Did Anything in The Old Testament Exist

[GanjaFreebird]

It would have been like a much larger Jordan, that would have replaced Jordan and most of Syria, and included Palestine.

That's fine with me as long as the Jews get their little Israel. I'm ok with the Arabs having a WAYY too disproportionate amount of land in the mid east, as long as we get something.

We couldn't even iif we wished to, because the WASPs would never let us.

Well, if Israel was to allow 4 million Palestinian "refugees" to come and be citizens and/or agree to a one-state solution, there would be nothing anybody else could do about it, and America would probably support any kind of a deal that's ok with both sides, however, the Israelis aren't NEARLY stupid enough to even consider insane ideas that have been constantly failing them for 2,000 fuckin' years, especially since half of Israelis know EXACTLY what it's like to live in an Arab Muslim country.

[Šñøü†ê®]

...I think it is highly likely that many of the so-called supernatural phenomena of the Old Testament actually occurred as described.

^Evidence?

The power of belief is far more potent than we usually give it credit for. Spontaneous healing, psychic phenomena, and other assorted miracles all are enabled by the power of many people believing the same thing.

Spirituality is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT topic that the Old Testament does not really go into other than the symbolic message of the myths. Jesus, the Good News, however comes in and apparently demonstrates the power of spirituality, the Dead Sea Scrolls notwithstanding. The irony as far as the Old Testament is that the 12 tribes often did not even believe in Yahweh despite allegedly presented with evidence. Which is why the "prophets" always warned of doom and gloom, why Yahweh ceased the covenant for a couple thousand years, and of course Judah and Israel were divided, and at war with each other. Again, the CENTRAL CONCEPT of the Old Testament is a CONTRACT between Yahweh and the 12 tribes. They thought they would get free stuff if they cut off the tips of their dicks. Yahweh never empowered them to independently think positive thoughts and create their own lives. It was general commands to kill other tribes and take their land and to be servants ultimately to the religious establishment.

It is more than just considering that a shared faith causes shared hallucinations: it appears to generate very real manifestations, in all cultures.

^Evidence?

However the number and degree of such manifestations appears to be proportional to the power of belief, and in many modern secular societies, that power is a shadow of what it once was. In the times of the Old Testament in Mesopotamia, it was extremely potent.

^Evidence?

[Cyclone Ranger]

Palestine did not become the local Arabs' beloved homeland until the Jews irrigated it, drained off the swamps, planted crops and trees and generally made the desert bloom; ie, once they stood to gain something by having it.

And, while the Palestinians certainly had legal private property rights to their homes, farms, etc., they did not have the right to ethnic sovereignty over all of Palestine just because they had a demographic majority, when the entire area was held by the UN as a land trust to dispense with as it saw fit.

[GanjaFreebird]

Spirituality is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT topic that the Old Testament does not really go into other than the symbolic message of the myths.

The OT is all about spirituality actually, the way I interpret it, at least.

Jesus, however comes in and apparently demonstrates the power of spirituality, the Dead Sea Scrolls notwithstanding.

He was a Jewish Rabbi who interpreted Judaism in a more liberal way than most Rabbis at the time, and that's absolutely fine with me, but he didn't invent spirituality.

The irony is that the 12 tribes often did not even believe in Yahweh despite allegedly presented with evidence.

And some of them STILL don't, after EVEN MORE years of evidence, such as yourself.

And of course Judah and Israel were divided, etc. But the CENTRAL CONCEPT of the Old Testament is a CONTRACT between Yahweh and the 12 tribes.

Sure, but what's your point?

They thought they would get free stuff if they cut off the tips of their dicks.

Hey, well it sure worked for you REAL WELL for almost 50 years since they've circumcised you, so obviously Yahweh didn't break that promise to YOU, right!!

Yahweh never empowered them to independently think positive thoughts.

I have to disagree, considering that I always independently think positive thoughts.

It was general commands to kill other tribes and take their land.

Those tribes weren't exactly perfect either, you know.

[GanjaFreebird]

Palestine did not become the local Arabs' beloved homeland until the Jews irrigated it, drained off the swamps, planted crops and trees and generally made the desert bloom; ie, once they stood to gain something by having it.

EXACTLY!!

And, while the Palestinians certainly had legal private property rights to their homes, farms, etc., they did not have the right to ethnic sovereignty over all of Palestine just because they had a demographic majority, when the entire area was held by the UN as a land trust to dispense with as it saw fit.

[Archaix]

Now we're making some progress: the Palestinians were not promised an independent state, but rather integration into a pan-Arabic Hashemite state, as a replacement for the Ottomans.

I would imagine that's as close as you ever come to admitting you were wrong.

I've not said anything inconsistent: the agreement did not necessarily an independent state corresponding to all of Palestine, but certainly a country that legitimately represented them. Don't forget that whatever their national affiliation Palestinians still owned much of the land in the area (legally), were in a clear numerical majority, identified themselves as 'Palestinian' and had the promise of the British of independent statehood -perhaps not as Palestinian state (although this is debatable looking at the language used by the British in 1922), but certainly with Palestinian people, land and authority within it.

As mentioned, highly debatable, based on the evidence.

I disproved that with the evidence you cited, so that's obviously a lie.

You gave zero evidence, other than your opinion, and your flake sociological theory that separate nations would cause divisiveness, but being shoved together would make everyone forget their religious differences.

It isn't 'flake sociological theory' (more name-calling!) but the dominant social thought around today -as well as more than accurate in describing social dynamics. So accurate, in fact, that you've used it in this very thread to describe the rise of Palestinian identity as a side-effect of Zionist success.

The evidence suggests such states generally dissolve into genocide.

Your only response was that Yugoslavia, Sudan, and Lebanon are poor, but that's a distinction without a difference, because the Palestinians are also dirt-poor, and will likely remain so, given their rates of literacy, birth, female participation in the work force, etc.

That wasn't my 'only response', but part of a broader description of how states invariably fail and split into factions when they do not have the resources to pull competing identities together. And, when you do get competing identities, they form in relation to one another and entrench the differences further -I've provided plenty of examples of that, and you've used the model yourself.

A two-state solution with an enforceable final status disposition and peace agreement would quickly end the conflict, while your proposed one-state solution would cause civil war and chaos to erupt.

No, what would happen is that Palestine would still have grievances against Israel (for stolen territory, the lack of right of return and so on) and would be too poor to counter de-investment; enforce the law and combat terrorists; rebuild the economy; and maintain a skilled, educated and reasonably sensible population. As a result there will be massive corruption, a radicalisation of the population, and the resumption (either formally or informally through terrorism) of war against Israel. All the while, Israelis would be able to justify their own ever-more-brutal assaults across the border as being the actions of a rational democracy against an irrational theocracy, and would have meanwhile consolidated the undeserved recognition of their own 'Jewish' state.

No one in their right minds would want this situation...except Zionist Israelis.

For the reason stated: Israeli intelligence didn't exist in 1948; and Morris' opinion was based on a selective reading of the evidence.

Morris' opinion of an Israeli Intelligence document that doesn't exist is flawed in ways you can't specify. Keep up the good work, champ.

I don't agree that attacking a military installation was terrorism because it wasn't aimed at civilians, and some definitions concur.

It can't possibly be terrorism if you define terrorism within extremely restrictive and inaccurate parameters?

For one, it was only a "worldwide ethnicity" due to the existence of a diaspora. Prior to that existence of that diaspora, the global Jewish community was centered on Palestine, and began there. Hence, it was the homeland of the Jews.

Moreover, while the area was inhabited, it was unincorporated; it was ultimately held as a land trust by the UN, to dispense with as it saw fit. The UN Charter supports self-determination for all people, so they partitioned the territory between the two major groups, giving each the areas where they held a majority.

You're repeating yourself, and you've still not explained how an ethnicity can abstractly own a geographical region and do so in perpetuity.

Also, you're not thinking logically: because the Israel/Palestine region was the 'home' of the Jews from about 500BC to the first centuries AD, that makes it the origin-point of the Jewish ethnicity/faith rather than the 'home' of it for all later Jews. The 'homeland' of these people is wherever they settled and grew up, logically.

And finally, you're hopelessly confused as to what this argument is about. I'm arguing that the UN should not have divided the land up as it did, not that the fact that it did. Are you the organ of the UN with no thoughts or opinions of your own?

Selective quoting. I said Palestinian desires for a "one-state solution" don't matter, because the UNSC has already determined that a two-state solution will be the resolution. That doesn't mean Palestinian desires don't matter in any way.

No, they just don't matter in any meaningful way. I can see how my quote was selective.

Bullshit. I said there is no reason you can't found a state on religion, not that a religious state is preferable.

That sounds terribly hollow, given that you've described secularism as a set of 'lame political and philosophical beliefs' and explicitly stated there's nothing wrong with a religious state:

Archaix 2268146: No country should be founded on the basis of a religion, and nor should any modern people be defined by religion. Therefore, a religious basis for a state is wrong
Archaix 2268146: Israel is still bound by Zionist concepts that draw from religion and culture, and so is also wrong.

Cyclone Ranger 2268391: Your lame political and philosophical beliefs are irrelevant. What matters are international law and historical precedents, the same way any other international conflict is resolved.
Cyclone Ranger 2268391: There is nothing wrong with a state being founded on religion and culture; ie, the way all the Arab states are.

Archaix 2268763: What, that nations should make no law regarding religion? I knew you were condescending, hypocritical and deceitful, but I didn't until now realise you were actually stupid. I think two things are significant here: first of all that you don't realise it isn't just 'my' political philosophy, but second of all that because of that you dry to whitewash it as 'lame', as though that might make me feel bad.
Archaix 2268763: There absolutely is [something wrong] in terms of religion, as I've just discussed.

Cyclone Ranger 2268905: There is no compelling reason nations should not make any law regarding religion. All nations do not have to be the United States.

Your usual offering of half-truths and outright lies, again.

[GanjaFreebird]

I've not said anything inconsistent: the agreement did not necessarily an independent state corresponding to all of Palestine, but certainly a country that legitimately represented them.

In other words, Jordan, right?

Don't forget that whatever their national affiliation Palestinians still owned much of the land in the area (legally), were in a clear numerical majority, identified themselves as 'Palestinian' and had the promise of the British of independent statehood -perhaps not as Palestinian state (although this is debatable looking at the language used by the British in 1922), but certainly with Palestinian people, land and authority within it.

EXACTLY, the UN wanted to create one very small Jewish state and one very big Arab state. The Jews said yes and the Arabs said no because they didn't want ANY kind of a Jewish self-determination in the mid-east, not EVEN a socialist democratic Arab-Jewish state like many early Zionists were suggesting.

Arabs' insane bigotry and extreme nationalism was what made us realize that we need a Jewish state, as they showed no desire to co-exist with us in a secular democratic environment within one country. We are culturally too different.

It isn't 'flake sociological theory' (more name-calling!) but the dominant social thought around today -as well as more than accurate in describing social dynamics. So accurate, in fact, that you've used it in this very thread to describe the rise of Palestinian identity as a side-effect of Zionist success.

In other words, the reason why the Palestinians became so "nationalistic" about the land of Israel was because the Jewish immigrants built it and were successful at turning it from a shithole into a great civilization, right.

No wonder why Snouter likes them so much, he also likes to mooch and leech off the Jewish people.

No, what would happen is that Palestine would still have grievances against Israel (for stolen territory, the lack of right of return and so on)

Too bad, they can either get Gaza and the West Bank and MAYBE a part of Jerusalem and be happy, or they can get absolutely NOTHING at all. I don't give a fuck about their "grievances against Israel", they can keep it to themselves. Just stop the violence and accept a 2 state solution if you want your self-determination in a Palestinian state, otherwise more to Jordan and Egypt where you REALLY belong.

) and would be too poor to counter de-investment; enforce the law and combat terrorists; rebuild the economy; and maintain a skilled, educated and reasonably sensible population.

That's their problem, and if they caused violence even AFTER the peace agreement, Israel would be justified to go to war against them if they can't control their terrorists.

As a result there will be massive corruption, a radicalisation of the population, and the resumption (either formally or informally through terrorism) of war against Israel.

If they want a war against Israel, they shouldn't get ABSOLUTELY ANY LAND then. The only way Israel should create a Palestinian state is when they MAKE SURE that the violence is over, because if it isn't, why should we even give them ANYTHING?

All the while, Israelis would be able to justify their own ever-more-brutal assaults across the border as being the actions of a rational democracy against an irrational theocracy, and would have meanwhile consolidated the undeserved recognition of their own 'Jewish' state.

Sounds good to me.

No one in their right minds would want this situation...except Zionist Israelis.

Then the Palestinians can go ahead and move to Jordan and Egypt as with this kind of attitude they won't be getting absolutely anything.

And finally, you're hopelessly confused as to what this argument is about. I'm arguing that the UN should not have divided the land up as it did, not that the fact that it did. Are you the organ of the UN with no thoughts or opinions of your own?

Why not? The Arabs made it clear they didn't want to form a Jewish-Arab democratic state, so the only option was to create 2 states for two people. Again, our culture is too different and we don't like each other, why do you want us to live together?

[Cyclone Ranger]

I've not said anything inconsistent: the agreement did not necessarily an independent state corresponding to all of Palestine, but certainly a country that legitimately represented them. Don't forget that whatever their national affiliation Palestinians still owned much of the land in the area (legally), were in a clear numerical majority, identified themselves as 'Palestinian' and had the promise of the British of independent statehood -perhaps not as Palestinian state (although this is debatable looking at the language used by the British in 1922), but certainly with Palestinian people, land and authority within it.

The Palestinians had no promise from anyone about anything. The non-Palestinian Hashemites had a tenuous understanding that they would lead a state incorporating Palestine into a pan-Arab state made from parts of Syria and Jordan.

That would not be an independent Palestinian state of any kind. It would have been a Hashemite kingdom much like the 80%+ Palestinian Jordan.

[Cyclone Ranger]

The idea that Israel's recognition as a Jewish state is undeserved is yet more antisemitic bullshit. The international community decided the Jews did deserve recognition of their statehood, whether you like it or not.

That sounds terribly hollow, given that you've described secularism as a set of 'lame political and philosophical beliefs' and explicitly stated there's nothing wrong with a religious state:

There is nothing wrong with a religious state IF it recognizes the civil rights of all its citizens equally. That doesn't mean it's necessarily preferable to a secular state.

[Archaix]

The Palestinians had no promise from anyone about anything. The non-Palestinian Hashemites had a tenuous understanding that they would lead a state incorporating Palestine into a pan-Arab state made from parts of Syria and Jordan.

That would not be an independent Palestinian state of any kind. It would have been a Hashemite kingdom much like the 80%+ Palestinian Jordan.

Arabs had assurances from British diplomats that they would have some sort of independent future, and Palestinians were a cultural subset of that, however nascent a nationality. Moreover, Arabs constituted 80% of the population of Palestine by 1921 -Jews were even less in number than Christians, barely amounting to 10% (76000). Most of those, of course, had arrived in the last 40 years.

The idea that Israel's recognition as a Jewish state is undeserved is yet more antisemitic bullshit.

I'd ask you to demonstrate how that's the slightest bit antisemitic, but you'd be unwilling and incapable even of that. I'm not convinced you even know what the word means, to be honest.

The international community decided the Jews did deserve recognition of their statehood, whether you like it or not.

What has that got to do with anything?

There is nothing wrong with a religious state IF it recognizes the civil rights of all its citizens equally. That doesn't mean it's necessarily preferable to a secular state.

A religious state by its very definition runs contrary to civil rights because it favours a particular religion rather than the protecting the legitimacy/independence of all of them, and the free conscience of its citizens to believe what they want.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Arabs only constituted 80% of the population in 1921 if you count Transjordan, which was promptly lopped off of the Palestine mandate, and handed to the Arabs whole.

[Cyclone Ranger]

The fact a state is religious doesn't necessarily mean it favors its religious majority; Britain has a state church, and there isn't much evidence of sectarian favoritism in England.

[Archaix]

Arabs only constituted 80% of the population in 1921 if you count Transjordan, which was promptly lopped off of the Palestine mandate, and handed to the Arabs whole.

Alright, they made up 20% of the population. And in most cases had immigrated there since 1880.

The fact a state is religious doesn't necessarily mean it favors its religious majority; Britain has a state church, and there isn't much evidence of sectarian favoritism in England.

And is deeply rooted in the establishment, has a great amount of influence and even legislative power through the Lords Spiritual.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Alright, they made up 20% of the population. And in most cases had immigrated there since 1880.

Transjordan was 80% of the Palestine Mandate, so they were a lot more than 20% of the population.

And is deeply rooted in the establishment, has a great amount of influence and even legislative power through the Lords Spiritual.

So is the Catholic Church in our secular nation. So what?

[Archaix]

Transjordan was 80% of the Palestine Mandate, so they were a lot more than 20% of the population.

"Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania...Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people" Yeah, not so much.

So is the Catholic Church in our secular nation. So what?

Even if it was to the same degree (which it isn't), so what?

[GanjaFreebird]

Archaix, what's your point, what are you trying to say ANYWAYS?

[Archaix]

Archaix, what's your point, what are you trying to say ANYWAYS?

Glad you asked.

Jews and Judaism have absolutely no exclusive right to that region
- it being an origin-point of that ethnicity is not the same as it being a 'homeland'
- Palestinians have, if anything, a stronger claim to the land
- Jews are a heterogeneous 'people', worldwide and with a fluid culture -not a homogeneous, Israel-bound and static culture

Israel has committed injustice in the past
- through attacking and expelling innocent Palestinians in 1948
- through the subsequent appropriation of their land, and
- by using terrorism to end the British mandate

Israel has continued injustice toward Palestinians since 1948
- through denying the Palestinian right of return
- through illegal settlement creation

Israel is wrong in being a 'Jewish state'
- because modern countries should not seek to be ethnically 'pure'
- because modern countries should be neutral as regards religion

[Cyclone Ranger]

No, Israel should continue to be the Jewish homeland for exactly the same reasons it was created in 1948, whether you like the idea of its "ethnic purity."

Note that the only ethnic state you've ever had a problem with is Israel. As far as you're concerned, the rest of them are fine as is.

[GanjaFreebird]

No, Israel should continue to be the Jewish homeland for exactly the same reasons it was created in 1948, whether you like the idea of its "ethnic purity."

Note that the only ethnic state you've ever had a problem with is Israel. As far as you're concerned, the rest of them are fine as is.

EXACTLY, what a fuckin' hypocrite.

[Cyclone Ranger]

"Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania...Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people" Yeah, not so much.:

TransJordan stopped being part of the Palestine Mandate in 1921. Moreover, 350,000 people is pretty close to the number of Palestinians who fled Israel in 1948, so it's hardly insignificant.