By the way, the Jews were there a LONG time before anybody else.
Not just arguable, but slightly irrelevant. The fact that some Jews may have lived in that region for a few decades, or even for a few hundred years, approx 2000 years ago has no bearing on todays world, and certainly doesn't give the Zionists any right to dispossess the present inhabitants of their land.
'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...
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 archeological 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 never 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 synthetic 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.'
No, I'd prefer impartiality and responsibility from a White House correspondent as opposed to a woman who clearly has no problem inciting hatred.
Asking probing questions was her responsibility, and by all accounts she did a very good job of it.
And when did she incite hatred? She suggested that the Jews living in the occupied territories go back to where they came from. How is that inciting hatred? The settlers have absolutely no right to be there.
Dude, the settlers didn't come from Poland and Germany. Normally you just twist the words of people you disagree with, but now in your utter derangement you're twisting the words of people who agree with you. How is it that you can't even understand the plain meaning of what someone says?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Dude, the settlers didn't come from Poland and Germany. Normally you just twist the words of people you disagree with, but now in your utter derangement you're twisting the words of people who agree with you. How is it that you can't even understand the plain meaning of what someone says?
are you referring to another post he made because in the one he quoted - he is simply regurgitating what helen thomas said ... he doesn't say they came from poland or germany ...
i sure hope you are referring to another post because it could be that you are not understanding the plain meaning ...
are you referring to another post he made because in the one he quoted - he is simply regurgitating what helen thomas said ... he doesn't say they came from poland or germany ...
i sure hope you are referring to another post because it could be that you are not understanding the plain meaning ...
I got the same meaning that yosi did ... Helen Thomas was talking about Israelis period, but Byrnzie made it sound like her remarks were meant only for settlers, which I personally think would have been a lot less controversial. Not finger-pointing, just stating what I observed.
I got the same meaning that yosi did ... Helen Thomas was talking about Israelis period, but Byrnzie made it sound like her remarks were meant only for settlers, which I personally think would have been a lot less controversial. Not finger-pointing, just stating what I observed.
well ... that's pure speculation ... if we look at her reporting - i believe she's asked about the occupied territories and under the context of the quote - i'm guessing it's not a stretch to think she just wasn't specific ...
in any case - it wasn't byrnzie who said they came from poland or germany which is what appears to be rankling yosi ...
well ... that's pure speculation ... if we look at her reporting - i believe she's asked about the occupied territories and under the context of the quote - i'm guessing it's not a stretch to think she just wasn't specific ...
in any case - it wasn't byrnzie who said they came from poland or germany which is what appears to be rankling yosi ...
Why would she mention Poland and Germany, but ONLY be mentioning the settlers? She meant something to the effect of "All the illegal settlers should go back to Europe, but the rest of the Israelis can stay"? That's a stretch, IMO. If she was talking only about the settlers, she probably would have said that they should go back to Israel (which is something I could wholeheartedly agree with, I might add). I am speculating too, I admit. So is everyone in that other thread, where the issue of "self defense" vs. "cold-blooded murder" is still going round and round. I've already defended this woman; I don't think that she should have to lose her position, which I think is the same view as Brynzie's. She put her foot in her mouth, we've all done it.
Why would she mention Poland and Germany, but ONLY be mentioning the settlers? She meant something to the effect of "All the illegal settlers should go back to Europe, but the rest of the Israelis can stay"? That's a stretch, IMO. If she was talking only about the settlers, she probably would have said that they should go back to Israel (which is something I could wholeheartedly agree with, I might add). I am speculating too, I admit. So is everyone in that other thread, where the issue of "self defense" vs. "cold-blooded murder" is still going round and round. I've already defended this woman; I don't think that she should have to lose her position, which I think is the same view as Brynzie's. She put her foot in her mouth, we've all done it.
right ... but regardless of what she meant to say ... it wasn't byrnzie who said they should go back to poland
well ... that's pure speculation ... if we look at her reporting - i believe she's asked about the occupied territories and under the context of the quote - i'm guessing it's not a stretch to think she just wasn't specific ...
in any case - it wasn't byrnzie who said they came from poland or germany which is what appears to be rankling yosi ...
Why would she mention Poland and Germany, but ONLY be mentioning the settlers? She meant something to the effect of "All the illegal settlers should go back to Europe, but the rest of the Israelis can stay"? That's a stretch, IMO. If she was talking only about the settlers, she probably would have said that they should go back to Israel (which is something I could wholeheartedly agree with, I might add). I am speculating too, I admit. So is everyone in that other thread, where the issue of "self defense" vs. "cold-blooded murder" is still going round and round. I've already defended this woman; I don't think that she should have to lose her position, which I think is the same view as Brynzie's. She put her foot in her mouth, we've all done it.
well ... that's pure speculation ... if we look at her reporting - i believe she's asked about the occupied territories and under the context of the quote - i'm guessing it's not a stretch to think she just wasn't specific ...
in any case - it wasn't byrnzie who said they came from poland or germany which is what appears to be rankling yosi ...
Why would she mention Poland and Germany, but ONLY be mentioning the settlers? She meant something to the effect of "All the illegal settlers should go back to Europe, but the rest of the Israelis can stay"? That's a stretch, IMO. If she was talking only about the settlers, she probably would have said that they should go back to Israel (which is something I could wholeheartedly agree with, I might add). I am speculating too, I admit. So is everyone in that other thread, where the issue of "self defense" vs. "cold-blooded murder" is still going round and round. I've already defended this woman; I don't think that she should have to lose her position, which I think is the same view as Brynzie's. She put her foot in her mouth, we've all done it.
she also said for them to go back to "america and wherever else they came from" i think some people only mention germany and poland to try and stir up certain feelings
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
She meant what she said, I don't feel as though it were a Freudian slip in the very least.
She just didn't expect the backlash.
There are consequences for your words sometimes.
Maybe so ... I'd argue that even if she does harbor the view that Israel should be erased completely (meaning the people all moving back to various places of origin), pressuring her to quit her position is not the appropriate response. Her view might be wrong-headed, but its not so toxic that her ability to do her job should be questioned. She didn't go on an overtly racist or genocidal rant, and people should be allowed to have opinions, even controversial ones. We are not talking about someone who COULD make Israel go away, after all. I think there would be a line that, if crossed, might require her stepping down. I don't think she crossed that line.
She said nothing outrageous at all. She simply said that Jews in occupied Palestine should leave and go back home. The only people taking offense to her comments are those who support Israel's illegal 40 year occupation of Palestinian territory. Israel needs to abide by international law and the will of the whole of the international community - excluding the U.S - and withdraw to the 1967 border in accordance with U.N Resolution 242. What Helen Thomas is therefore advocating is that Israel conform to international law. So why is that so controversial?
+1
>>>>
>
...a lover and a fighter.
"I'm at least half a bum" Rocky Balboa
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Comments
Not just arguable, but slightly irrelevant. The fact that some Jews may have lived in that region for a few decades, or even for a few hundred years, approx 2000 years ago has no bearing on todays world, and certainly doesn't give the Zionists any right to dispossess the present inhabitants of their land.
'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...
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 archeological 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 never 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 synthetic 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.'
Dude, the settlers didn't come from Poland and Germany. Normally you just twist the words of people you disagree with, but now in your utter derangement you're twisting the words of people who agree with you. How is it that you can't even understand the plain meaning of what someone says?
are you referring to another post he made because in the one he quoted - he is simply regurgitating what helen thomas said ... he doesn't say they came from poland or germany ...
i sure hope you are referring to another post because it could be that you are not understanding the plain meaning ...
I got the same meaning that yosi did ... Helen Thomas was talking about Israelis period, but Byrnzie made it sound like her remarks were meant only for settlers, which I personally think would have been a lot less controversial. Not finger-pointing, just stating what I observed.
well ... that's pure speculation ... if we look at her reporting - i believe she's asked about the occupied territories and under the context of the quote - i'm guessing it's not a stretch to think she just wasn't specific ...
in any case - it wasn't byrnzie who said they came from poland or germany which is what appears to be rankling yosi ...
Why would she mention Poland and Germany, but ONLY be mentioning the settlers? She meant something to the effect of "All the illegal settlers should go back to Europe, but the rest of the Israelis can stay"? That's a stretch, IMO. If she was talking only about the settlers, she probably would have said that they should go back to Israel (which is something I could wholeheartedly agree with, I might add). I am speculating too, I admit. So is everyone in that other thread, where the issue of "self defense" vs. "cold-blooded murder" is still going round and round. I've already defended this woman; I don't think that she should have to lose her position, which I think is the same view as Brynzie's. She put her foot in her mouth, we've all done it.
right ... but regardless of what she meant to say ... it wasn't byrnzie who said they should go back to poland
She just didn't expect the backlash.
There are consequences for your words sometimes.
she also said for them to go back to "america and wherever else they came from" i think some people only mention germany and poland to try and stir up certain feelings
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Maybe so ... I'd argue that even if she does harbor the view that Israel should be erased completely (meaning the people all moving back to various places of origin), pressuring her to quit her position is not the appropriate response. Her view might be wrong-headed, but its not so toxic that her ability to do her job should be questioned. She didn't go on an overtly racist or genocidal rant, and people should be allowed to have opinions, even controversial ones. We are not talking about someone who COULD make Israel go away, after all. I think there would be a line that, if crossed, might require her stepping down. I don't think she crossed that line.
Fair enough, I understand your position as well.
Yes, yes, goddammit. It wasn't Byrnzie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M1Qo83CoGU
+1
>
...a lover and a fighter.
"I'm at least half a bum" Rocky Balboa
http://www.videosift.com/video/Obamas-Message-To-American-Indians
Edmonton, AB. September 5th, 2005
Vancouver, BC. April 3rd, 2008
Calgary,AB. August 8th, 2009
thanks
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'