Israel opens dam to flood Palestinians out of their homes...

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

If the occupation is the primary cause of this conflict, the "ur" cause if you will, then please explain to me why there was terrorism against Israel before there was an occupation. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just part of the larger Israeli-Arab conflict, which long predates the occupation, though since 1973 it has become the central front. Israelis know there own history. They know that they were under constant attack before there was ever an occupation. Why should they believe that anything has changed?

There was legitimate resistance against the Zionist takeover of the land in 1947 - 48. Since 1967 there has been resistance against the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Not difficult to understand.

Michael Neuman:
'...The Zionist movement took their land, that is, it deprived them of sovereignty over that land. The Palestinians had done nothing to provoke this usurpation. Sovereignty was the right of the Palestinians, of the inhabitants of Palestine, not of the settlers who came with the express purpose of establishing an ethnic state that could reasonably be seen as a mortal threat to the Palestinians and as a grievous assault on their rights. Given this threat, the Palestinians were right to make no concessions of sovereignty to the Zionists and, given that the Zionists would not abandon their project, there was no room for compromise. However, a real opportunity for peace arose with the Israeli conquest of the Occupied territories in 1967, when the Palestinians made concessions they did not, as a matter of right, have to make. This opportunity was decisively abandoned by the Israelis, not so much by the occupation itself as by an extremist settler movement and the policies that supported, nurtured, and sustained it.
The settler movement constituted a new mortal threat to the Palestinians, worse than the previous one. The Palestinians were entitled - indeed rationally compelled - to resist this threat, and they were justified in supposing that violent resistance was required. Moreover, nothing in the character of that resistance supports the claims that the Palestinians are consumed by anything more than the entirely normal hatred that is born of warfare and that generally dissipates with peace. The claim that Palestinians are permanently bent on destroying Israel and consumed by inextinguishable hatred now shows itself to be baseless. The Palestinians' desperate attempts to defend themselves against catastrophic dispossession are no evidence whatever for that claim. What you say and feel when someone has trapped you and is progressively making your life intolerable is no evidence for how you will act when that person relents and departs.
What makes the Israeli position particularly indefensible is it's utter gratuitousness. There is no conceivable reason for Israel to promote the settlements that have been the cause of so much misery. The settler movement is built on psuedo-Biblical foolishness, bad history, greed, and - worse - a sort of racist messianism that deserves no tolerance, consideration, or respect. Israel could have not only peace but vastly increased security tomorrow if it chooses: It has all the options and the Palestinians none. The fussing about negotiations, trust, and hatred are nothing but self-deceiving excuses for more bloodshed.'

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

The claim that Israel is the Jewish homeland arises from history, not the bible. I do not take the bible (at least the first five books (only talking Old Testament here)) to be a literal historical document, and I don't take seriously anyone who does. Leaving the bible aside entirely, and forgetting God, who/which I frankly approach with a great deal of skepticism, the Jewish people/Hebrews/Nation of Israel, whatever you want to call our ancestors, lived in and ruled the land of Israel thousands of years ago. This is a historical claim based in thousands of years of unbroken cultural transmission, historical documents from the time, and archeology. Judaism is literally the product of the land of Israel. The holidays are all keyed to the seasons and agricultural calendar in Israel. The Temple was in Jerusalem, and its ruins are still to this day the physical point to which Jews pray. Now don't misunderstand. I'm bringing in religion as being culturally important. I am not saying anything about any sort of divine right. Now the Jewish people were expelled from our land, but we have never stopped hoping to return (although there was always a small Jewish population that remained in Israel). Israel runs through our entire cultural heritage. So when I say that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, I am talking about a historical fact. The Jewish people was born in Israel, our entire cultural heritage revolves around Israel, and we have never stopped hoping to return to the land from which we were forcibly expelled. Notice that I have not said anything about the Palestinians, or about conflicting rights. I am not having that discussion right now, so please don't come back at me that the Palestinians were living there. I am providing a narrow answer as I see it to a narrow question.

Michael Neumann:
'In the case of a Jewish claim to Palestine, the claims are themselves dubious. Here it is not necessary to have decided on a truth, which may elude researchers forever. It is enough to show that there is serious controversy, and that is easily done. One account of recent findings can be found in 'The Bible Unearthed: Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the origin of It's sacred Texts'. It's authors are Israel Finkelstein, director of an archeological institute at Tel Aviv Uuniversity, and Neil Asher Silberman, director of a Belgian archeological institute and a contributing editor to 'Archeology' magazine. These writers display no political agenda and repeat to the point of saturation their admiration and respect for the Bible. Asher and Silberman introduce their work with the claim that:

"The historical sage contained in the Bible - from Abraham's encounter with God and his journey to Canaan, to Moses's delverance of the children of Israe from bondage, to the rise and fall of the Kingdom of Israel and Judah - was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the human imagination."

This is the authors' exceedingly polite way of saying that the Biblical accounts are sometimes nonsense, sometimes deliberate lies, exaggerations, and distortions. The status of the Biblical Kingdom is particularly relevant to the Jewish claims to Palestine. One of Asher and Silberman's more devastating findings is that:

"The Biblical borders of the land of Israel as outlined in the book of Joshua had seemingly assumed a sacred inviolability...the Bible pictures a stormy but basically continuous Israelite occupation of the land of Israel all the way to the Assyrian conquest. But a reexamination of the archelogical evidence...points to a period of a few decades [in which Israel existed], between around 835-800B.C.E..."

In other words, they find that the "Great" Jewish Kingdom existed in something like their fabled extent for a tiny fraction of the period traditionally alleged. Even then, their boundaries nver came close to the "Greater Israel" of contemporary Jewish fundamentalism. The rest of the time. Judah and Israel are thought to have been, for the most part, very primitive entities, devoid of literate culture or substantial administrative structure, extending to only a small, landlocked part of what is now called Palestine. The great structures of the Biblical era are, all of them, attributed to Canaanite cultures. Moreover, the inhabitants of Biblical Israel and Judah seem to have, for most of the time and for the most part, practitioners of Canaanite religions rather than Judaism, or of various syncretic cults. These "Israelites" were not, that is, "Jewish" in one important sense of the term. The authors refer to the Biblical Kingdom at it existed as a "a multi-ethnic society." The idea that such a past could validate a Jewish historical claim to Palestine is simply ludicrous, even if it could be shown - which it cannot - that today's Jews are in some legal sense, heirs to the ancient Israelite Kingdoms.'

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the crux of my argument hinges on whether the Jewish kingdom in ancient Israel was really really awesome and large and culturally rich. What you've provided above is proof enough that Israel is the Jewish homeland, poor as our ancestors may have been.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

If the occupation is the primary cause of this conflict, the "ur" cause if you will, then please explain to me why there was terrorism against Israel before there was an occupation. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just part of the larger Israeli-Arab conflict, which long predates the occupation, though since 1973 it has become the central front. Israelis know there own history. They know that they were under constant attack before there was ever an occupation. Why should they believe that anything has changed?

There was legitimate resistance against the Zionist takeover of the land in 1947 - 48. Since 1967 there has been resistance against the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Not difficult to understand.

Michael Neuman:
'...The Zionist movement took their land, that is, it deprived them of sovereignty over that land. The Palestinians had done nothing to provoke this usurpation. Sovereignty was the right of the Palestinians, of the inhabitants of Palestine, not of the settlers who came with the express purpose of establishing an ethnic state that could reasonably be seen as a mortal threat to the Palestinians and as a grievous assault on their rights. Given this threat, the Palestinians were right to make no concessions of sovereignty to the Zionists and, given that the Zionists would not abandon their project, there was no room for compromise. However, a real opportunity for peace arose with the Israeli conquest of the Occupied territories in 1967, when the Palestinians made concessions they did not, as a matter of right, have to make. This opportunity was decisively abandoned by the Israelis, not so much by the occupation itself as by an extremist settler movement and the policies that supported, nurtured, and sustained it.
The settler movement constituted a new mortal threat to the Palestinians, worse than the previous one. The Palestinians were entitled - indeed rationally compelled - to resist this threat, and they were justified in supposing that violent resistance was required. Moreover, nothing in the character of that resistance supports the claims that the Palestinians are consumed by anything more than the entirely normal hatred that is born of warfare and that generally dissipates with peace. The claim that Palestinians are permanently bent on destroying Israel and consumed by inextinguishable hatred now shows itself to be baseless. The Palestinians' desperate attempts to defend themselves against catastrophic dispossession are no evidence whatever for that claim. What you say and feel when someone has trapped you and is progressively making your life intolerable is no evidence for how you will act when that person relents and departs.
What makes the Israeli position particularly indefensible is it's utter gratuitousness. There is no conceivable reason for Israel to promote the settlements that have been the cause of so much misery. The settler movement is built on psuedo-Biblical foolishness, bad history, greed, and - worse - a sort of racist messianism that deserves no tolerance, consideration, or respect. Israel could have not only peace but vastly increased security tomorrow if it chooses: It has all the options and the Palestinians none. The fussing about negotiations, trust, and hatred are nothing but self-deceiving excuses for more bloodshed.'

No, you're right, it isn't difficult to understand at all. That is exactly my point. What you call resistance and I call violence against Israel is about Israel's existence in the first place. It was like that before the occupation and I suspect it is still primarily about that now. I know that Israelis believe that this is what it is about, which is why a Palestinian recognition of Israel's right to exist is a central demand of Israelis. This isn't some stalling tactic so they can continue the occupation. They realize that fundamentally, deep down, this conflict is about Israel's existence, and only secondarily about the occupation.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

...the inhabitants of Biblical Israel and Judah seem to have, for most of the time and for the most part, practitioners of Canaanite religions rather than Judaism, or of various synthetic cults. These "Israelite s" were not, that is, "Jewish" in one important sense of the term. The authors refer to the Biblical Kingdom as it existed as a "a multi-ethnic society." The idea that such a past could validate a Jewish historical claim to Palestine is simply ludicrous, even if it could be shown - which it cannot - that today's Jews are in some legal sense, heirs to the ancient Israelite Kingdoms.'

yosi wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the crux of my argument hinges on whether the Jewish kingdom in ancient Israel was really really awesome and large and culturally rich. What you've provided above is proof enough that Israel is the Jewish homeland, poor as our ancestors may have been.

Nice selective reading of the text there. My point still stands; the Zionist claim to Palestine based on the fact that some practitioners of Judaism lived for a few decades within a multi-ethnic society largely made up of Canaanites and practitioners of various synthetic cults, is a ludicrous claim.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

Ok, I'll address that, but please don't attack me if you don't like my answer. The claim that Israel is the Jewish homeland arises from history, not the bible. I do not take the bible (at least the first five books (only talking Old Testament here)) to be a literal historical document, and I don't take seriously anyone who does. Leaving the bible aside entirely, and forgetting God, who/which I frankly approach with a great deal of skepticism, the Jewish people/Hebrews/Nation of Israel, whatever you want to call our ancestors, lived in and ruled the land of Israel thousands of years ago. This is a historical claim based in thousands of years of unbroken cultural transmission, historical documents from the time, and archeology. Judaism is literally the product of the land of Israel. The holidays are all keyed to the seasons and agricultural calendar in Israel. The Temple was in Jerusalem, and its ruins are still to this day the physical point to which Jews pray. Now don't misunderstand. I'm bringing in religion as being culturally important. I am not saying anything about any sort of divine right. Now the Jewish people were expelled from our land, but we have never stopped hoping to return (although there was always a small Jewish population that remained in Israel). Israel runs through our entire cultural heritage. So when I say that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, I am talking about a historical fact. The Jewish people was born in Israel, our entire cultural heritage revolves around Israel, and we have never stopped hoping to return to the land from which we were forcibly expelled. Notice that I have not said anything about the Palestinians, or about conflicting rights. I am not having that discussion right now, so please don't come back at me that the Palestinians were living there. I am providing a narrow answer as I see it to a narrow question.

A debatable claim going back 2000 years does not entitle you to the land of Israel. It's been discovered that Vikings lived in Newfoundland in the Americas prior to Columbus landing there. Do you think that Norway therefore has a legitimate claim to ownership of the U.S?

Ok, so then what claim do the Palestinians have to a state? It is debatable whether the Palestinians ever even had a national self-consciousness until the 1920's when larger numbers of Jewish immigrants began arriving in Palestine. There was never a state of Palestine throughout history. The land was part of various empires based in the surrounding power centers such as Egypt and Turkey. Certainly there were people living on the land, and that should entitle them to live there, but why should anyone recognize these people's rights to a state of their own?

badbrains

Yosi, u say Israelis know there own history. Well let me ask u then this. Do u know how the Bush's made most of there wealth from? Do u know who Prescott Bush is? Well back during WWII, the Nazis sent all the gold and money to Prescott bush's bank to be laundered. So basically they made most of there wealth from the blood of ur Jewish families. So can u explain to me why Sharon stood side by side with bush in early 2000. How can any Israeli Jew accept there leader standing next to him? How can anyone of ur leaders eat at the same dinner table or even shake his hand with all the blood of ur people staining them? Do a little more reading and you'll be suprised at what truths u can uncover. If u dig deep enough. Just thought I'd share that with u.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

...the inhabitants of Biblical Israel and Judah seem to have, for most of the time and for the most part, practitioners of Canaanite religions rather than Judaism, or of various synthetic cults. These "Israelite s" were not, that is, "Jewish" in one important sense of the term. The authors refer to the Biblical Kingdom as it existed as a "a multi-ethnic society." The idea that such a past could validate a Jewish historical claim to Palestine is simply ludicrous, even if it could be shown - which it cannot - that today's Jews are in some legal sense, heirs to the ancient Israelite Kingdoms.'

yosi wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the crux of my argument hinges on whether the Jewish kingdom in ancient Israel was really really awesome and large and culturally rich. What you've provided above is proof enough that Israel is the Jewish homeland, poor as our ancestors may have been.

Nice selective reading of the text there. My point still stands; the Zionist claim to Palestine based on the fact that some practitioners of Judaism lived for a few decades within a multi-ethnic society largely made of Canaanites and practitioners of various synthetic cults, is a ludicrous claim.

So enlighten me please. Where did the Jewish people come from? Are we magical pixies? Elves? Sea serpents? You are honestly ridiculous! No serious scholar debates whether the Jewish people originated in Israel. There is debate about whether the account of the ancient Jewish kingdom described in the later books of the bible is credible, or whether the bible's authors exaggerated. And the opinion you cited is that of one archeologist. I have talked to multiple archeologists who contest that claim based on current findings, as well as the fact that archeology is a discipline that doesn't close doors to more knowledge, meaning that just because evidence for something has yet to be found doesn't mean the evidence isn't still buried somewhere waiting to be found.

yosi

badbrains wrote:

Yosi, u say Israelis know there own history. Well let me ask u then this. Do u know how the Bush's made most of there wealth from? Do u know who Prescott Bush is? Well back during WWII, the Nazis sent all the gold and money to Prescott bush's bank to be laundered. So basically they made most of there wealth from the blood of ur Jewish families. So can u explain to me why Sharon stood side by side with bush in early 2000. How can any Israeli Jew accept there leader standing next to him? How can anyone of ur leaders eat at the same dinner table or even shake his hand with all the blood of ur people staining them? Do a little more reading and you'll be suprised at what truths u can uncover. If u dig deep enough. Just thought I'd share that with u.

I didn't know this. I'd be interested to look into it further. But you know what, I don't hold the sins of the father against the son, as a rule.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

You are honestly ridiculous! No serious scholar debates whether the Jewish people originated in Israel.

If we are basing our analysis on scientific methodology, as given in the example of archaeology, we should consider what biology has to say about "Jews" as an ethnicity. mRNA studies reveal that all humans originated from somewhere in southern Africa, ascended upwards through Sinai and in through Palestine to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. At this stage of human ancestry the notion of a "Jew" falls apart, because any such distinction would have to occur AFTER the ascent through Palestine.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Ok, so then what claim do the Palestinians have to a state? It is debatable whether the Palestinians ever even had a national self-consciousness until the 1920's when larger numbers of Jewish immigrants began arriving in Palestine. There was never a state of Palestine throughout history. The land was part of various empires based in the surrounding power centers such as Egypt and Turkey. Certainly there were people living on the land, and that should entitle them to live there, but why should anyone recognize these people's rights to a state of their own?

The fact they were living there when the Zionists turned up with their Biblical fantasies gives them more right to a state than the Jews had, or continue to have.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

Ok, so then what claim do the Palestinians have to a state? It is debatable whether the Palestinians ever even had a national self-consciousness until the 1920's when larger numbers of Jewish immigrants began arriving in Palestine. There was never a state of Palestine throughout history. The land was part of various empires based in the surrounding power centers such as Egypt and Turkey. Certainly there were people living on the land, and that should entitle them to live there, but why should anyone recognize these people's rights to a state of their own?

The fact they were living there when the Zionists turned up with their Biblical fantasies gives them more right to a state than the Jews had, or continue to have.

But I thought you said that if the claim is debatable that we shouldn't consider it legitimate?

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

You are honestly ridiculous! No serious scholar debates whether the Jewish people originated in Israel. There is debate about whether the account of the ancient Jewish kingdom described in the later books of the bible is credible, or whether the bible's authors exaggerated. And the opinion you cited is that of one archeologist. I have talked to multiple archeologists who contest that claim based on current findings, as well as the fact that archeology is a discipline that doesn't close doors to more knowledge, meaning that just because evidence for something has yet to be found doesn't mean the evidence isn't still buried somewhere waiting to be found.

No, you are ridiculous:

yosi wrote:

Seriously, fighting over history and who was the greater victim is pretty pointless. We should be concerned with what can bring about the best solution for everyone now..

When forced into a corner you resort to Psuedo-Biblical nonsense in an attempt to muddy the water and wriggle out of it.

yosi

And again if Israel isn't the Jewish homeland, which it factually is but leaving that aside for the moment, please tell me where my homeland is? Where did the Jewish people come from? Where was Judaism formed? If not Israel then where oh wise one?

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

You are honestly ridiculous! No serious scholar debates whether the Jewish people originated in Israel. There is debate about whether the account of the ancient Jewish kingdom described in the later books of the bible is credible, or whether the bible's authors exaggerated. And the opinion you cited is that of one archeologist. I have talked to multiple archeologists who contest that claim based on current findings, as well as the fact that archeology is a discipline that doesn't close doors to more knowledge, meaning that just because evidence for something has yet to be found doesn't mean the evidence isn't still buried somewhere waiting to be found.

No, you are ridiculous:

yosi wrote:

Seriously, fighting over history and who was the greater victim is pretty pointless. We should be concerned with what can bring about the best solution for everyone now..

I didn't say that I think this historical discussion is worthwhile. I simply have nothing better to do right now. This is a pointless debate because a) Israel exists, and b) you're simply wrong, as even the scholars you cited admit in the texts you quoted that Israel is the Jewish homeland, even if they argue that our society wasn't as awesome back then as we'd like to think.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

And again if Israel isn't the Jewish homeland, which it factually is but leaving that aside for the moment, please tell me where my homeland is?

Where were you born? America?

Then your homeland is New York, U.S.A.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

The fact they were living there when the Zionists turned up with their Biblical fantasies gives them more right to a state than the Jews had, or continue to have.

But I thought you said that if the claim is debatable that we shouldn't consider it legitimate?

A claim that attempts to usurp - ethnically cleanse - another people based on a spurious 2000 year old history is not legitimate.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

You are honestly ridiculous! No serious scholar debates whether the Jewish people originated in Israel. There is debate about whether the account of the ancient Jewish kingdom described in the later books of the bible is credible, or whether the bible's authors exaggerated. And the opinion you cited is that of one archeologist. I have talked to multiple archeologists who contest that claim based on current findings, as well as the fact that archeology is a discipline that doesn't close doors to more knowledge, meaning that just because evidence for something has yet to be found doesn't mean the evidence isn't still buried somewhere waiting to be found.

No, you are ridiculous:

yosi wrote:

Seriously, fighting over history and who was the greater victim is pretty pointless. We should be concerned with what can bring about the best solution for everyone now..

When forced into a corner you resort to Psuedo-Biblical nonsense in an attempt to muddy the water and wriggle out of it.

What pseudo-biblical nonsense? When have I quoted the bible, or even referenced it? I said explicitly in my first post on this topic that I don't believe god has anything to do with this, and I don't take the bible to be a literal historical account. Do you even read what I write, or are you just projecting opinions onto me so you can scream and rant about them. My argument is factual and historical. The Jewish people originated in Israel. This is a fact, supported by historical documentation and archeology. You have yet to prove otherwise, or provide me with an answer as to where you imagine the Jewish homeland is if not Israel. Everyone comes from somewhere, so the Jewish people had to start somewhere.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

And again if Israel isn't the Jewish homeland, which it factually is but leaving that aside for the moment, please tell me where my homeland is?

Where were you born? America?

Then your homeland is New York, U.S.A.

I asked about the national homeland of the Jewish people. Don't evade the question.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

And again if Israel isn't the Jewish homeland, which it factually is but leaving that aside for the moment, please tell me where my homeland is? Where did the Jewish people come from? Where was Judaism formed? If not Israel then where oh wise one?

My Ancestors on my Fathers side were Celts. My Ancestors on my Mothers side were Anglo-Saxon. So where's my 'Homeland'? Wales? Ireland? Denmark? Norway?

My homeland is England.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

The fact they were living there when the Zionists turned up with their Biblical fantasies gives them more right to a state than the Jews had, or continue to have.

But I thought you said that if the claim is debatable that we shouldn't consider it legitimate?

A claim that attempts to usurp - ethnically cleanse - another people based on a spurious 2000 year old history is not legitimate.

Saying that a certain land is my homeland doesn't mean that it can't be someone else's homeland also. I believe that both the Jewish people and the Palestinians have legitimate claims to the land.