View Full Version : And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee
Banquo's Ghost
08-04-2009, 13:58
This is related to, but separate from, the discussion on Israel and Palestine. Mainly because I think it deserves a discussion in a wider sense than the politics, and applies to other prolonged conflicts.
This article examines concerns (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1105067.html) about the vastly increasing brutalisation of Israeli society with an unspoken but clear connection to the treatment of Palestinians. It describes inhuman responses that I have observed during the Troubles in Northern Ireland as violence soaked into the collective psyche.
For generations, Jews were considered a people that sanctified nonviolence in interhuman relations and lived by the the "law of the land." Our ancestors relied on God, but the modern-day Orthodox place less reliance on Him; they have fewer expectations of their prayers being answered. Instead - and it makes no difference whether we are talking about the Zionist ultra-Orthodox people from the illegal West Bank outposts or the non-Zionist ultra-Orthodox ones from the Mea She'arim outpost - they do exactly as they please. A time traveler from the past would ask himself: These are Jews?
This is the trend that one refers to when other human beings are demonised and denied their rights. This is why it is always in our interests in civilised countries to apply the highest standards of rights to others, no matter their provocations, because the danger exists that we become monsters in our turn - and the evil wins.
I am aware that is not however, a universal opinion in a community where we have even had apologists for torture. I would be interested in those other opinions, and what safeguards might be proposed to prevent a plummet into the abyss.
Hooahguy
08-04-2009, 14:07
were talking about the ultra-orthodox, right?
give it up BG. we'll never understand them.
get this:
on the sabbath it is forbidden to throw a rock. but yet the ultras manage to get around that rule by "stetting aside" a rock before the sabbath to use on the sabbath.
Vladimir
08-04-2009, 14:44
"If you see a car weaving from lane to lane on some highway overseas, you know it's an Israeli," a friend once told me. "And I've learned the hard way that, in the blink of an eye, you can become embroiled in a brawl in the middle of a highway here."
Can't argue with that logic.
The English jurist William Blackstone once said that the law reaches no further than the end of a club. Unfortunately, our law enforcement agencies have not managed to come to grips with the scope of Israeli crime. Only one out of every 100 thieves is indicted, due to the difficulties of obtaining evidence, and it is no wonder that 60 percent of all crimes - including sex crimes and violent crimes - are never even reported to the police.
Wait. Are we talking about Israel or Venezuela?
The ready availability of weapons in a country where the entire nation is in the army has turned us into a violent society. It was truly unbelievable to see a soldier shooting a bound Palestinian in the leg while his commander held the man down. Or to see border policemen freely abusing residents of the territories. Such mutations have left us shameless and utterly without inhibition.
End the Swiss oppression of the Palestinian people! :furious3:
The ready availability of handguns in Washington DC has turned this place into a crime ridden cesspool.
People see what they want. I recently read criticism that the Israeli people are becoming more passive and are risking their security.
What the author means to say is: Get off my lawn!
Hooahguy
08-04-2009, 15:13
well said vladimir.
if i understand correctly, the argument is that israel has become a more violent society.
my answer: name me a society, when majorly urbanized, hasent become more violent. my bet is that early christians werent violent at all when they were a minority, but when they became majority in urban areas, you have crime. its natural.
the author has a flawed argument.
first off, back in the times of the temples there was crime, like rape and murder and the usual. we dont know if it was commonplace or not, due to the times. so to say we are more violent than ever before is a risky thing to say.
next, jews, until israel, had no cities like tel aviv that jews were the majority. in eastern europe, jews were in small villages, which made crime pretty unlikely because everyone knew everyone else.
so basically my thought is that the more urban a society gets, the more crime it does.
BG, im not sure what you wanted out of this article. are we discussing how violent israelis are? well, you cant judge all israelis from a few bad ones. its like islam. 99% of muslims are good and peace loving people. the 1% are the bad ones.
same case here.
And if you look to much into the problem you become the problem. There is NO way out of this, Palestina will never exist, they don't even want it so why would they make an effort to make it work, they want to kill jews wherever they find them it is really as simple as that, this is religious intolerance, simple as that.
Tribesman
08-04-2009, 15:35
Hmmmmm....
"I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on top they are just as intolerant and cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath. I regret this situation very much because my sympathy has always been on their side."
Hooahguy
08-04-2009, 15:36
Hmmmmm....
human nature.
all this has nothing to do with israelis in particular. its human nature.
Banquo's Ghost
08-04-2009, 15:49
Fascinating responses so far, thank you.
Perhaps the title would have been better as "Through a Glass Darkly".
Hooahguy
08-04-2009, 15:53
or maybe a better title couldve been "the deterioration of society through urbanization"
:yes:
Actually, I always thought the Starship Troopers movie was a bit of a satirical poke at Israel and other societies which, when faced with an existential threat, become violent and nationalistic.
I reserve the right to equal contempt for all sides in that conflict. None are acting in good faith, none seek the long-term good of their own people, none have a realistic plan for peace that doesn't involve genocide.
It's a good thing nobody's going to make me envoy to the middle east anytime soon.
Hosakawa Tito
08-04-2009, 16:38
Until both sides come to the mutual realization that they love their children more than they hate each other things aren't going to change for the better.
my bet is that early christians werent violent at all when they were a minority, but when they became majority in urban areas, you have crime. its natural.
I think I remember reading somewhere that when Christianity was just getting started, and still a rather small group, they were banned from the city of Rome because they wouldn't get on with all the other religions and kept starting riots. :juggle2:
Hooahguy
08-04-2009, 18:02
Actually, I always thought the Starship Troopers movie was a bit of a satirical poke at Israel and other societies which, when faced with an existential threat, become violent and nationalistic.
really? i never thought of that movie that way.
Vladimir
08-04-2009, 18:10
really? i never thought of that movie that way.
I believe the book and movie apply to mankind as a whole. And so does Lemur's first sentence. The only thing I would do is change "nationalistic" to whatever's in fashion at the time (tribalistic(?), etc).
I believe the book and movie apply to mankind as a whole.
Well, actually, when R. Heinlen wrote the book he was dead serious. The movie took it in a satirical direction, which was entirely absent from the text. I love them both equally, but for different reasons.
KukriKhan
08-04-2009, 19:47
Another angle I'd like to explore is one alluded to in Banquo's Ghost's opening post:
I am aware that is not however, a universal opinion in a community where we have even had apologists for torture. I would be interested in those other opinions, and what safeguards might be proposed to prevent a plummet into the abyss.
Another thing that happens is "we" explain, or excuse or forgive ourselves (whom we believe to be civilized, compared to the barbarian threat). So an atrocity or some atrocities are commited upon "us" by "them" - who are beastly - and we explain to ourselves that we must shed our civilized selves and be atrociously beastly in return, promising that this is only temporary, because of the emergency, and for the sake of survival.
But, over a pretty short time, historically speaking, our own atrocities, temporary though we intend, also brutalize us ourselves, and gradually inure us to our own inhumanity.
Remember the shock and horror felt when the guy Danial Pearl was beheaded? Pretty awful, and only a few years ago. Now, though it's still gruesome, we've almost come to accept beheading as something that just happens. And it somehow gets twisted into a rationale to justify for example: waterboarding.
Indeed, the abyss gazes into us.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-04-2009, 20:02
Counterpoint:
To what extent is victory possible only by embracing the strategems of the opposition?
BG's OP article etc. rightly point out the potentiality for a given collective to become like the collective it has always derided -- the idea being that brutality harms both the victim and, over time, the perpetrator as well.
On the other hand, isn't the adoption of an opponent's tactics and strategems a typical -- and often effective -- response to those strategems?
Crazed Rabbit
08-04-2009, 21:24
The article seems long on the accusations, and quite short on the facts.
It seems more like a "Today's kids have no morals and are leading to a downfall of society" speech that comes out every generation or so since the beginning of generations.
CR
Louis VI the Fat
08-04-2009, 22:17
Another angle I'd like to explore is one alluded to in Banquo's Ghost's opening postI think your post hit the nail on its head. This is not an angle alluded to, your post adresses the precise point of the article.
Brutal governments create equally brutal societies. Throughout the world, violence leads to more violence. And, more worryingly since it goes overlooked, outward brutality turns to inward brutality. A society in a prolonged war will lose its internal peace and calm. Nothing new about the phenomenon, it has been observed everywhere.
Pacifying societies can take decades after prolonged or particularly brutal conflict. Whether as victim or perpetrator or a mix of the two.
KukriKhan
08-04-2009, 23:07
I think your post hit the nail on its head. This is not an angle alluded to, your post adresses the precise point of the article.
Brutal governments create equally brutal societies. Throughout the world, violence leads to more violence. And, more worryingly since it goes overlooked, outward brutality turns to inward brutality. A society in a prolonged war will lose its internal peace and calm. Nothing new about the phenomenon, it has been observed everywhere.
Pacifying societies can take decades after prolonged or particularly brutal conflict. Whether as victim or perpetrator or a mix of the two.
Yes, but (you knew there'd be a 'but', yes?) Seamus' observation:
On the other hand, isn't the adoption of an opponent's tactics and strategems a typical -- and often effective -- response to those strategems?
also deserves attention. Looking at history - everywhere, as you say - war-deciders, or let's call them conflict-wagers, since we don't declare war anymore, inevitably seek to 'win' the conflict, and the shortest path to victory seems to be brutal... as brutal, or more brutal than the enemy.
OTOH, total annihilation of the enemy has seldom (never?) been achieved, although we fight as though that were our goal. Leading us to cast aside our scruples.
Can anyone think of any war fought where one side did not commit atrocities? Is it possible to do so?
Well, if we come to the conclusion that conflicts/wars without atrocities are impossible and stop complaining about them, won't they become more common and is that a good course to take or should we keep trying to force people to keep them at a minimum?
KukriKhan
08-05-2009, 00:22
Well, if we come to the conclusion that conflicts/wars without atrocities are impossible and stop complaining about them, won't they become more common and is that a good course to take or should we keep trying to force people to keep them at a minimum?
I don't think it's impossible. But it certainly would take a different mindset.
Can anyone think of any war fought where one side did not commit atrocities? Is it possible to do so?
Matters what is considered a atrocity.
Also, to the OP. Making any thread with the Nietzsche (Or was it someone else that said that?) quote is pretty gutsy, you pulled it off though. A balloon for your efforts :balloon2:
"Urbanization" has precisely jack to do with the situation over there.
The problems are mainly, in no order, 1. religious intolerance and bigotry, 2. a self-perpetuating vicious cycle of violence that neither side seems to be able to break out of, 3. an apparent desensitization of society to violence (I think the same is happening to a much lesser degree in America), and 4. a complete and total lack of repercussions for both sides involved.
It always takes two to make a fight. The Israelis are out of control and using the context of self-defense way too much. The second some idiot fires an RPG over a fence, they're out carpet bombing some village. Their responses have been entirely disparate and ridiculous for some time. They also need to realize that one fool shooting off a gun does not represent a people as a whole, and I think this is key. Palestine needs to get it's damn population under control. They do have way too many nutjobs running around in the countryside looking for a good place to shoot off some hand-made SCUD. I think at this point it's equal parts religious nutjobs and products of Israel's barbaric responses.
If anything at this point I'm going to come down more heavily on Israel. They are nuclear capable and they know it, everyone knows it. I am pretty damn sure at this point that if they weren't that a true peacekeeping force would have intervened. The only real solution I see to this would be some kind of international sanctions. I think they have been using that as a prop to stand on knowing that they can push the envelope when it comes to their responses and attitudes toward the Palestinians.
Just my thoughts so far.
Hooahguy
08-06-2009, 23:47
whacker you completely missed the point of my argument, but ok. think what you want.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2009, 00:07
whacker you completely missed the point of my argument, but ok. think what you want.
From the article, Israel has far outstripped, for example, England. We have violence here, but it's largely confined to the capital and other large cities. Population density may be an element, almost certainly is, but that's not the whole story here.
Tribesman
08-07-2009, 00:12
Israel/Palestine...
One word....
Bollox
Though another word can be added
Jellyfish...bastards coming in invading the diving boards as though they owned the place, I don't care if they was here thousands of years ago and G*D said they should float the currents.
11 under tens moaning about getting stung and evicted from their swimming spot really gets on my tits.
I don't give a **** if other sea organisms are eating them up in a genocidal manner , zooplankton shouldn't claim refuge here when it is full of swimmers.
Hooahguy
08-07-2009, 00:13
ok, one city has less violence than a whole country. wow. :rolleyes:
Samurai Waki
08-07-2009, 00:15
Israel/Palestine...
One word....
Bollox
Though another word can be added
Jellyfish...bastards coming in invading the diving boards as though they owned the place, I don't care if they was here thousands of years ago and G*D said they should float the currents.
11 under tens moaning about getting stung and evicted from their swimming spot really gets on my tits.
I don't give a **** if other sea organisms are eating them up in a genocidal manner , zooplankton shouldn't claim refuge here when it is full of swimmers.
:laugh4:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2009, 00:41
ok, one city has less violence than a whole country. wow. :rolleyes:
Um, my point was that serious violence is not endemic. Total population of Israel is 7,411,000 as of last year. The total population of Greater London is... 7,512,400.
So, if there's less violence in London, then London is proportianally safer. If there is more violence it's probably still safer than a comparable population density in Israel.
In point of fact, the Met tells me there were 139 murders in Greater London in the last 12 months: http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/. Wiki says Israel had 173 in 2004 and 147 in 2000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Israel. The Beeb says London had 194 in 2004, down from 222 in 2003. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7191769.stm
That's just one densely populated city though, and that population is greater than the population of Israel and the West Bank.
Hooahguy
08-07-2009, 00:45
it may also have to do with the natrual politeness of british people. why dont you run those numbers for NYC or some other big city in the US or other big city.
Ah yes, those polite Brits ...
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/love_game_wideweb__430x294.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/112riotDM_468x304.jpg
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2009, 01:13
it may also have to do with the natrual politeness of british people. why dont you run those numbers for NYC or some other big city in the US or other big city.
New York:
Total Pop: 8,274,527
Murders: 523 in 2008
But then, the muder rate in America is astoundingly high, 3 times that of Canada, for example.
Also: I have to ask, ever been to London?
Tribesman
08-07-2009, 01:23
Ah yes, those polite Brits
Whats the name of the actor in the top picture?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2009, 01:30
Whats the name of the actor in the top picture?
Oh, come of Tribes. I know you know what the Plebs are like here, so come off it. Actor or no he has a point. The British, and English in particular, have never been a generally peaceable people.
Crazed Rabbit
08-07-2009, 01:44
From the article, Israel has far outstripped, for example, England.
The OP article? I don't believe that had any statistics, just "young whippersnappers are so violent" old-fogeyness.
CR
Hooahguy
08-07-2009, 02:10
Also: I have to ask, ever been to London?
actually yes. it was fun watching some random idiots mess with the buckingham palace guards. :yes:
now back to topic: so we know about murder rates. what about crime in general? maybe NYC and london has low murder rate but high non-violent crime?
EDIT: look what i found. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1214492516473)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2009, 02:21
actually yes. it was fun watching some random idiots mess with the buckingham palace guards. :yes:
now back to topic: so we know about murder rates. what about crime in general? maybe NYC and london has low murder rate but high non-violent crime?
Crime in London has been falling year-on-year since 2003. In any case, violent crime reflects more the brutalisation of the country, while non-violent probably reflects more on poverty.
Gun crime in London has gone up, but even with that murders have fallen.
Besides, 99% of all crime in merry ol' England can be directly attributed to soccer hooligans.
Tribesman
08-07-2009, 09:59
Oh, come of Tribes. I know you know what the Plebs are like here, so come off it.
But since the photos are from a fictional piece about domestic hooligans and the second one is a european match then compare domestic and international firms in other european countries, they make the British firms look very tame in comparison.
Meneldil
08-07-2009, 10:47
it may also have to do with the natrual politeness of british people.
Rofl.
I know this is useless and off-topic spam (but then the whole 'cities are more violent' arguement is kind of off topic too), but I don't have anything smart to answer to the 'natural politness of british people' part. Someone really needs to hang around in London after 7PM and watch drunk teenagers insulting eachothers and peeing in the middle of a street.
To what extent is victory possible only by embracing the strategems of the opposition?
...
On the other hand, isn't the adoption of an opponent's tactics and strategems a typical -- and often effective -- response to those strategems?
Protaganists tend to use strategems appropriate for their situation, so using the opposition's methods may only be best if both sides are in a similar situation - say, two nation states or two sides in a civil war. But most conflicts nowadays seem to be asymmetric - between an occupying army and an insurgency, for example - so embracing your opponent's methods is unlikely to be best. For example, an occupying army often depends on the will of an electorate to maintain its mission and resorting to discreditable methods may undermine that support.
History provides little doubt that terror - when wielded by despots - can be an effective counter-insurgency tactic or way to oppress a weaker people. It's less clear to me that it is a viable option for a democracy - even one with its back against the wall like Israel.
Hooahguy
08-07-2009, 13:05
Rofl.
I know this is useless and off-topic spam (but then the whole 'cities are more violent' arguement is kind of off topic too), but I don't have anything smart to answer to the 'natural politness of british people' part. Someone really needs to hang around in London after 7PM and watch drunk teenagers insulting eachothers and peeing in the middle of a street.
sorry for the common american misconception that the only thing british people did was sit around in wigs and sip tea while talking about the latest developments in some random area.
rotorgun
08-17-2009, 02:09
Israel/Palestine...
One word....Bollox
Jellyfish...bastards coming in invading the diving boards as though they owned the place, I don't care if they was here thousands of years ago and G*D said they should float the currents.
11 under tens moaning about getting stung and evicted from their swimming spot really gets on my tits.
I don't give a **** if other sea organisms are eating them up in a genocidal manner , zooplankton shouldn't claim refuge here when it is full of swimmers.
My dear Tribesman, I had no idea you were so antisemitic. Where do you propose the "jellyfish" go? Both sides are acting foolishly, no matter how it all got started. They all need a timeout as far as I'm concerned. I wish the whole world would just turn their back on the lot of them....Israel/Palestine.
My dear Tribesman, I had no idea you were so antisemitic.
What's antisemitic about that post? :inquisitive:
rotorgun
08-17-2009, 03:30
What's antisemitic about that post? :inquisitive:
You don't think that it's a bit rough on the Jewish people...."jellyfish" as they are referred to? It wasn't as simple as many people would like to make it out to be in those days. No one, and I mean no one wanted to help the Jews out. I agree that the people who lived in the region should have been considered, but who was at fault for that? The British government as I recall. For the fact they they have a right to survive, as do we all, they are to be referred to as jellyfish? They have fought for the right, as any human would do.
I think it's time for the Palestinians and the Israelis to forget the past. If they worked together, they could make that region a paradise, don't you agree?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-17-2009, 03:43
You don't think that it's a bit rough on the Jewish people...."jellyfish" as they are referred to? It wasn't as simple as many people would like to make it out to be in those days. No one, and I mean no one wanted to help the Jews out. I agree that the people who lived in the region should have been considered, but who was at fault for that? The British government as I recall. For the fact they they have a right to survive, as do we all, they are to be referred to as jellyfish? They have fought for the right, as any human would do.
I think it's time for the Palestinians and the Israelis to forget the past. If they worked together, they could make that region a paradise, don't you agree?
I think you're missing the fundamental point Tribes was making: Namely that no one has the right to go to an area, kick out the locals and build a new country based on mythology over 2,000 years old. It's also not the "fault" of the British, the situation not being remotely within the control of the government until 1919, and the Jews forcing the British out after WWII with acts of terrorism.
I suspect Tribes' intention was to be harsh because he feels that generally people are afraid of being harsh, or even fair, with Israel.
rotorgun
08-17-2009, 04:13
I think you're missing the fundamental point Tribes was making: Namely that no one has the right to go to an area, kick out the locals and build a new country based on mythology over 2,000 years old. It's also not the "fault" of the British, the situation not being remotely within the control of the government until 1919, and the Jews forcing the British out after WWII with acts of terrorism.
I suspect Tribes' intention was to be harsh because he feels that generally people are afraid of being harsh, or even fair, with Israel.
I agree that there is a tendency by many of the United States to walk softly when criticizing Israel. Be assured that I am not at all happy with how the Israelis have acted recently. I feel for the Palestinians as much as I do for the Israelis. The alleged "kicking out" of the Palestinians didn't exactly happen as many think, but it was an international effort to resolve a difficult question. It was led by the British (see below) until taken over by the UN. The Zionists only declared independence after the Arab States rejected Partitioning. In my opinion, the Arab world used the Palestinian peoples as a pawn in order to have a pretext to attack Israel.
Although you may feel that the history of the Jewish people is based on myth, I would ask you how to explain how they came to be there in the past. Do not the remains of the temple that the Romans destroyed exist? Is Masada a figment of our imaginations? Were the Jewish people that Alexander the Great encountered there really Palestinians ? Have not there been numerous archeological discoveries to prove the former existence of Israel in history?
I hate to only use one source, but as it is late here I quickly perused the Wiki article about Israel. Here is an apt excerpt.
The modern state of Israel has its historical and religious roots in the Biblical Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), a concept central to Judaism since ancient times,[9][10] and the heartland of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[11] Following the birth of political Zionism in 1897 and the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations granted the United Kingdom the British Mandate of Palestine after World War I, with responsibility for establishing "...such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion..."[12] In November 1947 United Nations decided on partition of Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem.[13] Partition was accepted by Zionist leaders but rejected by Arab leaders leading to the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states,[14] and in consequence, Israel controls territories beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Some international borders remain in dispute, however Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, though efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success.-Wikipedia
PS: Very good of you to steer me back on point. I meant no offense.
Tribesman
08-17-2009, 08:07
My dear Tribesman, I had no idea you were so antisemitic. Where do you propose the "jellyfish" go?
errrrr.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jellyfish
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-17-2009, 12:00
I agree that there is a tendency by many of the United States to walk softly when criticizing Israel. Be assured that I am not at all happy with how the Israelis have acted recently. I feel for the Palestinians as much as I do for the Israelis. The alleged "kicking out" of the Palestinians didn't exactly happen as many think, but it was an international effort to resolve a difficult question. It was led by the British (see below) until taken over by the UN. The Zionists only declared independence after the Arab States rejected Partitioning. In my opinion, the Arab world used the Palestinian peoples as a pawn in order to have a pretext to attack Israel.
The fact of the matter is, Israel should not exist according to the British mandate. Let me quote the text of the Balfour Declaration:
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
It's a wonderful piece of British diplomatic writing a real Classic, it says everything and promises nothing. Not worth the paper it's written on. It was also a response to a reality, that the Jews of Europe were determined to settle in Palastine, and already were. The Mandate was intended to create a mixed country in Palastine.
To be fair to the Arabs, the partitioning was a breach of every promise since 1915.
Although you may feel that the history of the Jewish people is based on myth, I would ask you how to explain how they came to be there in the past.
Well, there were Jews living in the area which became Palastine, but what does that prove? The period before the Exile in Babylon is fairly mythological. The Trojan War probably happened, but it's still a myth, and no grounds for modern Turks to ask for reparations.
In fact, the archaeological evidence for the events of the Trojan War is better than most of the events in the Bible before the Exile.
Do you know what the Welsh call England? They call it, "The Lost Land"
The point is, it doesn't matter. It was far too long ago.
Do not the remains of the temple that the Romans destroyed exist? Is Masada a figment of our imaginations?
So what? Do the Remains of Vindolanda, or Hadrian's Wall exist? Does that mean anything?
Were the Jewish people that Alexander the Great encountered there really Palestinians ?
Ah, the dirty little secret of Zionism. Who do you think the Palastinians are? A thousand years ago when the Crusaders arrived they found an area of mainly Jews and Christians. Do you suppose that the Palastinians are a new ethnic group in the area since 2,000 BC?
Have not there been numerous archeological discoveries to prove the former existence of Israel in history?
Of Jews in Israel, in some form. Even the Israeli Universities admit that trying to prove that King David actually maintained Jerusalem is almost impossible to demonstrate using archaeology.
Hooahguy
08-17-2009, 12:13
The point is, it doesn't matter. It was far too long ago.
doesnt mean it never existed.
So what? Do the Remains of Vindolanda, or Hadrian's Wall exist? Does that mean anything?
yes. it proves they existed.
Of Jews in Israel, in some form. Even the Israeli Universities admit that trying to prove that King David actually maintained Jerusalem is almost impossible to demonstrate using archaeology.
you do realize that archaeology isnt the only way to prove things, right?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-17-2009, 12:25
doesnt mean it never existed.
yes. it proves they existed.
you do realize that archaeology isnt the only way to prove things, right?
None of which makes any of it relevent.
My ancestors kicked the Dumonians out of the city I am currently living in, but that was 1,000 years ago and no one has suggested we should be forcibly removed; especially since many of the Celts returned and naturalised and now you can't tell the difference.
So I suppose you're in favour of partitioning the US to split off the state of Aztlan or whatever it's called? 2000 years ago it wasn't the USA anyway, it wasn't even the USA 500 years back so obviously the people of Aztlan have a historical right to that region. :smash:
Hooahguy
08-17-2009, 17:02
well you may ridicule this, but because i am jewish and i believe in the Torah and everything it says, i believe that G-d promised the jews the land of israel, a promise which still holds true today.
now of course for someone who doesnt believe in the Torah, they will think this is rediculous, but this is what a lot of Jews believe, and so do i.
so there.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-17-2009, 17:07
well you may ridicule this, but because i am jewish and i believe in the Torah and everything it says, i believe that G-d promised the jews the land of israel, a promise which still holds true today.
now of course for someone who doesnt believe in the Torah, they will think this is rediculous, but this is what a lot of Jews believe, and so do i.
so there.
That is why the Jews have been persecuted; claiming a God-given right to be placed above other people.
well you may ridicule this, but because i am jewish and i believe in the Torah and everything it says, i believe that G-d promised the jews the land of israel, a promise which still holds true today.
now of course for someone who doesnt believe in the Torah, they will think this is rediculous, but this is what a lot of Jews believe, and so do i.
so there.
And everybody around you believes in their god-given right to kill you, so where does that leave us? :inquisitive: :juggle2:
Rhyfelwyr
08-17-2009, 17:29
Well I suppose the difference between the Jews reclaiming their land compared to say the Welsh losing England, is that the Jews really needed a homeland, and they had the power to get it.
IIRC it wasn't entirely down to Jewish nationalism, weren't there plans to establish a Jewish nation in Alaska, Russia, Uganda or even Madagascar at some point?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-17-2009, 17:41
Well I suppose the difference between the Jews reclaiming their land compared to say the Welsh losing England, is that the Jews really needed a homeland, and they had the power to get it.
IIRC it wasn't entirely down to Jewish nationalism, weren't there plans to establish a Jewish nation in Alaska, Russia, Uganda or even Madagascar at some point?
Yes, there were; but I'm not convinced the Jews needed a homeland, we tend to think this because of the Holocaust, but bear in mind the number of Jews in the British government, one might almost say a disproportionate number, at the same time as people of the same religion were being Persecuted in Germany.
Also, I take serious issue with "reclaiming", prior to 1900 I doubt there were many third-generation Zionist Jewish immigrants, if any at all. By contrast, there are still living people who remember the Civil War of '47-8, and the Palastinians despereately need somewhere to live.
Further, I am deeply suspicious of the claim that the majoriety of the Jews alive today can trace a majoriety of their ancestors back to Palastine, that claim seems more likely for the Palastinian Arabs. For every person in Holywood, or the media in general, with the "Jewish" look there are probably many more who look just like any other European walking the street. This seems even more true when one looks at the Israelis that appear as pundits/ambassadors/politicians on Television.
“R. Heinlen wrote the book he was dead serious” Was he? How do you reconcile Star ship Troopers with e.g. “in a Foreign Land” (where Heinlein became a hippy guru) or “Friday”? He was an author and he just created world, populated sometimes with religious hardliners, lonely heroes or intellectual teenagers…
I thing Israel mutation from an open and free country with an army of builders/fighters to a monster with a feeling of full impunity and superiority on the neighbours is/was unscripted in how it was created.
Hooahguy
08-17-2009, 22:05
That is why the Jews have been persecuted; claiming a God-given right to be placed above other people.
um no. no no no no no no no no
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
there, was that enough to get it into your head? :no:
first off, let me just say, doesnt pretty much every religion have a "holier than thou" attitude towards others?
its not unique.
you clearly have no realization what you just justified with that post. you just justified every jew-hater in history.
:no:
“R. Heinlen wrote the book he was dead serious” Was he? How do you reconcile Star ship Troopers with e.g. “in a Foreign Land” (where Heinlein became a hippy guru) or “Friday”?
First of all, Friday was post-brain-tumor, when Heinlen's writing, speaking and thinking took a noticeable turn for the ... different.
As for Starship Troopers, I'm basing my opinion on Heinlen's own speeches and essays. Here's a summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers#Heinlein.27s_military_background_and_political_views) that will getcha started.
And yeah, in the middle of a period when Heinlen was taking a strong swing to the right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein#Life), he also wrote Stranger in a Strange Land, which was adopted as a hippie bible. "Do I contradict myself? Then I contradict myself. I am large, and contain multitudes."
If we take this any further we should start a thread in the Frontroom.
To make this vaguely on-topic:
PVC, I disagree strongly with your premise that the Jews' claim to be "chosen people" has led to pogroms, genocides and ethnic cleansings. As Hooahguy correctly points out, most every religion claims to have the "only" answer, which means such claims are silly or a LOT of people are going to hell.
Rather, I think the hostility has arisen from a much simpler impulse: Any group that maintains its ethnic and linguistic identity and does not integrate with the society in which it resides excites hostility. Note the European treatment of gypsies, or the Turkish treatment of Armenians, or the American treatment of Native Americans, etc., etc., etc.
You can find hundreds of examples. Any group that does not visibly integrate is suspect, and vulnerable to populist/nativist anger. It's just the way the cookie crumbles.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-18-2009, 01:26
um no. no no no no no no no no
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
there, was that enough to get it into your head? :no:
first off, let me just say, doesnt pretty much every religion have a "holier than thou" attitude towards others?
its not unique.
you clearly have no realization what you just justified with that post. you just justified every jew-hater in history.
:no:
I didn't justify anything. So, don't get so tetchy. You claimed a God-given right for your people to something that belonged to someone else. If you are offended by my assertion I strongly suggest you consider how a Palastinian doctor/shop keeper etc. in Jerusalem would have felt in 1948, to be told that God wanted him to up sticks and make way for someone else.
After all, given that I don't believe hatred, killing etc. are ever right I would never justify them; however, there are reasons things happen.
PVC, I disagree strongly with your premise that the Jews' claim to be "chosen people" has led to pogroms, genocides and ethnic cleansings. As Hooahguy correctly points out, most every religion claims to have the "only" answer, which means such claims are silly or a LOT of people are going to hell.
Rather, I think the hostility has arisen from a much simpler impulse: Any group that maintains its ethnic and linguistic identity and does not integrate with the society in which it resides excites hostility. Note the European treatment of gypsies, or the Turkish treatment of Armenians, or the American treatment of Native Americans, etc., etc., etc.
You can find hundreds of examples. Any group that does not visibly integrate is suspect, and vulnerable to populist/nativist anger. It's just the way the cookie crumbles.
I think it was a combination of factors that caused the persistant and violent treatment of the Jews. The theological outlook of the day, while brutal, is not illogical within its frame of reference, the positions Jews were forced into by law were bound to engender hatred and suspicion as well.
At the same time, in order to understand the history of the Jews in Europe one must confront two uncomfortable facts.
1. They proundly claimed descent from the same people credited with executing what the majority of the population believed was the greatest saviour and gift mankind would ever recieve.
2. They held themselves apart as a people chosen by God.
It is one thing to have an "us or them" mentality with religion, it is something entirely different to claim a special relationship with the one God based on race.
The fact is, and this is inescapable, Jews have been persecuted more than any other people since the fall of Rome. To suggest the reasons for this are the same as other persecutions is wilful.
Hooahguy
08-18-2009, 01:45
EDIT: this has gone too far. we need to stop this, and this thread. all its doing is making tempers rise. at least on my side. :shame:
rotorgun
08-18-2009, 01:56
I apologize for not getting back to the debate sooner, and is it a good one! First, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, you make some good points in that much of the historical basis for the existence for Israel is based on some rather slim evidence. You are right in that the events of so long ago hold little relevance to the current situation. Really, the roots of this conflict were sown during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I was only trying to point out that the existence of ancient Israel is an accepted part of history. The main troubles between the "Palestinians" , a group whose ethnic history is quite diverse, but whose principal ties are Islam, therefore Arabic, and the "Israelis" began in 1866. A group of Arab Palestinians, disgruntled over a land purchase by some recent Jewish immigrants, attacked them. Soon thereafter, a Jewish woman was killed in a skirmish between another group of Arabs and Jews. This was the first documented clash between Palestinians and Jews.
Later, in around 1913 or so, clashes took place between Arab and Jew over land again. The Ottoman Caliph had been allowing immigrants, many of which were Jewish, to legally purchase land in Palestine. The number of Jews was but a fraction of the Muslim population, but the land purchases were causing concern among the Arabic peoples. Aside from the fact that the Jewish immigrants had turned much of the land into prosperous farms, the truth remains that they were legal purchases. In 1914, the Caliph banned the sale of land to immigrants, but the corruption of the regime allowed them to take place anyway. This was, and still is the real root of the problem-the land and who legally owns it.
We all know what happened in 1948 and the events proceeding it. The way it was handled was an international disgrace for which the UN bears the brunt of the blame. Had it intervened, perhaps the whole thing may have turned out differently. It is what happened afterward that surprised the world. The Jews fought off a coalition of well equipped Pan Arabic armies, and established its independent right to exist. It has merely done what any group of people would do if faced with annihilation-fight for survival. In the process, I agree that Israel has been guilty of racial and religious prejudice in their dealings with the primarily Muslim Palestinians. What has been the role of the Islamic nations in helping these people? Nothing much except to continue to fuel the fires of hatred and discord. Yes, the US has provided military and monetary support to Israel. Has it not also attempted to help bring peace? Other than Egypt, for which Anwar Sadat paid with his life (May the blessings of Allah be upon his soul!), which Islamic, or Muslim, or Arabic, or Persian nation has really attempted to help bring peace?
The answer to peace is simple and written in the Bible. First remove the beam that is in your own eye, then you may see clearly enough to remove the mote that is in your neighbor's. One may quote, Forgive thine enemy, and pray for those who persecute you. I am sure that forgiveness is a part of the better concepts of the Torah and the Koran as well. One meaningful act of Israel toward peace may be all that is needed, but can the militant extremists on either side put down their weapons for that one time?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-18-2009, 02:03
Purged at Hooah's request.
To be honest, I'm not sure how angry I am.
Hooahguy
08-18-2009, 02:13
purged for the good of the thread.
rotorgun
08-18-2009, 02:19
Those were the acts of two very humble gentlemen.:2thumbsup: Please let's continue our intellectual debate. I, for one highly value your considered opinions. Let us not let our passions be the undoing of a needed debate.
1. They proundly claimed descent from the same people credited with executing what the majority of the population believed was the greatest saviour and gift mankind would ever recieve.
So the Jews claim to be descended from the Romans? 'Cause last I checked, it was legionaries who did the executing, not the Pharisees.
2. They held themselves apart as a people chosen by God.
As do the Amish. As do the Mormons. As do the Brahmins. I fail to see how the Jewish claim is more provocative than the average religious exclusion. Yes, Judaism is weird because it is both an ethnicity and a religion, but it's not extremely weird. Far less offensive than the Hindu caste system. Why haven't there been pogroms and genocides directed at the Hindu Brahmins? Oh, right, 'cause they're in their own society, in which they are integrated.
The fact is, and this is inescapable, Jews have been persecuted more than any other people since the fall of Rome. To suggest the reasons for this are the same as other persecutions is wilful.
Oh, Jews got a pretty raw deal during the Roman Empire as well as after. See diaspora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora) for reference. However, with that understood, the Jews have hardly been alone in being the subject of ethnic cleansing, and I don't think their position is unique or exceptional. The gypsies were put in the ovens alongside the Jews during the Third Reich, and the first industrial genocide was of Armenians, not Jews. And why were the Congolese wiped out in their millions (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/1999/may/13/features11.g22) by the Belgians? No Congolese ever said they were the chosen people, did they?
Mormons believe they are a chosen elect, and they got pounded, lynched and shot until they integrated. Now they embrace the American dream more fervently than the majority of non-Mormons. There's a lesson in that, and it goes back to my original point: Ethnic/religious groups that do not integrate are at risk. Always have been, always will be.
Samurai Waki
08-18-2009, 04:25
Native Americans also got a pretty raw deal in the genocide dept. it wasn't industrial like the Third Reich, but there was little difference in overall intent. It was only until after Custer, that the killing slowed, and "re-education" programs began, and actually, ended, later than the holocaust.
Let’s see for another point: Why when I was young (long time ago) I was pro-Israeli and anti Palestinian: I knew every thing about the Haganah, Irgun and even the Stern. Israel was the land of the heroes who survived the holocaust and were building a land of justice.
The coalition of the Arabs world makes again David fighting Goliath once again…
We just forgot that Goliath was right. It was his land. He succumb against a better trained David armed with a weapon he didn’t expect…
The Palestinians abandoned and used by the Arabs world were the last badies: Munich, the hostages taken, the attacks and bombs in the streets on Jews, and the last Entebbe raid just prolonged the disdain for them and the admiration for Tsahal.
Why did I change my point of view? Because the disdain of Israel for the Palestinian.
I do accept Israel never to give up the Golan, but the expectation from Israel for Palestinian to be slaves and kept in ghetto, where they controlled every aspect of the Palestinian life is unacceptable.
The heirs of the Warsaw ghetto became themselves guars of a ghetto. With the body armours of their soldiers, the Israelis build a mental fortress as the guard of the biggest jail every made.
They can claim to be offended by the comparison but the truth is they are now on the oppressor side. Because if thou gaze long….
Hooahguy
08-18-2009, 12:18
one hole:
contradicting public opinion, the israelis didnt force palestinians en masse into Gaza. sorry to break the news.
only when the palestinians began sending rockets and attacking israelis did the israelis begin to blockade gaza.
oh yes, and about Goliath: goliath and the phillistines were attacking israel. not the other way around. israel, in defense, phillistines in offense. so to answer you, the answer is nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
yeah... sorry bout that. im kinda obsessed with "Zero Punctuation."
by the way, did no one read my article that demolishes the theory that israel is getting more violent?
guess not. :shrug:
:laugh4:
one hole:
contradicting public opinion, the israelis didnt force palestinians en masse into Gaza. sorry to break the news.
The ethnic cleansing of arab towns and villages after the declaration of the state of Israel is a matter of public record. The official Israeli records themselves attest to it. Forced marches, burnt villages, mass executions.
couldn't find the right source - but this gives the details (http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_26969.shtml)
As for modern Israelis being owed the land of their 'forefathers' - there is a now recent dna evidence that suggests that ashkenazic jews (who make up the majority of Israeli Jews) are in fact of Asian/Khazar origin and not from the middle east. The sephardic jews are most likely the decendants of the original Israelis.
source (http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm)
There is also a significant body of thought that discounts the scientific veracity of biblical sources and by using archeological evidence suggests the ancient state of Israel was in fact much smaller than the current state of Israel.
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_minimalism)
I don't know why I bother with the reasoned response - I have this vain hope that people will respond to logic.
Hooahguy
08-18-2009, 15:47
The ethnic cleansing of arab towns and villages after the declaration of the state of Israel is a matter of public record. The official Israeli records themselves attest to it. Forced marches, burnt villages, mass executions.
couldn't find the right source - but this gives the details (http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_26969.shtml)
pssshhhh thats just another one of those heavily biased site.
most of you "ethnic cleansing" conspirators are just blocwing a lot of hot air.
As for modern Israelis being owed the land of their 'forefathers' - there is a now recent dna evidence that suggests that ashkenazic jews (who make up the majority of Israeli Jews) are in fact of Asian/Khazar origin and not from the middle east. The sephardic jews are most likely the decendants of the original Israelis.
so what? all are jews, just the same.
There is also a significant body of thought that discounts the scientific veracity of biblical sources and by using archeological evidence suggests the ancient state of Israel was in fact much smaller than the current state of Israel.
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_minimalism)
map (http://www.classicalhebrewblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/judah-and-israel.gif)
Tribesman
08-18-2009, 18:34
pssshhhh thats just another one of those heavily biased site.
most of you "ethnic cleansing" conspirators are just blocwing a lot of hot air.
Yes we would need to link the records of the Knesset to be unbiased for Hooah plus lots of studies from Israeli sources, perhaps loads of quotes from former and current Israeli MKs just for good measure.
So are you up for it Hooah , its only a simple question , one really simple question ....do you want to try and challenge the fact that Israel has a long history of policies directed at ethnicly cleansing the non-jewish population of territory it claims, that those policies are ongoing...and that those policies even predate the founding of the state.
Or are you just blowing hot air?
so what? all are jews, just the same.
Tell that to the errrrr.....Jews ,remember according to the real true zionists you ain't even Jewish hooah.
Hooahguy
08-18-2009, 18:46
i wont even dignify that with a full response.
"oh yes, and about Goliath: goliath and the phillistines were attacking israel" Er, I am not a specialist in the Bible propagenda, however I do remember that the Israelis came from Egypt under the pretext that their God gave the lands to them. Well.... So the Philistines were defending their lands.
The Russian taking back Minsk was not an attack against Germans, if you want a more recent exemple.:beam:
Hooahguy
08-18-2009, 18:55
once we start calling everything we dont agree with "propaganda" this debate is over. im done. no point arguing anymore.
Rhyfelwyr
08-18-2009, 18:57
Tell that to the errrrr.....Jews ,remember according to the real true zionists you ain't even Jewish hooah.
I want to reclaim my place in Israel, after all, remember Jeremiah came over to Ireland to establish a dynasty with the lost tribe of Judah, and they used the Stone of Destiny which has since been used by the Scottish kings since the Ulster Scots came over. That's why the red hand is in a star of David after all. In fact, Tribesman is Irish, maybe he could become a zionist? :idea2:
:clown:
Tribesman
08-18-2009, 19:08
i wont even dignify that with a full response.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
How is your brother looking forward to getting on with his racist teacher come September ?
"oh yes, and about Goliath: goliath and the phillistines were attacking israel" Er, I am not a specialist in the Bible propagenda, however I do remember that the Israelis came from Egypt under the pretext that their God gave the lands to them. Well.... So the Philistines were defending their lands.
Well if you want to go down that road of Saul and David with the Phillistines why mot take a turn to the real big ethnic cleansing of the story ,the genocide....but it was a good genocide because god told them to do it
Hooahguy
08-18-2009, 19:14
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
How is your brother looking forward to getting on with his racist teacher come September ?
hes not happy.
we're still waiting for a response from the school district, thanks for asking.
Tribesman
08-18-2009, 19:19
In fact, Tribesman is Irish, maybe he could become a zionist?
Hey why not , I could become the second Irish President of Israel
“ The big ethnic cleansing of the story ,the genocide....but it was a good genocide because god told them to do it”
Because I don’t apply modern concept on ancient History? Do you speak of Jericho?
Tribesman
08-18-2009, 20:18
No thats the ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites , I meant the genocide of the Amalekites.
“propaganda” : Well, the bible was written by the Jews, for the Jews about the Jewish point of view… So as such it is propaganda, showing the strength and the courage of the Jewish warriors. And the story of Goliath is one of the exemple.
“I meant the genocide of the Amalekites.” You lost me here, I will have to do researches. :book:
Thanks :furious3:
“no point arguing anymore.” As you wish.
:wink:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-18-2009, 21:05
So the Jews claim to be descended from the Romans? 'Cause last I checked, it was legionaries who did the executing, not the Pharisees.
He was arrested by jews, tried by Jews, and delivered up to Pilate by a Jewish mob chanting "crucify him". In Acts and the Gospels the blame is placed upon the Jews, or at least some of them.
Last I checked, consensus was that the Jewish elders and Romans were both culpable, and the conclusion of Vatican II was, let's face it, an act of political rebalancing.
The ethnic cleansing of arab towns and villages after the declaration of the state of Israel is a matter of public record. The official Israeli records themselves attest to it. Forced marches, burnt villages, mass executions.
couldn't find the right source - but this gives the details (http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_26969.shtml)
As for modern Israelis being owed the land of their 'forefathers' - there is a now recent dna evidence that suggests that ashkenazic jews (who make up the majority of Israeli Jews) are in fact of Asian/Khazar origin and not from the middle east. The sephardic jews are most likely the decendants of the original Israelis.
source (http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm)
There is also a significant body of thought that discounts the scientific veracity of biblical sources and by using archeological evidence suggests the ancient state of Israel was in fact much smaller than the current state of Israel.
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_minimalism)
I don't know why I bother with the reasoned response - I have this vain hope that people will respond to logic.
Interesting, I didn't know about ethnicity of the ashkenazic Jews.
pssshhhh thats just another one of those heavily biased site.
most of you "ethnic cleansing" conspirators are just blocwing a lot of hot air.
so what? all are jews, just the same.
map (http://www.classicalhebrewblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/judah-and-israel.gif)
If you want to believe a purely Biblical version, which stands against all other evidence, you can. However, if you base your actions on that you won't get much support.
Even assuming we buy that God granted the Biblical Jews the land of Caanan etc., that does not mean that:
A. The grant has not been withdrwan/is not dormant.
B. That the modern followers of the Jewish religion are automatically the beneficiaries and not, for example, the ethnic decendants of the original Israelites who remained in Roman Palastine.
Kralizec
08-18-2009, 21:33
As for modern Israelis being owed the land of their 'forefathers' - there is a now recent dna evidence that suggests that ashkenazic jews (who make up the majority of Israeli Jews) are in fact of Asian/Khazar origin and not from the middle east. The sephardic jews are most likely the decendants of the original Israelis.
source (http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm)
Interesting subject- I wish I understood what all that talk about haplogroups and whatnot meant (without having to invest time in reading about it)
It doesn't conclude anywhere that the ashkenazi jews are mostly (let alone purely) Khazar, or that they don't share a genetic ancestry with sephardic jews.
From the summary at the end:
DNA research has also revealed significant genetic links between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish populations, despite their separation for generations. With the Cohanim study, researchers found a clear genetic connection between the Jewish priests and a shared Israelite ancestor from the past. Additional genetic results suggest that the Ashkenazim can trace at least part of their ancestry to their Israelite forbearers.
But Jewish DNA presents a picture that is far more complex than just the Cohanim results. This picture is also far more diverse than what many genetic studies on Ashkenazi Jews would suggest. Instead, many of those studies have focused heavily on the Israelite DNA results, often downplaying the significant contribution of European and Khazarian ancestors. The examination of only a single component of Jewish ancestry has resulted in an incomplete and, to a certain extent, distorted presentation of the Jewish genetic picture.
But since I don't believe that ancient ancestry can justify conquest of land from others anyway, I don't think it's relevant.
Tribesman
08-19-2009, 00:00
You lost me here, I will have to do researches.
Thats OK, though apparently God wasn't happy they failed to kill every man woman and child as divinely ordered .
I wonder if I could possibly find some quotes from Israeli politicians and some of the crazy settlers claiming the Palestinians are the decendants of the Amalekites and must be wiped from the earth to fulfill Gods plan?
But hey that would be too easy and I woudn't want to go into that unless Hooah decides to try and show that he wasn't indeed blowing hot air earlier.
Hooahguy
08-19-2009, 00:34
some of the crazy settlers claiming the Palestinians are the decendants of the Amalekites and must be wiped from the earth to fulfill Gods plan?
dont worry, i think those settlers are insane too. the palestinians? decedents of amalek? have they lost their mind?
That is why the Jews have been persecuted; claiming a God-given right to be placed above other people.
*Facepalm*
We just forgot that Goliath was right. It was his land. He succumb against a better trained David armed with a weapon he didn’t expect….
Actually, Goliath wasn't right at all. Goliath was a Phillistine. Phillistines are general agreed to be an Aegean people, part of the Sea Peoples, who invaded Canaan and Egypt. The Phillistines were foreigners.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-19-2009, 03:30
Actually, Goliath wasn't right at all. Goliath was a Phillistine. Phillistines are general agreed to be an Aegean people, part of the Sea Peoples, who invaded Canaan and Egypt. The Phillistines were foreigners.
No, they are not "generally agreed" to be anything. If they were of the Sea Peoples, which is admittedly quite likely, they could already have been settled in some numbers before the Israelites arrived from Egypt, so little is known about that Dark Age that pinning down when anyone settled anywhere is impossible.
No, they are not "generally agreed" to be anything. If they were of the Sea Peoples, which is admittedly quite likely, they could already have been settled in some numbers before the Israelites arrived from Egypt, so little is known about that Dark Age that pinning down when anyone settled anywhere is impossible.
Don't take my word for it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines#Origin_of_the_Philistines)
rotorgun
08-19-2009, 06:34
Actually, Goliath wasn't right at all. Goliath was a Philistine. Philistines are general agreed to be an Aegean people, part of the Sea Peoples, who invaded Canaan and Egypt. The Philistines were foreigners.
I kind of view the Philistines in a similar light to the Crusaders of the middle ages-outsiders and hostile (Much as the Palestinians view the Jews). While the reasons the Crusaders were there were religious and economic, the Philistines were some sort of wandering mariners from Crete or the Aegean (pirates perhaps) that ended up in the Levant after being defeated by Egypt. Some believe that they may also have come from the region of Carthage in North Africa, who established trading outposts along the coast.
Who knows, but they were no more original inhabitants then were the wandering Hebrew. The Hebrew, mentioned by the Egyptians as the Habiru, which can be translated as bandits, ironically came from the same region after the Exodus. It is thought that some of the Habiru may have served as mercenaries in the war against the Sea Peoples. Perhaps it was the large number of trained warriors among the Hebrew which worried Pharaoh so much; they certainly would have represented a potential threat to stability.
In any case, either side claiming descent from these two groups as one of the reasons for a right to occupy the land there is standing on a weak moral argument.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-19-2009, 13:04
Don't take my word for it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines#Origin_of_the_Philistines)
I assumed that was where you got your information, so I read it. It's not very compelling, it certainly doesn't provide a definite anwer to any of those questions.
But since I don't believe that ancient ancestry can justify conquest of land from others anyway, I don't think it's relevant.
Well quite. I am decended from Ashkanezic jews and don't believe I have any right to Israeli land (even though I have many frummer relatives who are full-on zionists).
It would be interesting to find out how many zionists who believe in the divine right to live in Israel also support reparations for slavery - a far more recent and traceable injustice with more identifiable victims.
I assumed that was where you got your information, so I read it. It's not very compelling, it certainly doesn't provide a definite anwer to any of those questions.
Dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, dismiss. Want to do anything else but dismiss? (http://www.phoenixdatasystems.com/goliath/c3/c3b.htm)
More. (http://www.phoenixdatasystems.com/goliath/c3/c3f.htm)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-19-2009, 19:59
Dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, dismiss. Want to do anything else but dismiss? (http://www.phoenixdatasystems.com/goliath/c3/c3b.htm)
More. (http://www.phoenixdatasystems.com/goliath/c3/c3f.htm)
As I said, not compelling, notice the paucity of genuine linguistic evidence? He makes some good points, especially with regard to Crete, but this is all conjectural, and badly dated. For example, are the Trojan War and the Exodus of the same period, or is the Exodus 200 years ealier? I'm also not convinced by the equating of Seren and Tyrannos, since the more usual word for a Greek leader is a Basileus.
Here's an example of the problems with working anything out conclusively:
The Greeks, or what became the Greeks, are known to have pre-Dark Age contacts from Egypt to the Levant. It may be that the Philistines were a Greekish people who naturalised, or they may have been a Semetic people who took on some Greek attributes. Certainly; by the beggining of the Archaic age Carians and others were already starting to take Greek names and adopt Greek customs.
Constructing a complex chronology of a particular people and their origens is a pass time of many historians, but today it's seen as more of an intellectual exercise than a means to prove anything.
Banquo's Ghost
08-21-2009, 07:35
Can't we just draw a line under all this "were here first therefore have a right" millarkey and agree that the world belongs to the Ethiopians?
:rolleyes:
I thought it was the Ancient Sumerian(?) Aliens who breed with Ape Females on Earth, which jump-started our evolution by supplying foundation genes which will lead to the human race.
Can't we just draw a line under all this "were here first therefore have a right" millarkey and agree that the world belongs to the Ethiopians?
:rolleyes:
Gah! Those upstarts owe everything to the Tanzanian ProConsuls.
rotorgun
08-22-2009, 15:21
I thought it was the Ancient Sumerian(?) Aliens who breed with Ape Females on Earth, which jump-started our evolution by supplying foundation genes which will lead to the human race.
A reader of The Twelfth Planet I see. So the Sumerians are really the chosen people, from whom all the other chosen people descended? :egypt:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-23-2009, 16:16
Can't we just draw a line under all this "were here first therefore have a right" millarkey and agree that the world belongs to the Ethiopians?
:rolleyes:
I think it was Tanzania, at least that's what I remember Dr Alice Roberts Saying.:2thumbsup:
How about we all just agree to be Tanzinians (or whatever)? That seems even better.
Tribesman
08-23-2009, 19:05
Can anyone make any sense out of The Israel Project memo that did the rounds in Congress?
Apparently if you oppose ethnic cleansing you must be told that you are really in favour of ethnic cleansing.
Its a wierd logic where if you oppose people clearing others out of their homes and land you are actually ethnicly cleansing the people who are not even there yet.:dizzy2:
rotorgun
08-24-2009, 01:41
Can anyone make any sense out of The Israel Project memo that did the rounds in Congress?
Apparently if you oppose ethnic cleansing you must be told that you are really in favor of ethnic cleansing.
Its a weird logic where if you oppose people clearing others out of their homes and land you are actually ethnically cleansing the people who are not even there yet.:dizzy2:
Do you have a link for that document Tribe? The only one I could find was:
http://www.theisraelproject.org/atf/cf/%7B84dc5887-741e-4056-8d91-a389164bc94e%7D/MOU2.PDF
It is some kind of memo about reducing the arms and explosives being smuggled into Gaza. I did find an interesting fact about how many Palestinian Prisoners that Israel has released over the years. It hardly seems like something that a regime committed to ethnic cleansing would do. It is from the Israel Project website.
Timeline of Israeli Peace Measures: Release of Palestinian Prisoners
Israel's frequent release of Palestinian security prisoners before the expiration of their sentences are emblematic of the sacrifices Israel is willing to take in the pursuit of peace.
List of Palestinian Prisoner Releases from 1991 to October 2008:
Oct. 1, 2008: Israel releases 86 security prisoners, most of whom were members of Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party. [1]
Aug. 25, 2008: Israel releases 199 Palestinian security prisoners, including Mohammed Abu Ali-Yata and Said al-Ataba, both of whom were convicted of murdering Israeli civilians. The prisoner release is a gesture of goodwill to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. [2]
Nov. 19, 2007: Israel releases 441 Palestinian security prisoners as a gesture of support for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. [3]
July 17, 2007: The Israeli cabinet approves an order to release 256 Palestinian prisoners on July 20 in a goodwill measure to the newly formed emergency Palestinian government led by Fatah. The list of prisoners includes members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and Fatah. [4]
July 16, 2007: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert grants amnesty to 178 fugitive Fatah members, primarily members of the militant Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in a goodwill measure to the emergency Palestinian government. [5]
June 2, 2005: Israel frees 398 Palestinian prisoners. [6]
Feb. 21, 2005: Israel releases 500 Palestinian prisoners. [7]
Dec. 27, 2004: Israel frees 159 Palestinian prisoners as a goodwill measure to the new Palestinian leadership headed by Mahmoud Abbas, successor of the late Yasser Arafat. [8]
Sept. 7, 2004: Israel releases 161 Palestinians. [9]
Aug. 2003: Israel releases 331 Palestinians in an effort to bolster the US-backed Road Map Peace Plan. [10]
Dec. 30, 1999: Israel releases 33 Palestinian prisoners in a goodwill gesture during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. [11]
Oct. 15, 1999: Israel frees 151 Palestinian prisoners in accordance with the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum. [12]
Sept. 9, 1999: Israel releases 199 Palestinian prisoners in accordance with the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum. [13]
Nov. 20, 1998: Israel frees 250 Palestinian prisoners in accordance with the Wye River Memorandum. [14]
Feb. 3, 1998: Israel releases 23 Palestinian prisoners in a goodwill gesture to mark the end of holy Muslim month of Ramadan. [15]
Feb. 11, 1997: Israel frees 30 of its female Palestinian detainees. [16]
Jan. 11, 1996: Israel releases 230 Palestinian security prisoners, mainly Fatah members charged with wounding or killing other Palestinians. [17]
Jan. 10, 1996: Israel releases 812 Palestinians in conjunction with Palestinian Authority (PA) officials. [18]
Oct. 10, 1995: Israel frees 900 Palestinians as part of the second stage of the Oslo interim peace accords. [19]
June 29, 1994: Israel releases 500 Palestinian prisoners. [20]
March 3, 1994: Israel frees 415 Palestinian prisoners. [21]
March 1, 1994: Israel releases 569 Palestinian prisoners. [22]
Jan. 7, 1994: Israel releases 101 Palestinian prisoners. [23]
Oct. 25, 1993: Israel frees 660 Palestinian prisoners following the signing of the Oslo Accords. [24]
April 10, 1991: Israel releases 240 Palestinian prisoners. [25]
LittleGrizzly
08-24-2009, 01:45
Jan. 11, 1996: Israel releases 230 Palestinian security prisoners, mainly Fatah members charged with wounding or killing other Palestinians. [17]
Thats just a covert way of killing them off ~;)
Tribesman
08-24-2009, 03:07
It is some kind of memo about reducing the arms and explosives being smuggled into Gaza.
No it is advice to US politicians about how to campaign against the long standing demand to stop building settlements that their government keeps insisting on Isreal keeping its word about.
Though as a good one as well as doing a reverse logic on ethnic cleansing they also offer this advice.....
You must avoid using Israel's religious claims to land as a reason why Israel should not give up land. Such claims only make Israel look extremist to people who are not religious Christians or Jews
...so apparently they think that if people are religious they would be in favour of ethnic cleansing and theft, while people who are not religious would find those "good" things rather ungood.
rotorgun
08-24-2009, 03:37
No it is advice to US politicians about how to campaign against the long standing demand to stop building settlements that their government keeps insisting on Isreal keeping its word about.
Though as a good one as well as doing a reverse logic on ethnic cleansing they also offer this advice.....
You must avoid using Israel's religious claims to land as a reason why Israel should not give up land. Such claims only make Israel look extremist to people who are not religious Christians or Jews
...so apparently they think that if people are religious they would be in favour of ethnic cleansing and theft, while people who are not religious would find those "good" things rather ungood.
Are we talking about the same memo? I only read there a desire to stop the arms shipments going to Gaza and Hamas. Here is the title I got after a Google search for the Project Israel Memo:
Memorandum of Understanding
Between
Israel and the United States Regarding
Prevention of the Supply of Arms and Related Materiel to Terrorist Groups
No where in the document did I read the quote you used, and even then, avoiding language that makes Israel look extreme doesn't imply that Israel is conducting ethnic cleansing. Only you are implying such a thing, and those who think as you do on this subject. What are the Palestinians doing, playing cricket? This is a struggle for land, yes? Have you ever known of such a struggle that was bloodless? I would be naive to think that Israels hands are clean, but I would also be a fool to believe that the PLO, or Hamas, or any such group representing the Palestinian Arabs as a bunch of church chior boys either.
Tribe me boyo, I honor the cause of both parties, but despise the ongoing violence that both sides feel is the only way.
Banquo's Ghost
08-24-2009, 07:29
I imagine that this is the story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/23/obama-jewish-settlements-isreal) to which Tribesman is alluding.
Another example where charges of anti-semitism are used to bludgeon opponents.
The report, marked as "not for distribution or publication" but since widely disseminated outside of the organisation, says that those who back the removal of the settlements should be told they are supporting ethnic cleansing and antisemitism. The guide offers what it describes as "the best settlement argument".
"The idea that anywhere that you have Palestinians there can't be Jews, that some areas have to be Jew-free, is a racist idea. We don't say that we have to cleanse out Arabs from Israel. They are citizens of Israel. They enjoy equal rights. We cannot see why it is that peace requires that any Palestinian area would require a kind of ethnic cleansing to remove all Jews," the guide says.
The accusation of ethnic cleansing is particularly ironic for many Palestinians, as the past 41 years of occupation have been marked by a continual forced removal of Arabs to make way for Jews.
It is encouraging to note, however, that there are several Jewish lobby groups that have distanced themselves from this arrogant nonsense.
first off, let me just say, doesnt pretty much every religion have a "holier than thou" attitude towards others?
Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism. As far as I know, none of those religions profess their followers to be better than other people.
So there you are.
It's time that we are able to talk freely about the Holocaust. You hear almost nobody speak about the rape of Nanking? How about the Holodomor. Why don't people mention it? Because it doesn't interest us. It's quite sickening to see, actually. When it happens outside of the West, we don't care.
rotorgun
08-25-2009, 03:46
I imagine that this is the story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/23/obama-jewish-settlements-isreal) to which Tribesman is alluding.
Another example where charges of antisemitism are used to bludgeon opponents.
The report, marked as "not for distribution or publication" but since widely disseminated outside of the organization, says that those who back the removal of the settlements should be told they are supporting ethnic cleansing and antisemitism. The guide offers what it describes as "the best settlement argument".
"The idea that anywhere that you have Palestinians there can't be Jews, that some areas have to be Jew-free, is a racist idea. We don't say that we have to cleanse out Arabs from Israel. They are citizens of Israel. They enjoy equal rights. We cannot see why it is that peace requires that any Palestinian area would require a kind of ethnic cleansing to remove all Jews," the guide says.
PS: Please retract posts
The accusation of ethnic cleansing is particularly ironic for many Palestinians, as the past 41 years of occupation have been marked by a continual forced removal of Arabs to make way for Jews.
It is encouraging to note, however, that there are several Jewish lobby groups that have distanced themselves from this arrogant nonsense.
Thank you Banquo. (He says with egg on his face.) My apologies to Tribe. I have so little time to visit that I tend to get a bit behind the eight ball on all of the latest. I hope that you all don't see me as some sort of Tribesman attack dog or something. I really enjoy his posts, even if they are from out in left field sometimes.:beam:
I read this as new age realpolitik. Forcibly moving any one is a far cry from ethnic cleansing. Both sides have resorted to these measures, admittedly the Israelis more so, but it's not the same as taking the people off into the nearby woods and killing them. We don't have to look to far into the past to see examples, do we? No need to state the obvious.
Yes, this is a classic example of shell game politics so well practiced in the United States. It's rather see through in my opinion. :shame:
PS: Please ignore Posts # 104 and 107 as they were written in complete ignorance. No offense intended by them.
rotorgun
08-25-2009, 03:49
Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism. As far as I know, none of those religions profess their followers to be better than other people.
So there you are.
It's time that we are able to talk freely about the Holocaust. You hear almost nobody speak about the rape of Nanking? How about the Holodomor. Why don't people mention it? Because it doesn't interest us. It's quite sickening to see, actually. When it happens outside of the West, we don't care.
A very good point indeed. I know of Nanking, but what was the deal with Holodomor?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.