Discussion: North Africa & Southwest Asia Regional Issues II

[Kelly]

Well, first of all, Palestian today is not Palestian of the pre-1940s.

This is Palestine in the 1930s

Pretty spectacular place, no? (Admittedly I have no idea what this looks like today).

Anyhoo, you can look this up about anywhere but the Jews were numbered at about 400,000 in Palestine before the 1940s and according to the British they got along very well with the Palestinians and only a few minor flair ups were reported.

So this tru-ism that floats around about the Jews and Palestians or Jews and Muslims being 'hated rivals' is historically inaccurate. That's not to say Jews and Muslims haven't clashed, just that they've also clashed with Buddhists and Christians as well. So it's certainly not fair to say that, for a very extended period in Palestine the Jews appear to have no issue living alongside Palestians.

Also there were all sorts of people there at the time to. British, French, and I think they had several others as well.

Also, most of the people in Palestine, during the war, the Arabs and Jews, fought for the Allies side by side if I'm not mistaken.

I don't believe that the Jews and Arabs of today are anywhere near those of the 1930's....

It is now, Zionists vs. Islamists neither of which is anything close to what the God that I believe in wants them to be....and I believe I believe in the same God that they supposedly do.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I don't believe that the Jews and Arabs of today are anywhere near those of the 1930's....

It is now, Zionists vs. Islamists neither of which is anything close to what the God that I believe in wants them to be....and I believe I believe in the same God that they supposedly do.

Zionisms support in the Bible is weak at best.

Admittedly I've never finished the Quran, but I can't say it's any more viscious than the Bible.

 

[Schlosser85]

It's not one religion or another that's good or bad, it's how people interpret them and use them.

Just my $.02.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

It's not one religion or another that's good or bad, it's how people interpret them and use them.

Just my $.02.

I am an atheist, and admittedly I hate religion, and fairy tale like beliefs, but I really have little issue with personal religion. What you believe in the privacy of your own mind is your business. The problem is clearly, there is nothing private about Hamas, Mossad or Zionists beliefs. They all want you to carry out their private beliefs, even if that means you dying, or killing so they can pervert the world to match their strange fantasies.

That's a major departure from personal spirituality. Which is basically what you're hearing when individuals say "My God would never support such things".

It's problematic to me when 'spirituality' reaches that organizational level where it's directing policy. Even little things like the tax exempt status in the US.

I was watching a Muslim (in Iran) comedian just the other day, and he was giving it to the US. But he was joking about it, his religion, the 72 virgins thing...he even had a line where he said "You think 72 virgins is silly. Of course it's silly. It's my thing though. You know what else is silly? You really think that bread is who's body?" That's a pretty stark contrast to like whatever the f*** Osama Bin Laden says when he looks into a camera.

 

[Thundercrack85]

This is all very true. They've been there in numbers as high as 700,000. However, before 1947 there was never a desire for one Jewish state.

Modern Zionism as a structured ideology came about in the late 19th century, mostly as the result of extreme antisemitism in Europe (primarily in France and Russia). But even before that you had groups who wanted to found a Jewish state.

They floated some ideas around for a while. South America (Argentina was seriously considered) in the late 19th century. Later Uganda in the early 1900's (which almost happened). And the Brits suggested Guyana as an alternative to Palestine. There was also talk of Cyprus, but that never got anywhere. The holocaust just made it apparent that they could no longer live in Europe.

Ironically, unlike Christian Zionism, Jewish Zionism was for the most part secular in nature. You'll notice that a lot of prominent Israelis actually oppose the idea of Israel being a religious state (Moshe Dayan for example).

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Modern Zionism as a structured ideology came about in the late 19th century, mostly as the result of extreme antisemitism in Europe (primarily in France and Russia). But even before that you had groups who wanted to found a Jewish state.

This is true. Also true is the fact that the Nazis even played around with the idea of shipping them off to now Israel, although they were unable to do so. The British as well had many Zionists in their ranks, and many people in British occupied Palestine who were heavily lobbying for the idea. I think actually the idea really appealled to both sides. The Nazis; because they wanted the Jews expelled anways, and the British and Allies because they sought a haven (since this is a comic website...we'll call it their Genosha).

They floated some ideas around for a while. South America (Argentina was seriously considered) in the late 19th century. Later Uganda in the early 1900's (which almost happened). And the Brits suggested Guyana as an alternative to Palestine. There was also talk of Cyprus, but that never got anywhere. The holocaust just made it apparent that they could no longer live in Europe.

Exactly. Europe had proved dangerous ground, there is no question.

I tend to take this view of history that, if I were in the same position I'd likely make the same decision. So in effect when you talk about dictators, and people like Hitler the crime becomes "not stepping down". And also being allowed to test your limits. That's, I've always believed, why term limits are the single best thing since sliced bread. Basically the longer you're on top, the more and more people just do what you say. Wouldn't that be nice? Knowing you have the same leader for a decade and a half? After a while you probably wouldn't care what sh** he did to whoever just so long as everything you wanted you were getting.

Ironically, unlike Christian Zionism, Jewish Zionism was for the most part secular in nature. You'll notice that a lot of prominent Israelis actually oppose the idea of Israel being a religious state (Moshe Dayan for example).

Very true as well. Not all Jews are Zionists, in fact many don't really have any strong opinions on Israel one way or another.

Israel was a great piece of land, the problem is Zionism perverted much of the leaders in that area, and suffice to say it was not too long before cleansing the Arab population became top priority.

Like I said in another thread, 150,00 Jews in the SS were basically token soldiers. You can't take that seriously. They were there to mask the very clear anti semitism in Germany, and other parts of Europe. So sure, you have Arabs benefiting from the Israelis and their Government, and much the same most 'everyday' Israelis probably have little personal issue with Arabs, but they very much violate the human rights there. Border fences, civilian deaths, use of human shields, condemned by every nation except the US and Micronesia, Apartheid policy...the list goes on, and on, and on.

It's the same thing, and we're, at the moment, acting very blase' about it.

I'd actually feel better if we just all admitting we're more than casually backing a evil, ethnic cleansing army even though we didn't mean too. I mean, I'd say we share much of that blame too though. You given the Israelis all the tools and the toys they are gonna use them. You turn a blind eye when they do this thing, then they'll do it again, push it further and then it becomes habit. Just like everyday life.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I do think you have to be realistic. Although obviously I disagree with some Israeli policies, the Israelis are constantly on the verge of total annihilation. Peaceful coexistence has been shown time and time again to be impossible.

Personally, I would simply move. But then I have never felt particularly attached to any stretch of land enough to die for it.

Still, the Jews had to go somewhere, and the world gave them very few choices. I'm sure in the parallel universe where the Jews chose East Africa that things aren't much better there.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I do think you have to be realistic. Although obviously I disagree with some Israeli policies, the Israelis are constantly on the verge of total annihilation. Peaceful coexistence has been shown time and time again to be impossible.

Personally, I would simply move. But then I have never felt particularly attached to any stretch of land enough to die for it.

Still, the Jews had to go somewhere, and the world gave them very few choices. I'm sure in the parallel universe where the Jews chose East Africa that things aren't much better there.

I'd recommend moving as well.

It is a very odd coincidence though.

Think about this country.

Started with an ethnic cleansing. Smallpox on blankets. We needed land. But you can't stop, once you start. Because then the others, they see what you did and they begin to defend themselves. What's a Government to do? What do the successful ones always do?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

You just contradicted yourself. In one paragraph. Amazing.

This of course being the Native Americans, ancestral homeland. Should they be allowed to re-settle?

I was comparing the Israelis to the pilgrims, not the native-Americans. I wasn't saying the fact that Israelis have an ancestral homeland in Israel is the reason that they should be allowed to stay, but merely more incentive than white Americans have to stay in modern-day USA. Most Israelis are as far-removed from 1948 as we are from 1492, as they weren't born yet.

Should Israel have been established the way it was? I don't think so. I think ideally there should have been a Jewish state side-by-side with a Palestinian state that had Jerusalem as a shared capital. But it wasn't established that way and conditions today (mostly security-related) wouldn't allow us to reset the country in such an ideal way. On the same token, should Pilgrims and later Westward frontiersmen been allowed to take Native-American land and slaughter the inhabitants? Of course not. Same for Aboriginals in Australia and Maori in New Zealand. So if we stick to the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" game, you can make an argument for almost every country in the world being established on amoral or immoral premises. But I like to deal in reality and the present-day situation. Palestinians have no right to kick Jews out of Israel any more than the modern-day Navajo people have a right to kick non-Natives out of Arizona. Or Mexicans have the right to kick Americans out of Texas. Or Aboriginals have the right to.... etc, etc.

So you can keep talking about what was wrong, and I'll focus on what IS wrong.

 

[The Overlord]

I'd recommend moving as well.

It is a very odd coincidence though.

Think about this country.

Started with an ethnic cleansing. Smallpox on blankets. We needed land. But you can't stop, once you start. Because then the others, they see what you did and they begin to defend themselves. What's a Government to do? What do the successful ones always do?

Do you live in the US? Are you willing to give up your home so that land can be returned to the Natives? Its easy to ask other people to sacrifice, its harder to sacrifice yourself.

 

[Compi716]

Since then they've been in diaspora for thousands of years, and in fact, the Bible doesn't even say Israel is their homeland!!!

It says Israel (a person) instructed the Jews to have no state, to have no nation, to in fact travel the world and spread the message of Judaism. Ever since Solomon the God of the Jews instructed them to have no state. They are not to be ruled, but to live like nomads and preach the good word. That's why there are Jews who believe just that.\

Sorry to butt in here, but where the heck did you get that information? That's all totally incorrect. I'm too tired to find the proper sources at the moment, but after 13 years of Jewish day school I can say with absolute certainty that in the Torah the land (previously called Canaan) was promised to the Jews by God. Solomon, son of David, king of Israel, the guy who built the first temple in Jerusalem, came way later.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Sorry to butt in here, but where the heck did you get that information? That's all totally incorrect. I'm too tired to find the proper sources at the moment, but after 13 years of Jewish day school I can say with absolute certainty that in the Torah the land (previously called Canaan) was promised to the Jews by God. Solomon, son of David, king of Israel, the guy who built the first temple in Jerusalem, came way later.

Funny you can't remember the passages, or anything about the story.

No, it's like the Trinity or Trans-substantiation, it's not in the Torah, or Bible. I've read both. You can interpret certain passages this way or that way, but there are two stories of Solomon: one where God graces them a king, then the second one where God admonishes them for wanting a king when there only king is God. Neither one explicitly states that, and even if it did, the whole story is bogus anyways. Not archeologists support much of what's in there. Moses, and the story of Jewish explusion, never happened.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Do you live in the US? Are you willing to give up your home so that land can be returned to the Natives? Its easy to ask other people to sacrifice, its harder to sacrifice yourself.

I'm not asking them to do anything? Where'd I say this? Anywhere?

Ask yourself this though: would you live on a reservation? Most don't have running water or electricity and our own Government still, to this day, steals their water, diverts their supplies, pays them late, sometimes don't pay them a thing. Also what became today's modern reservations, where Natives can now (since the 1930s) come and go as they please, were once basically prison camps. Also, while this took place before gas chambers could've even been invented, they experiment with other means of murder, including making them inhale smoke until they were dead or giving them supplies laced with smallpox. This whole affair was studied by Hitler and the Third Reich and the model for our reservations and our trail of tears is what they used as a template for their explusion of (and eventual extermination of) the Jews and others from Germany.

 

[The Overlord]

I'm not asking them to do anything? Where'd I say this? Anywhere?

Ask yourself this though: would you live on a reservation? Most don't have running water or electricity and our own Government still, to this day, steals their water, diverts their supplies, pays them late, sometimes don't pay them a thing. Also what became today's modern reservations, where Natives can now (since the 1930s) come and go as they please, were once basically prison camps. Also, while this took place before gas chambers could've even been invented, they experiment with other means of murder, including making them inhale smoke until they were dead or giving them supplies laced with smallpox. This whole affair was studied by Hitler and the Third Reich and the model for our reservations and our trail of tears is what they used as a template for their explusion of (and eventual extermination of) the Jews and others from Germany.

And if you live in America, it can be argued that profit of the suffering of Natives. So are you willing to give up your home? How many countries were created on the backs and bones of others, should we get rid of all those countries and if we do where would we put all the people that live there?

See I live in Canada, but my family was kicked out of Scotland 200 years ago. So if I give up my home in Canada, do I get my land in Scotland back? How far back do you want to go, in terms of righting old wrongs?

 

[Compi716]

Funny you can't remember the passages, or anything about the story.

No, it's like the Trinity or Trans-substantiation, it's not in the Torah, or Bible. I've read both. You can interpret certain passages this way or that way, but there are two stories of Solomon: one where God graces them a king, then the second one where God admonishes them for wanting a king when there only king is God. Neither one explicitly states that, and even if it did, the whole story is bogus anyways. Not archeologists support much of what's in there. Moses, and the story of Jewish explusion, never happened.

Okay, let's have some fun.

First, anything regarding the Trinity or Christianity is not included in this argument, being as Israel is the Jewish state, and therefor its principles are inherently based on the Old Testament.

Let's start with the physical naming of the land, as well as the promise of it (remember, it's called "The Promised Land" for a reason). The first mention of it is in Genesis 12:1, when God tells Abraham (then referred to as Abram) to leave his home and travel to a new place that God will show him (Canaan). Six verses later (12:7) God says, "To your offspring [or seed] I will give this land." A few chapters later (15:18-21) the borders of the land were defined. The promise is later reiterated to Jacob (who has his name changed to Israel, which is why the Hebrew name for Israel translates to "The Land of Israel," i.e. the patriarch) in Genesis 28:13, and the borders were defined even further (and more exactly) in Exodus 23:31 ("'Sea of the Philistines' i.e. the Mediterranean, and the 'River, [the Euphrates]). Now obviously the validity of all this can be - and has been - debated to literal death, but this is the belief process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promised_Land
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob

Now, I still haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about in regards to King Solomon, but that's mostly because you seem to be confusing him with King Saul.

King Solomon was (technically) the third king of Israel, inheriting the throne from his father, King David. Due to certain sins, David was forbidden from building the first temple in the newly established capitol of the nation, Jerusalem, so the task fell to Solomon. He built the temple on the temple mount, which was also the location of the second temple and, now, the Dome of the Rock. It wasn't till after Solomon died that the nation split in two (Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah/Judea), which triggered the even that caused ten tribes of Israel to become lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Solomon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes

King Saul was the man who was anointed as king of the Jews by the prophet/judge Samuel. He's the man you're referring to, as the Jews demanded a king before they were ready for one, and God chose him. He was eventually rejected, which caused a civil war to break about between Saul and David. Saul lost (obviously), and killed himself by falling on his own sword.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Saul

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Okay, let's have some fun.

First, anything regarding the Trinity or Christianity is not included in this argument, being as Israel is the Jewish state, and therefor its principles are inherently based on the Old Testament.

Let's start with the physical naming of the land, as well as the promise of it (remember, it's called "The Promised Land" for a reason). The first mention of it is in Genesis 12:1, when God tells Abraham (then referred to as Abram) to leave his home and travel to a new place that God will show him (Canaan). Six verses later (12:7) God says, "To your offspring [or seed] I will give this land." A few chapters later (15:18-21) the borders of the land were defined. The promise is later reiterated to Jacob (who has his name changed to Israel, which is why the Hebrew name for Israel translates to "The Land of Israel," i.e. the patriarch) in Genesis 28:13, and the borders were defined even further (and more exactly) in Exodus 23:31 ("'Sea of the Philistines' i.e. the Mediterranean, and the 'River, [the Euphrates]). Now obviously the validity of all this can be - and has been - debated to literal death, but this is the belief process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promised_Land
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob

Now, I still haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about in regards to King Solomon, but that's mostly because you seem to be confusing him with King Saul.

King Solomon was (technically) the third king of Israel, inheriting the throne from his father, King David. Due to certain sins, David was forbidden from building the first temple in the newly established capitol of the nation, Jerusalem, so the task fell to Solomon. He built the temple on the temple mount, which was also the location of the second temple and, now, the Dome of the Rock. It wasn't till after Solomon died that the nation split in two (Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah/Judea), which triggered the even that caused ten tribes of Israel to become lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Solomon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes

King Saul was the man who was anointed as king of the Jews by the prophet/judge Samuel. He's the man you're referring to, as the Jews demanded a king before they were ready for one, and God chose him. He was eventually rejected, which caused a civil war to break about between Saul and David. Saul lost (obviously), and killed himself by falling on his own sword.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Saul

Yeah, but, again. These stories are bogus.

They never happened, period.

At best they're retellings of other religions simply with Jews swapped in for whatever nomadic peoples they adapted the story from.

None of that is disputed, even in religion departments.

So regardless of whether I was fuzzy in my details I'm not fuzzy on this. You're buying nonsense, and I'm sorry, policy should not ever be formulated around fairy tales. This isn't some pre-conceived slant either. Go find me the archeological evidence that this is the Jewish homeland. That's all that matters, not what it says it some book.

 

[Compi716]

Yeah, but, again. These stories are bogus.

They never happened, period.

At best they're retellings of other religions simply with Jews swapped in for whatever nomadic peoples they adapted the story from.

None of that is disputed, even in religion departments.

So regardless of whether I was fuzzy in my details I'm not fuzzy on this. You're buying nonsense, and I'm sorry, policy should not ever be formulated around fairy tales. This isn't some pre-conceived slant either. Go find me the archeological evidence that this is the Jewish homeland. That's all that matters, not what it says it some book.

Okay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_David
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20019752-10391709.html

Granted, you can interpret this in any way you'd like.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

And if you live in America, it can be argued that profit of the suffering of Natives.

Argued? That's just a fact, jack.

So are you willing to give up your home?

No, but this isn't really about me now is it?

How many countries were created on the backs and bones of others, should we get rid of all those countries and if we do where would we put all the people that live there?

I'm not sure any start off without genocide, in some form. I can only think of very few examples of nations with peaceful starts, that didn't involve genocide and displacement, certainly not in the modern era, but also maybe that needs to change.

Maybe the Indians do need to fight back. Maybe they're on the internet right now, contacting Russia, and the Middle East. Making allies, and finding friends. And it would be perfect, because they can infiltrate us internally. I'm sure whatever fate they'd have in store for me would be grim, and I'm not sure I blame them either.

You're trying to appeal to my selfishness here, and you're missing the point. That selfish attitude is precisely the problem.

See I live in Canada, but my family was kicked out of Scotland 200 years ago. So if I give up my home in Canada, do I get my land in Scotland back? How far back do you want to go, in terms of righting old wrongs?

That's what the Jews did? Exactly what they did. Went back, told them their "ancestors" lived there (by the by, we're all ancestors of some oppressed people -- some of us simply don't adopt the label) We're also not talking about 200 year old ancestors, we're talking about 2,000 year old ancestors, and even moreso, Jews were already there, by the hundreds of thousands, sharing it. Only in 1948, when Zionism became the leading form of thought in Israeli governance did we see it becoming an "exclusive" Israeli territory.

That's their only option. Is to give up exclusivity, make both their religion and their nation inclusive, because it is not now, nor has been since basically 1948. This cannot be disputed. They enforce an apartheid, just like Jimmy Carter says.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Okay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_David
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20019752-10391709.html

Granted, you can interpret this in any way you'd like.

You had a city there 3,000 years ago, amazing. That literally disputes none of what I said.

All the stories you references take place much longer ago that Jerusalem, which was your city, I repeat, 3,000 years ago.

I just bought a house, before, it belonged to someone else, I suppose if they said God came to them tomorrow, and said they needed to still live there I should give it to them?

You didn't dispute a single thing I just said. Go read your own sources you apparently didn't. The Bible is a work of fiction similar to Marvel comics. Yes, New York City exists, it just isn't populated by fictional characters (and very few Biblical people are real, the ones that represent anything before David are basically all fiction). Also, until you can prove, definitively, your God exists, your prophecy to me is as meaningless as the paper it's printed on.

By the way, in case you think this isn't being even handed, the Muslims are guilty of this as well. And until they can prove their book of fairly tales Hamas claiming exclusivity is the exact same, damn thing.

 

[The Overlord]

Argued? That's just a fact, jack.

No, but this isn't really about me now is it?

I'm not sure any start off without genocide, in some form. I can only think of very few examples of nations with peaceful starts, that didn't involve genocide and displacement, certainly not in the modern era, but also maybe that needs to change.

Maybe the Indians do need to fight back. Maybe they're on the internet right now, contacting Russia, and the Middle East. Making allies, and finding friends. And it would be perfect, because they can infiltrate us internally. I'm sure whatever fate they'd have in store for me would be grim, and I'm not sure I blame them either.

I'm not appealing to your selfishness, I am just wondering if you are willing to apply your morality to yourself. If you profit off the Natives losing their land, are you in a position to criticize others for that? But there is not going to be a successful Native rebellion, the Russians care don't about the natives, the Natives don't have the resources to defeat the Canadian and American governments. Its not going to happen and we can't undo the past. And if you want to undo the past, if you have pay as well as anyone else.

And what South America, were conquering Spanish bred with the local native tribes and now the people living there the by product of a union between the conquers and the conquered.

How far do you want to go back, do you want to try and undo the Norman conquest of England in 1066 AD? After a certain point, don't we just accept the past and try to change the future?

You're trying to appeal to my selfishness here, and you're missing the point. That selfish attitude is precisely the problem.

That's what the Jews did? Exactly what they did. Went back, told them their "ancestors" lived there (by the by, we're all ancestors of some oppressed people -- some of us simply don't adopt the label) We're also not talking about 200 year old ancestors, we're talking about 2,000 year old ancestors, and even moreso, Jews were already there, by the hundreds of thousands, sharing it. Only in 1948, when Zionism became the leading form of thought in Israeli governance did we see it becoming an "exclusive" Israeli territory.

That's their only option. Is to give up exclusivity, make both their religion and their nation inclusive, because it is not now, nor has been since basically 1948. This cannot be disputed. They enforce an apartheid, just like Jimmy Carter says.

Except what makes that land Palestinian? There was no Palestinian state before the end of WWI, that area was just controlled by the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire controlled that area, because the Islamic Empire defeated the Byzantine Empire and took control of that land. The Byzantine Empire came out of the Roman Empire, which kicked the Jews out in 70 AD. And the Jews took that land from the Canaanites. So you want to get technical, that land belongs to the Canaanites, but since they are not around anymore, maybe the Palestinians and Israelis should just share that land rather than arguing over side as a better ancestral claim to that land.

Besides it was obvious there was a need for a Jewish after WWII, so where should we have put it then?

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

You make it sound like it was some uncivilized sh**hole with no one living there. That's such a brainwashed, out of touch view of that place it's just sad.

 

[The Overlord]

You make it sound like it was some uncivilized sh**hole with no one living there. That's such a brainwashed, out of touch view of that place it's just sad.

No, I am saying that land has changed hands so many times that any sort of ancestral claim is irrelevant, so all we have practical concerns of dealing with two different factions that want to live there. All we can do is split the land as best we can, create two states, so those two factions can manage their own affairs.

But really what makes that land Palestinian instead of Byzantine or Canaanite? Can't you argue the Palestinians were occupying Canaanite land, thus are occupiers themselves?

 

[Kelly]

I think more than anything else, emotion has to be taken out of this....and law has to be applied here. I think many are forgetting International Law...

 

[Compi716]

You had a city there 3,000 years ago, amazing. That literally disputes none of what I said.

All the stories you references take place much longer ago that Jerusalem, which was your city, I repeat, 3,000 years ago.

I just bought a house, before, it belonged to someone else, I suppose if they said God came to them tomorrow, and said they needed to still live there I should give it to them?

You didn't dispute a single thing I just said. Go read your own sources you apparently didn't. The Bible is a work of fiction similar to Marvel comics. Yes, New York City exists, it just isn't populated by fictional characters (and very few Biblical people are real, the ones that represent anything before David are basically all fiction). Also, until you can prove, definitively, your God exists, your prophecy to me is as meaningless as the paper it's printed on.

By the way, in case you think this isn't being even handed, the Muslims are guilty of this as well. And until they can prove their book of fairly tales Hamas claiming exclusivity is the exact same, damn thing.

My point, which you aggressively seem to be pushing to the side, is that there has been a constant Jewish presence in the land. Yes, the links that I posted feature cities that were constructed 3,000 years ago...but that doesn't mean that there were no Jews in the area from then till 1948. It's as much their land as it is anybody else's. I also wanted to illustrate that your understanding of the land's history from an archeological and biblical standing was not totally accurate.

And dissing religion isn't going to make you seem any more valid. You have beliefs, I have beliefs, everybody has beliefs. It's fairly obvious you're pissed off at something, but don't let your emotions drive the debate.

 

[Marvolo]

Can i just say that it cant be argued that the Jews have had a prsence in the middle east going back thousands of years. They most certainly have had a presence. That isnt based on any holy book. Its based on historical fact. Up until the Jewish-Roman Wars the Jews were a major population of the Eastern Mediterranean. After the wars the majority of the population was scattered, persecuted, and sold into slavery. The Romans and countless cultures and their historical records document the Jews presence in the middle east. Their history isnt made up and soley based on a holy book.