Did Anything in The Old Testament Exist

[Archaix]

Evidence?!..Debatable. There was no Israeli intelligence network during the War of Independence, and the only historian to claim such an item existed in the IDF's archives is the 'New Historian' Benny Morris.

Most historians - including Morris himself - state that the Palestinian Exodus was simply caused by their desire to flee an active war zone, the direct urging of the Arab League itself, and their belief that Jordan would make short work of the apparently outgunned new Israeli state.

My source was Benny Morris, who commented on the Israeli Intelligence document in the 80s, which itself regarded the chief causes of the exodus to be, in order or importance:

1. Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements.
2. The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements...... (... especially -the fall of large neighbouring centers).
3. Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]
4. Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars].
5. Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
6. Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]
7. Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews.
8. The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village.
9. Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders].
10. Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas.
11. Various local factors and general fear of the future.

His paper in Middle Eastern Studies examines how Israeli terrorism, threats, and psychological attacks on civilian urban centres directly caused mass exodus. Oh, and you'll notice how 'orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs' is, er, fourth on the list after Jewish attacks.

For one, there were no Israelis during British rule. Israel didn't exist yet.

Technically true, although they would have considered themselves members of Israel before it formally came into existence as a nation state -hence my use of the term.

Some stateless Jewish refugees like the Irgun took terroristic actions against the British overseers....but the British soldiers were not civilians, the Irgun did not have any official government sanction, and the Irgun's objectives were to open up immigration for Holocaust victims after the release of the White Paper.

Look at you justifying terrorism, it's adorable. Just like your defence of Israeli torture and detention of children in this thread. You're not a liberal, you're a fraud.

For one, your claim that self-determination is based on some concept of "historical ethnic ownership" is false. Palestine was an unincorporated territory in the Ottoman Empire prior to the UN Mandate, not a sovereign "Palestinian" nation.

Wrong, I said that self-determination based on historical ethnic ownership is false, and that's exactly what the Zionist claim for Israel is based on.

The Jews created their own de facto homeland in Palestine after the Ottomans invited them to emigrate their[sic], which the British recognized with the Balfour Declaration and the UN with UNGA 181. The Arabs didn't have a right to ethnic rule over all of Palestine just because they had a numerical majority, crushing minority rights.

I don't know why you're only capable of thinking in absolutes. Of course 'the Arabs' don't have a right to 'ethnic rule' over the region and crush minorities. Nor do Jews.

Next, the bit about the Roman occupation and the existence of a historical Jewish homeland in Palestine is not "crackpot," but mainstream history based on both the historical record and[sic]

The Jews, up until the late 19th century, didn't have a 'homeland', and nor should they ever have. And the insistence they should based on centuries past, is what makes that claim 'crackpot'.

Bullshit. The Jews of today are the direct descendants of the ancient Jews, as the population genetics studies prove. The idea that has something to do with "racism" is idiotic. Jews are not a biological race.

“A land for a people...” again. If you can't see how this isn't racist, I don't even want to communicate with you.

One, the Jewish religion is pretty much the same today as it was in the Babylonian Captivity, based on the Torah and prophets.

Two, the concept of "cultural similarity" is not well-defined, as there is no direct litmus.

Three, international law does not respect any such concept as a defining characteristic of sovereignty.

Four, the Jewish population in 1800 - almost a hundred years before the First Aliyah - isn't relevant to anything.

Five, at the end of the day, Palestine was a U.N. mandate, and the UN chose to partition the land and offer the Israelis a sovereign homeland, whether you like it or not.


You are conflating two separate concepts:

1. Sovereignty: the right to make laws within a specific territory.

2. Ownership of property.

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. Cultural similarity is impossible, since no culture remains the same over any serious period of time, so that's wrong too. Since Israel is a 'Jewish state', and purposefully discriminates in favour of Jews, Israel is still bound by Zionist concepts that draw from religion and culture, and so is also wrong. Claiming that Israel belongs to all Jews despite the fact that a tiny proportion of them existed as a minority in Palestine has been claimed in this very thread by Ganja, and is unfortunately both illogical (wrong) and relevant. Finally, that the UN made such a decision is wrong. It's been fatally wrong for Israelis and Palestinians alike since they made that decision.

One, there is no evidence the Palestinians were promised a state during the First World War.

Palestinians were encouraged to revolt against Ottoman rule, and were certainly promised independence by the British in 1915, by the diplomat Sir Henry McMahon. They were supplied and advised by the British in Egypt, and ultimately betrayed. What was that about making up facts, again?

According to their spokespeople during the Crane King Commission, they felt they were part of Syria anyhow.

Two, there is also no evidence Arabs in Palestine considered themselves a special national group called "Palestinians" during the First World War.

Three, by WWI, the Jews had already created a de facto homeland for themselves, including draining off malarial swamps, irrigating the land, planing trees and crops, etc.

Palestinians considered themselves native to the area known as 'Palestine', and definitely did have a sense of being Palestinian (as well as Arabic) by the start of the 20th century. But whatever their cultural grouping they lived in present-day Israel/Palestine, and they were robbed of their land in huge numbers.

Four, the idea that Jews in Palestine believed they were "racially superior" to their brothers in race, the Arabs, is a ridiculous bunch of malarkey. I'd love to see you try to prove it with documentary evidence.

Ganja and “a land for a people for a people without a land”.

Five, even prominent anti-Zionists like Noam Chomsky gave up on advocating for a "one-state solution" long ago. It would simply be a catalyst for a bloody civil war like the ones in Lebanon, Sudan, and Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia descended into civil war after splintering into states -and that's the root of the problem: that idea that ethnici distinction needs to be reinforced and territorialised.

Six, it's inane to suggest the Jews took the best land. 60% of the Israeli partition was empty desert land in the Negev, and the rest was only usable because the early Zionists reclaimed it via irrigation.

And all of the all-important coast...

[Truth Teller]

That's because most of them wanted what was promised during the First World War -a Palestinian state where Palestinians lived, not a Jewish state full of immigrants (and a sense of racial superiority no less) taking the best land. Anyway, if there's one thing that will help fuel tension and cultural contradistinction it's a two-state solution. Palestine needs one state with Jews and Palestinians working together in it, not some racist, arbitrary line in the ground.

CR already shot down most of your insanity,so I don't need to do that again.

But in regard to the two-state soultuion the UN came up with in 1948,what was so bad about that?

If there had been two states in the 1930s, it's possible that either the Holocaust wouldn't have happend ,or wouldn't have happend on the scale it did.

You say put yourself in the Palestinians shoes?

Ok,why don't you put yourself in the shoes of the European Jews?

They had just seen their kin murdered for no reason,been through all sorts of abuse and degregation most people can't imagine,they couldn't go back to their homes and former property either, because while Hitler was dead,anti-Semitism wasn't ,and many were still being murdered by in their home towns by vigilantes.

The US took some in,but not nearly enough ,what would become the Iron Curtain wouldn't be much better to them than Hitler was,it's logical that Jews would want their own country where they didn't have to be subjugated to anyone,it was very selfish for the Arabs(Palestinians) not to agree two states.

And go ahead and call it a 'socialist' state too.

You can't get more socialist than a kibbutz.

Kamandi, there is no evidence of ancient Isreal.

Have you ever heard of archaeology?

[Archaix]

CR already shot down most of your insanity,so I don't need to do that again.

S/he responded through mistaking what I was saying, lying about the past, and evading the main points. Which, come to think of it, is what you do. Only Ganja bothers to address what I write, and then only to recite Zionist propaganda peppered with emoticons. I've taken care to respond to every sensible thing everyone's said in this thread, and I've given evidence throughout to boot.

But in regard to the two-state soultuion the UN came up with in 1948,what was so bad about that?

Like I said, it reinforces difference. If you set up two states you've got an immediate problem in drawing an effective line between them, and then it's inevitable that one side will declare war on another (or both at the same time, most likely). Also, I don't agree that there should be a special Jews-only zone that bases its legitimacy on geopolitics of OT and the ethnocentric and racist doctrine of Jewish exceptionalism.

If there had been two states in the 1930s, it's possible that either the Holocaust wouldn't have happend ,or wouldn't have happend on the scale it did.

You're assuming a lot there, not least that all Jews would have wanted to or would have been able to migrate to Israel. Also, you're clearly unaware that the Nazis were supportive of a Jewish state before WW2, provided it was somewhere far away from their interests (they suggested Madagascar). Like Zionists, Nazis believed that people were tied to land and the legacy of their ancestors -and Germania was theirs, not anyone else's.

why don't you put yourself in the shoes of the European Jews?

They had just seen their kin murdered for no reason,been through all sorts of abuse and degregation most people can't imagine,they couldn't go back to their homes and former property either, because while Hitler was dead,anti-Semitism wasn't ,and many were still being murdered by in their home towns by vigilantes.

The US took some in,but not nearly enough ,what would become the Iron Curtain wouldn't be much better to them than Hitler was,it's logical that Jews would want their own country where they didn't have to be subjugated to anyone,it was very selfish for the Arabs(Palestinians) not to agree two states.

You're making the same mistake I see everytime I get involved in these arguments: injustice does not permit further injustice by the victim. I've said a dozen times that I have no problem with legally acquired land, but Zionists went beyond that in attacking others and then settling further land. Israel lets in Jews around the world but not the people they forcibly displaced.

So when Palestinians say they don't want two states, I can understand it: it won't work and it isn't justice. Whether they've been reasonable in peace talks or not I can't say, but the most important issues I've raised have never been tabled.

[GanjaFreebird]

Seven, is there is basically no evidence of the ancient 12 tribes of Israel in the region known as Palestine before the zionist invasion, why do you clowns insist you are one of the tribes?

Because we are, just like YOU are, or else you wouldn't be circumcised, bar mitzvahed and your nose would've been much smaller.

[GanjaFreebird]

That is understandable since Israelites were AT WAR with Jews according to the Old Testament! What a belligerent bunch of fags!

Well, not sure about their sexual orientation, but hey, you and your uncle Haim fight all the time too, so what.

[GanjaFreebird]

Archaix, I will respond to you later, but long story short, CR and TT are 100% right on this issue!

[Cyclone Ranger]

Although I have family in town, and a limited amount of time, I'll respond to one point now

The Palestinians were never promised a national state during WWI. The
British high commissioner suggested to Arab leaders that the British government would create a pan- Arab state through parts of Jordan and Syria which would have included Palestine, but they never said anything about a special Palestinian nationalist state.

The Palestinians would have been part of larger Hashemite kingdom, not the rulers of their own homeland in Palestine.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Trust me, I would if I was half as fat as you or if my nose was nearly as big as yours, in fact, if you lost weight, you'd probably look like Barbra Streisand

Now that was funny ... and I wouldn't mind seeing the news when Streisand kicks your ass in public for comparing her with Snouter, either. lol ...

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

What a surprise, a faux, 'Peace Left' Euro fashion victim spouts antisemitic gibberish and fake 'history' to dress it up with.

How rare.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Although I have family in town, and a limited amount of time, I'll respond to one point now

The Palestinians were never promised a national state during WWI. The
British high commissioner suggested to Arab leaders that the British government would create a pan- Arab state through parts of Jordan and Syria which would have included Palestine, but they never said anything about a special Palestinian nationalist state.

The Palestinians would have been part of larger Hashemite kingdom, not the rulers of their own homeland in Palestine.

Yes. The 'two state solution' was a dud. It's more than stupid to try for a'three state solution' when their states already exist, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Too bad their own states either don't want them or tossed them out. Doesn't make Israel responsible for keeping them up, but Israel does, for some reason; sort of a slow suicide death wish, apparently.

[Šñøü†ê®]

FOLKS, LET'S TRY NOT TO GET CAUGHT UP IN NON-OLD TESTAMENT STUFF LIKE ZIONISM AND CRAZY RUSSIANS THINKING THAT YAHWEH SELECTED THEM VS THE CANAANITES BECAUSE THEY WERE WILLING TO CHOP THE TIPS OF THEIR DICKS OFF!

[Archaix]

What a surprise, a faux, 'Peace Left' Euro fashion victim spouts antisemitic gibberish and fake 'history' to dress it up with.

How rare.

I don't count as the 'Peace Left', I've not been in the slightest anti-semitic and I've cited history from reputable sources. I suppose real leftists sport Nazi symbols and hate gay people like you, though, right? Moron.

[Šñøü†ê®]

IN one of the first lines in Genesis if I remember correctly it says Yahweh created the the universe in 6 days (Yahweh rested on the 7th thus the sabbath which if you do anything you are required to be put to death). Does this kind of end the madness right there. I mean why go on if the initial premise is insane?

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

I don't count as the 'Peace Left',

You just repeat their antisemitic bullshit almost word for word and talking point by talking point verbatim because you figured it all out on your own ... and I'm the Pope; wanna kiss my ring?

I've not been in the slightest anti-semitic and I've cited history from reputable sources.

'Reputable sources' like Benny Morris, and 'sources' from terrorist front groups? Yes, your 'objectivity' is truly impressive... if you're Snouter.

I suppose real leftists sport Nazi symbols and hate gay people like you, though, right? Moron.

It's not a 'Nazi' symbol, I don't 'hate gay people', and you're a sleazy antisemitic idiot.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

FOLKS, LET'S TRY NOT TO GET CAUGHT UP IN NON-OLD TESTAMENT STUFF LIKE ZIONISM AND CRAZY RUSSIANS THINKING THAT YAHWEH SELECTED THEM VS THE CANAANITES BECAUSE THEY WERE WILLING TO CHOP THE TIPS OF THEIR DICKS OFF!

So, you're upset because there's stuff in the Old Testament that says God frowns on your compulsion to blow goats without feeling all oppressed and stuff.

Lots of other religions frown on the same thing, so why snivel about just Judaism? You're pretty much screwed no matter which religion you pick to obsess over. It's certain that Buddha would have kicked your ass if he had known you, and Ghandi would have had you assassinated. That must suck for you, eh?

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

IN one of the first lines in Genesis if I remember correctly it says Yahweh created the the universe in 6 days (Yahweh rested on the 7th thus the sabbath which if you do anything you are required to be put to death).

Well, you have the part about doing nothing down pat, and on all 7 days, so you don't even need to worry about calendar glitches and which day the Sabbath actually is.

I mean why go on if the initial premise is insane?

We wonder the same thing about you. Don't commit suicide, though; just carry on. Circuses need monkeys, and Abbot needed Costello, and you would leave Optimus all alone if you died.

[Cyclone Ranger]

My source was Benny Morris, who commented on the Israeli Intelligence document in the 80s, which itself regarded the chief causes of the exodus to be, in order or importance:

Benny Morris has a lengthy history of distorting sources, selectively quoting, etc. See, for example: http://www.meforum.org/466/benny-mor...reign-of-error

His paper in Middle Eastern Studies examines how Israeli terrorism, threats, and psychological attacks on civilian urban centres directly caused mass exodus. Oh, and you'll notice how 'orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs' is, er, fourth on the list after Jewish attacks.

That is not what Morris says in the Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, or in Righteous Victims

Technically true, although they would have considered themselves members of Israel before it formally came into existence as a nation state -hence my use of the term.

Evidence? You sure LOVE to make up historical 'facts' you can't document.

Look at you justifying terrorism, it's adorable.

The idea that attacking military installations constitutes 'terrorism' is highly debatable. Terrorism is generally understood to indicate purposefully targeting civilian populations to achieve political goals, not soldiers.

Wrong, I said that self-determination based on historical ethnic ownership is false, and that's exactly what the Zionist claim for Israel is based on.

No, the Zionist claim for Israel is based on numerous points, of which the concept of historical ethnic ownership is but one.

I don't know why you're only capable of thinking in absolutes. Of course 'the Arabs' don't have a right to 'ethnic rule' over the region and crush minorities. Nor do Jews.

That is exactly what the Arabs have in the rest of the Mideast, and what the Palestinians are asking for.

The Jews, up until the late 19th century, didn't have a 'homeland', and nor should they ever have. And the insistence they should based on centuries past, is what makes that claim 'crackpot'.

No, the Jews have the right to ethnic self-determination in their homeland as per the Balfour Declaration and the UN Charter, as do the Palestinians.

“A land for a people...” again. If you can't see how this isn't racist, I don't even want to communicate with you.

It's not at all racist. In fact, it has nothing to do with race. You're simply using the word "racist" as a term of abuse to make your screeds more melodramatic.

No country should be founded on the basis of a religion, and nor should any modern people be defined by religion.

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.

Cultural similarity is impossible, since no culture remains the same over any serious period of time

Evidence? The Jews have maintained their culture in minute detail over thousands of years.

e, so that's wrong too. Since Israel is a 'Jewish state', and purposefully discriminates in favour of Jews

Evidence? Simply being a Jewish state is no more discriminatory than France being a French state.

Israel is still bound by Zionist concepts that draw from religion and culture, and so is also wrong.
There is nothing wrong with a state being founded on religion and culture; ie, the way all the Arab states are.

Claiming that Israel belongs to all Jews despite the fact that a tiny proportion of them existed as a minority in Palestine has been claimed in this very thread by Ganja, and is unfortunately both illogical (wrong) and relevant.

More of your bullshit philosophy. In fact, Jews were the majority group in the Israeli partition.

Finally, that the UN made such a decision is wrong. It's been fatally wrong for Israelis and Palestinians alike since they made that decision.

No, partition was the only decision, and it was the morally correct one. The alternative would have been a bloodbath in which the Arabs massacred the Jews, as they attempted to do even after the partition.

Palestinians were encouraged to revolt against Ottoman rule, and were certainly promised independence by the British in 1915, by the diplomat Sir Henry McMahon. They were supplied and advised by the British in Egypt, and ultimately betrayed. What was that about making up facts, again?

No such independence was ever promised to the Palestinians, who did not consider themselves a national group in 1915.

Palestinians considered themselves native to the area known as 'Palestine', and [did have a sense of being Palestinian[/url] (as well as Arabic) by the start of the 20th century.

Bullshit. There is no documented evidence of Palestinian national consciousness before the 1960s. In fact, the Palestinians repeatedly claimed they were part of Syria instead of being a national group. They were just a group of Arab Muslims lived under Ottoman rule.

Ganja and “a land for a people for a people without a land”.

The Palestinians considered themselves part of Syria, and not an independent national group.

Yugoslavia descended into civil war after splintering into states -and that's the root of the problem: that idea that ethnici distinction needs to be reinforced and territorialised.

Nonsense. Yugoslavia splintered into states because of a civil war.

And all of the all-important coast...

Huh? Are you trying to claim the Israeli partition created by UNGA 181 included the Jordan river?!

[Cyclone Ranger]

S/he responded through mistaking what I was saying, lying about the past, and evading the main points.

You repeatedly made up your own facts, ignored requests for evidence, and cited questionable sources.

Like I said, it reinforces difference. If you set up two states you've got an immediate problem in drawing an effective line between them, and then it's inevitable that one side will declare war on another (or both at the same time, most likely)

That's the most bullshit thing you've said yet. Creating two separate sovereign nations will somehow incite war.....but shoehorning together two groups who've experienced a bloody forty year long conflict against their will is peace.

Also, I don't agree that there should be a special Jews-only zone that bases its legitimacy on geopolitics of OT and the ethnocentric and racist doctrine of Jewish exceptionalism.

Yet more anti-Semitic bullshit.

You're assuming a lot there, not least that all Jews would have wanted to or would have been able to migrate to Israel. Also, you're clearly unaware that the Nazis were supportive of a Jewish state before WW2, provided it was somewhere far away from their interests (they suggested Madagascar). Like Zionists, Nazis believed that people were tied to land and the legacy of their ancestors -and Germania was theirs, not anyone else's.

BS. There is no documented evidence that the Nazis ever seriously considered exporting the Jews to a national homeland.

You're making the same mistake I see everytime I get involved in these arguments: injustice does not permit further injustice by the victim. I've said a dozen times that I have no problem with legally acquired land, but Zionists went beyond that in attacking others and then settling further land. Israel lets in Jews around the world but not the people they forcibly displaced.

Utterly ridiculous reading of history: the Israelis were repeatedly invaded and attacked by their neighbors and took land as spoils of war, which they used as bargaining chips to trade for peace. Not once in history did they ever launch an aggressive, unprovoked invasion.

So when Palestinians say they don't want two states, I can understand it: it won't work and it isn't justice.

The most asinine thing you've ever said. Only two independent states can possibly be justice, or could possibly work. Despite your inane philosophical assertions, there is no reason to believe that with a peace accord and enforceable borders, a two-state solution would foment war.

The Palestinians say they don't want two states, because what they do want is to take over Israel, push the Jews into the sea, and create yet another Arab Muslim state on the premises.

[Truth Teller]

Like I said, it reinforces difference.

We were not living in a "all men are brothers" world in 1948,not even close.

Again,there was a major problem with Jewish refugees from WWII.

Yes,the war was over but their plight wasn't,the idealism you espouse wasn't in style anymore ,and wouldn't be again for decades to come.

Something had to be done ,the UN came up with a perfect compromise (and adults compromise),again ,the Jews said "yes" ,the Arabs said "no".

You're assuming a lot there

Well,everything you have posted so far is an assumption.

not least that all Jews would have wanted to or would have been able to migrate to Israel.

Let's see ,go to Israel or go to a gas chamber?

Yeah ,that's a real hard choice.

that the Nazis were supportive of a Jewish state before WW2, provided it was somewhere far away from their interests (they suggested Madagascar).

Some Nazis said that ,but not the Nazi Party itself ,as you imply.

In any case,so what?

Like Zionists, Nazis believed that people were tied to land and the legacy of their ancestors -and Germania was theirs, not anyone else's.

Zionists did not murder two-thirds of a walk of life,if Israel had existed in the 20's/30's ,less than two-thirds (how much less,I don't know,but still less)of those people would have been murdered,others would have been spared the most brutal degregation.

That is the point.

You're making the same mistake I see everytime I get involved in these arguments: injustice does not permit further injustice by the victim.

When is sharing or co-exisiting "injustice"?

So when Palestinians say they don't want two states, I can understand it: it won't work and it isn't justice.

And when Jews who had just been through the brutality of the Holocaust say "I trust no one,I want the freedom to run my own life", I can understand that and to deny them that is an injustice.

Again,they were willing to co-exist with the Arabs(Palestinians).

Because we are, just like YOU are, or else you wouldn't be circumcised, bar mitzvahed and your nose would've been much smaller.

Well, not sure about their sexual orientation, but hey, you and your uncle Haim fight all the time too, so what.

LOL.

Now that was funny ... and I wouldn't mind seeing the news when Streisand kicks your ass in public for comparing her with Snouter, either. lol ...

I've heard that Streisand has a good sense of humor.

[GanjaFreebird]

Now that was funny ... and I wouldn't mind seeing the news when Streisand kicks your ass in public for comparing her with Snouter, either. lol ...

If she does, I would definitely deserve that, indeed.