the Arabs.

Only AFTER the attack did Israel grow into areas not bought by Jews.

The Jews/Zionists did NOT "steal Arab land" causing the Arabs to "defend their land". The Jews bought land and lived on it until they were attacked.

Since then Israel has kept offering the land it took in exchange for peace, which the Arabs consistently rejected.

Either way, whether Israel should keep the land it won in wars or not, the land Israel was founded on was NOT stolen. And it is a typical anti-Semitic lie to claim that it was.

Either Jewish money is as good to you as anybody else's money or you are an anti-Semite. If you are not an anti-Semite you HAVE to accept that land Jews buy is after the sale THEIRS.

 

 

 

I wrote another article with maps of the land bought by the Zionists and the UN partition plan:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/367083/Buying_and_Stealing_and_How_Being_Jewish_Changes_Everything

 

I have two questions for Lula.

1. The land you live on now, was it or was it not stolen from Indians?

2. If it was stolen, when are you planning to return it and leave?

If you bought it from the Indians or if the US won the land in a war in which the Indians threatened to defeat the US and kill all white Americans, I promise I'll be fine with you living wherever you live as long as you extend that same privilege to other peoplein your situation, even if they are Jewish.

But if neither of these are the case, I'll keep reminding you that you are not only a liar but also a thief.

Any American who believes that after many years even stolen land should not be returned to the descendants of the original inhabitants and who does not by the purest of coincidences define "many years" as "more years than the current state of Israel existed" or support the right of the thus dispossesed to use violence to get their land back is also absolutely icebox ("cool") with me.

 

 

Honestly buying land is a good thing. But taking over and confiscating other people's land by a varity of "legal devices" is official sanctioned theft.

Last I knew of International Law, it's illegal for a nation to occupy territorty seized in war to plant its citizens in the occupied land, build fences, plant housing developments. Furthermore, according to the Geneva Convention, the "occupying" party is responsible for the welfare of the civil masses in the occupied areas. Has Isreal done this burden?

  

Good thing the Zionists bought the land.

 

Really? Please do find me these "laws".

I wonder why they apply to Israel but didn't seem to stop the US, Poland, Russia, and North-Vietnam; all countries who won land in war, annexed it, and allowed people to settle there.

(I also wasn't aware of the fact that Jordan and Egypt, when they controlled the West-Bank and Gaza constructed no buildings in the area.)

I am particularly curious which law prohibits the building of fences and walls in occupied territory, because that would totally criminalise the US who did build fences and walls in occupied West-Berlin. (I know, I had an ID card to pass through the gates into the special zones.)

Seems to me like there are a lot of "law" that apply to Israel only.

Luckily. assuming your knowledge of "international law" is correct, this will end the discussion. Because if annexing land in war is illegal, all annexations of Israel since the Jews lost it would be illegal, hence the land is still Jewish. I have no problem with that view. It's not the argument I usually use to defend Israel, but if you insist...

 

Yes.

As I said before, with reference to the UN's own statistics, the living standard in the occupied territories is higher than in Egypt.

There is, however, no responsibility for the occupying power not to defend itself against attacks and neither, if I may add, count civilians used as human shields as "protected persons" under the Geneva Conventions.

 

Wow, lots going on here.  Just a few comments and a question or two for Leauki.  Lots of talk about who this land belongs to and for any biblical Christian it's a no brainer.  First and foremost it's God's to begin with.  And he made it clear he was giving it to Abraham and to his descendants FOREVER.  This was called the Abrahamic covenant and was UNconditional.  If you wish, go back and read Genesis 15.  Abraham even asked God "Lord how shall I know that I shall inherit it?" 

It's plain to see in that Chapter that God swore fidelity to His promises and placed the obligation for their fulfillment on Himself alone.  The boundaries of this land was even given to make it very clear.  Israel today, doesn't even have a quarter of that promised to them yet.  It's still to come.  What we are seeing today is just the beginning. 

it's actually both Leauki.  His own (Jews) rejected Him and he was handed over to the Romans who were not overly fond of Him either but it was all instigated by the Jewish Authority.  These leaders set out to have him killed as soon as his popularity started to get in the way of their agenda. 

let me help you here Leauki.  She does this all the time to me.  I'll write something and then she'll rewrite it, sometimes saying exactly what I just said or something that contradicts what I said without mentioning what I did say in the first place (check out my latest blog comments about the AC).  Sometimes it's like..."didn't I just say that?"  Or... "did she even read what I wrote?"  She's so busy writing a response, she's not listening to what we're saying.  "Be slow to speak and quick to hear" is not part of Lula's makeup. 

The reason this is happening is because she's writing from her RCC apologetics or encyclopedia type books without speaking from her own mind.  She is a RCC apologist in training and she's using us to sharpen her skills.  I know exactly what she's doing.  It's very apparent to see and has been going on for some time.  I can tell the diff when she's speaking to me or when she's rattling off information right out of the RCC handbooks. 

So now my question to you Leauki is do you or have you met any Palestinian Christians?  If so, what is their take on all this?  I know there is quite a movement over there.  This week at Thomas Road Church in VA a young Christian Palestinian couple was introduced visiting the states for just a bit before returning to the work in Israel as missionaries.