Palestine

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by kp59583, Nov 23, 2004.

  1. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you even bother to read?

    Try reading back a little. And then try reading your history books.

    You might learn a few things you never dreamed were possible. As much as you might want to, you cannot rewrite history.

    GJ
     
  2. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are right of course, people always seem to revert to derision in an attempt to 'win' and argument exactly at the point when they run out of any worthwile response. If for one second it was even possible for them to put forward any valid arguments against any of the points that have been raised then there would be no need for this derision. But of course they can't. They have no arguments themselves, nor any answers. (At least none that they are willing to give serious consideration to). Their only answer is hatred - because that is all they know how to do.

    It must be horrible to live a life filled with so much hatred.

    I do not envy them at all.

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2004
  3. kp59583

    kp59583 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The land known as Canaan was situated in the territory of the southern Levant, which today encompasses Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, and the southern portions of Syria and Lebanon. Throughout time, many names have been given to this area including Palestine, Eretz-Israel, Bilad es-Shem, the Holy Land and Djahy. The earliest known name for this area was "Canaan."

    The inhabitants of Canaan were never ethnically or politically unified as a single nation. They did, however, share sufficient similarities in language and culture to be described together as "Canaanites."

    Israel refers to both a people within Canaan and later to the political entity formed by those people. To the authors of the Bible, Canaan is the land which the tribes of Israel conquered after an Exodus from Egypt and the Canaanites are the people they disposed from this land. The Old Testament of the Bible (also known as Tanak) is principally concerned with the religious history of Israel in Canaan.

    In addition to the stories of the Bible, archaeology has provided us with another perspective for viewing the cultures of Canaan and Ancient Israel. This perspective is built upon the social and historical context of the material remains which these peoples have left behind. Through studying these remains, we may better understand the cultures of the ancient Canaanites and Israelites.

    http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Canaan/LandandTime.shtml
    http://www.usd.edu/~clehmann/pir/judaea.htm
    http://www.crystalinks.com/palestine.html
     
  4. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mmm... well that still doesn't change the fact that most of the alleged 'Jewish history' and claims to land in that region originate from the bible - and very few if any of the claims made by the Jews have ever been proven in the archelogical record. The Jews in Palestine have indeed (until recent times) been very much a minority in that region - and all attempts to infer otherwise have to this date proved unfounded.

    There were a couple of incidents that appeard to show that several of the claims made in the bible were real and a large number of artifacts were uncovered. (especially over the last 20 years or so). However I wonder if anyone cares to hazzard a guess regarding what might be wrong with this picture?

    GJ
     
  5. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is another piece of interesting archeological blurb for the Christian's here to chomp over.

    Again (given that there is about a thousand years of difference in historical time frames) the fun part is to see if you can spot the link.

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2004
  6. GOG

    GOG Please answer the voices in my head

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If that should be an argument, we could just as well give back North America to the native inhabitants. In fact, you wouldn't find one square feet on this planet that hasn't been conquered over and over again the last Millenium

    It's a very big difference between what happened 50 years ago and what happened 1000 years ago.
     
  7. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    True, but historically the longest period of occupation (about 1600 years) of that region has been by the Arabs and Muslims - and unlike the Jews and Christians, there is really very good archeological evidence to prove this.

    GJ
     
  8. kp59583

    kp59583 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes but carbon dating doesn't lie. Roman history says the Jews were there and there history is recorded very well.
     
  9. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They may indeed have been there - but whether they were there for this entire period - or in anything near the numbers that they commonly claim - or whether they occupied the region consistently throughout this time is very much open to debate. There is simply not a vast body of archaeological data to support this assertion. Indeed much of the archaeological data that has been found has been uncovered in a highly localized area considerably further to the North close to and in several instances inside the borders of what is now known as the state of Jordan. There were Jews in Jerusalem undoubtedly but it is almost certainly the case that even then they existed very much in that region as a minority - in roughly the same proportions that they did prior to the European exodus in the 1930's, which was roughly between 3 and 5% of the total population.

    Indeed the Jews for the longest time in history have always been traditionally regarded as a 'Stateless People' - rather like the gypsies. There have been large communities of Jews based in almost every country since before the days of Christ, many of which outstripped the number of Jews in Palestine (and I refer to Palestine in it's old pre 1948 sense) by a very large margin - but no one ever assumed then that this gave them the right to call those countries their own. It wasn't until the holocaust and the end of WWII that genuine pressure was applied for the formation of an exclusively Jewish state as a means of compensating the Jews for their suffering. Indeed even the name Israel didn't exist (as in the name for a Jewish state) prior to the UN agreement at this time.
    No, but people do, or didn't you read both those stories I printed above? I'm really curious if you (or anyone here) knows specifically what these stories are referring to and how (if at all) they are linked?.

    At the end of the day as has already been pointed out, no one is being unreasonable. The Israelis were given what they wanted - they were given a state. All that is being asked by Arabs and Muslims everywhere is that Israel withdraw to it's pre 1967 borders and allow those Palestinians that were expelled to return to a region that has always been indisputably regarded as their homeland.

    Before 1948, the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine managed to coexist in peace, literally for centuries without conflict. Only when the Israelis do withdraw and the Palestinians are given also their own homeland (again) will this conflict ever come to an end.

    You cannot make a viable claim that the Israelis somehow have a right to a state of their own and to self determination, while the Palestinians do not. Just how could you possibly justify this without appearing to be completely hypocritical?

    The Jews may well deserve a country of their own - but not at the expense of others, not if they are prepared to cheat and lie and (in the case of the West Bank and the Golan Heights) to steal it in order to obtain it.

    If people want equality and justice in the world, then they must be prepared to deal with others with an equal degree of equality and justice.

    Otherwise the only possible outcome will be war and persecution for pretty much all of the foreseeable future.

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2004
  10. kp59583

    kp59583 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I never stated the Palestinians shouldn't. I said at one point before the 1967 war they could have been giving one by Jordan and Egypt cause they were the ones that were occuping Gaza and the West bank and you came back and stated that there was a state but even the Palestinians own web site doesn't say a state was greated during that time. The PLO wasn't exstablished till 1964 but even then they weren't givin control of there on lives.
     
  11. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You just don't understand anything I said do you?

    GJ
     
  12. kp59583

    kp59583 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh I know what your getting at. That the Jews probably never had a majority in the region at anytime in history except based on the bible therefore how can there claim to a state be better than that of the arabs/palestinians seeing that they held it the longest. But you still can't explain why from 48-67 that Egypt or Jordan did not form an Palestinian state in the same place that they want one now.You said it was but wheres the UN membership.

    http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm

    I think and this my opinion the reason that it wasn't was because Egypt and Jordan wanted to keep the land for themselfs and the only reason they want it today is to get the Palestinians out of there hair.
     
  13. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK first you should know that the UN never existed until 1948. Secondly you should know that the history of Palestine is very mixed. It has always been regarded as a 'state within a state' - but nonetheless a predominantly Arab state for all that. (Rather as Scotland or wales are regarded as separates states within the larger state of the UK). Ownership or governance of Palestine has traditionally passed between a large number of Arab nations, from the Syrians to the Egyptians, from the Persians to the Turks, from the Iraqis to the Babylonians - and this went on pretty consistently throughout history until the British won Palestine from the Ottoman Empire after the end of the first world war. The British of course were not very interested in allowing Palestine to become an independent state - because quite simply they wanted to keep it as a part of their Empire. Moreover shortly after the British took over pressure was more or less immediately applied for them to consider the possibility of establishing a Jewish state in that region. Indeed it was only after the British took control that large numbers of Jewish immigrants began to arrive. Subsequent disputes after 1948 after the British left made the situation even more complicated and the entire region of Palestine became one of the most hotly contested regions in the world. Since 1948 there has effectively never been a period of sustained peace that lasted long enough for the aspirations of the Palestinians towards statehood and full autonomy to be fully recognised. Since that date up until the war in 1967 more or less every town, village and piece of rock in Palestine has changed ownership on practically a weekly or monthly basis - and no one sat down for any length of time to negotiate with each other in order to allow any kind of agreement to ever be reached.

    A country cannot be formed without the agreement of all parties concerned - and unfortunately throughout this period no one was ever able to reach such an agreement.

    Nonetheless the Palestinians have for pretty much all of this period, since indeed as far back as the Babylonians, considered themselves as having a unique national identity. Your efforts to deny them any rights by denying them their existence is a particularly despicable tactic to adopt. Would you say that the Scots have no right to consider themselves Scottish, or the Irish Irish, or the Kurds in Northern Iraq as being Kurds (who all believe that Northern Iraq is really a country called Kurdistan) or that all of the former Soviet satellite states such as the Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia have no right to believe in their own national and ethnic identities either, just because they have been invaded and administered by a foreign power at various points in their history? Or how about we just say that any country that has been occupied in the past has no right to consider itself as having any distinct national or cultural identity either? In many ways for the Palestinians the partitioning agreement was a return to a former state of affairs in which they were jointly administered by several separate ARAB states - a state of affairs that in many ways they had become quite accustomed to. But also as I have tried to point out to you on three separate instances now, many Palestinians viewed the presence of other Arab armies on their land as a guarantee against invasion by hostile forces. The Palestinians do not have any conventionally armed forces - and so traditionally they have depended on the armed support of others to guarantee their survival. What is different about the Israelis is that they are not at all sympathetic to Palestinian interests - and moreover far from being Muslims or Arabs themselves with a long and vested history in the region - the Israelis are in very large part pretty much all European and Western international imports. How would you like it if people with no conception and little care for the cultural history and sensitivities of the region came into your country and started telling you how to run your affairs?

    In regard to your assertion that there may never have been a country called Palestine, if you look at any map prior to 1948 the borders of Palestine are very clearly marked out. They are recognized borders like any others and have been understood to exist for many thousands of years - and even the earliest Western visitors to the region understood that these borders were apparent to everyone who lived there as having existed for many hundreds if not thousands of years. It's like asking 'what defines the borders of Switzerland?' The answer is of course who the hell knows? Whatever it was has been lost long ago in the annals of history (and no annals does not mean anus - as one of my American friends recently asked me) so that over time idea nationhood and individual identity become something that seems inescapable - even though in reality it is nothing more than an idea that is passed from one generation to the next.

    The fact of the matter is that the Palestinians have been a much abused people. They have suffered horribly, from the earliest times until now - perhaps even more so than the Jews. But they have never suffered as much as they have since the formation of the Israeli state in 1948. If anyone has a right to claim autonomy, Independence and a state of their own in Palestine due to the degree of suffering they have encountered throughout the ages, it is without a doubt the Palestinians themselves.

    In any case here is a nice and fairly brief history of the region from ancient times up until the modern day. I seriously suggest to you that you should purely take the events it mentions as pointers to facilitate further reading - as it may be difficult to understand the context of a lot of these events if you are not fully aware of the background to what brought them to pass.

    I am sure you will find that the history of that region is not so simple, nor as convenient as you appear to assume.

    Best regards,

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2004
  14. digerati

    digerati Everyones life has worth

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,768
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While I don't think the Jews have done the most they could have done to make things fair neither has the rest of the Middle East, if any other country cared all that much they would really do something BIG besides fund terrorism. The only people who truly care about the Palestinians are the Palestinians.

    This has to be a group effort with the US, Israel, and the surrounding countries of Israel.
     
  15. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well I can go along with that - although perhaps not quite as far as you might yourself, since I really think this whole deal about Middle Eastern governments funding terrorism is a little overblown. There is terrorism in the Middle East, but there is terrorism everywhere. It would be a mistake to imagine that only one small ethnic group is wholy responsible for the majority of terrorist actions in this world. It is simply the highly selective nature of the media that often makes it seem so.

    Look at the timeline I printed above and read up on some of the massacres and acts of brutal ethnic cleansing that the Jews themselves engaged in. These aren't imagined events. It is little wonder then that the Palestinians feel as bitter as they do.

    But in any case in the largest part I agree. A lot of Middle Eastern governments are not so fair either - they may not appear to set an ideal example of the best way for modern societies to organise themselves. But I think that this is a cultural thing too - and that this is sometimes something that we in the West often tend to forget.

    I occasionally think that if we somehow magically could offer all of the people of the Middle East the opportunity to change their governments, what would they choose? Would they choose what we term as 'freedom and democracy' or would they choose a 'theocracy' where they would be governed by their own individual religeous leaders? History has taught us that - for reasons we might not fully understand - they would generally tend to choose the latter.

    It is sad though... I mean in days gone by, the world used to refer to the Jews as 'the forgotten people' but now that has changed - now it very much is the Palestinians who have been forgotten and neglected by the world.

    I cannot help but feel sorry for them - in the same way I feel sorry for the Jewish people when I hear and read about what happend to them in WWII.

    The saddest thing of all though, is how a people who themselves have suffered horribly in the past could not find it in themselves to develop sufficient humanity to not wish to inflict any similar degree of suffering on others.

    What I wonder does suffering teach us - if it is not that we should empathise with those others in the world who suffer too? What other possible point to all the suffering we see is there?

    Given the current state of affairs in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, one might be forgiven for comming to the conclusion that perhaps there is simply no point to it at all.

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2004
  16. digerati

    digerati Everyones life has worth

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,768
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's not that only they have terrorism. I'm just saying other countries have adopted other means of dealing with problems. And the middle east seems to be trailing behind just like in human rights.
     
  17. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well if you are applying that to all of the people of the Middle East - and not just a selective few - then fair enough I can agree with that. I don't think the Jews or the Arabs are providing any particularly shining examples of how the world should go about solving it's problems.

    And it wasn't always like that. Up until the disintergration of the Ottoman Empire some of the keenest scholars, scientists and mathematicians in history came out of that region. It was only the subsequent squabbling between the Europeans and the Americans over the next two world wars that finally and conclusively put an end to this. The Middle East has been in the grip of a general decline ever since then.

    And in any case are our tactics really so disimilar? Pre-emptive war, targeted assasination, detention without trial - they were all concepts that until recently we all believed distinguished us appart from these so called 'uncivilised nations.' They engaged in these practices - and we didn't. Plain and simple.

    But not any more.

    Who knows... Maybe it really was all just BS... I mean perhaps once you scratch underneath the surface we really are all the same. But I do know that we have little cause any more to feel superior to anyone in this world. We used to think we could set the benchmark for what it meant to be democratic and free. And in that sense I think we have lost a very important fight.

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2004
  18. digerati

    digerati Everyones life has worth

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,768
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The world is selfish. We want what we think is right to go for everyone, and we make/support governments that reflect what we think is right. That may be a trial with a lawyer, or it may be the legality to murder your wife/sister/daughter if she shames your family. Who is to really say what is right or wrong? Just move or live somewhere that reflects what you want. Don't try to force it upon anyone, no matter how nice and uplifting you think it might be, it just won't be what the person wants. If they truly wanted it that badly, they'd do it themselves or move. (Now this is different for countries that kill anyone who speaks out against it or won't allow them to move like the Soviet Union)
     
  19. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mmm... that's a thought... But then I don't think it's entirely practical for the entire population of the Soviet Union (when it existed) to have just upped sticks and left - even if they had been allowed to. Nor is it possible for the Palestinians to do so - nor the entire poulations of any number of other oppressed people on this Earth....

    Even if everyone were to be granted the freedom to do so - there is a little more to freedom and the right to self determination than the ability to move to a new town.

    But what they hey. I'm probably just being pedantic...

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2004
  20. digerati

    digerati Everyones life has worth

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,768
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And I have no idea what pedantic means. SO THERE! :D
     

Share This Page

visited