And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee

Quote:

---

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?

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

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


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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

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

---

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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That is why the Jews have been persecuted; claiming a God-given right to be placed above other people.

---

*Facepalm*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

Don't take my word for it.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

More.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

Dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, dismiss. Want to do anything else but dismiss?

More.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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/...4e%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.

Quote:

---

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]

---

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 ~;)

Quote:

---

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.....

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.....

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

I imagine that this is the story 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I imagine that this is the story 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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?