"3,5,7,9 - There's No Such Thing As Palestine..."

Palestine, Filistine, what's the diff? Goliath, slain by David was a Filistine far as I know.

As a Turk living in Asia Minor, of all people, you should understand the importance of correctly identifying peoples and places. From the 15th to 20th century all Middle-Eastern Muslims were commonly called Turks, even anachronistically. European writters called Mohammed a Turk. That doesn't make it so.

The Philistines existed from about 1200 to 700 BCE. The Palestinians have as much to do with them as your people do with Hittites or Assyrians.

Goliath was not a Philistine but a Gathite.

Most of the Hebrew bible is set in verse.
The translation which best captures this is The Five Books of Moses by Everett Fox.

I do not have my Bible with me, but haven't I seen translations where it was angels, come down from heaven, and they lusted after the daughters of men?

The passage you refer to is Gen:6. When satan rebelled against God and left Heaven, he took a third of the angles, ie: " sons of God ", with him.

These fallen angles took human wives, " the daughters of men ", and from this unholy union where born races of giants ,the nephilim. This is where we got giants such as Goliath and others from. Satan's plan ,it seems was to desrtoy the human race by crossing these supernatual beings with humans thereby leaving no pure strain of humans left.

It almost worked because by the time of Noah, he was the only human found to be " pure in his generations ", left on earth. This did not mean he was sinless, but that his family tree, going back to Adam was the only one that had not been inbred and corrupted by these fallen angles. This was the reason God sent the flood, wiped them out and started over.

Don't sweat it. King James Version is a hoirrible translation.

.I have a number of different translations myself including the greek and hebrew. I ususally have three or four books around me when I study, besides the couple of computer programs which have a number of different translations on them a good concordence also helps.

You're right. The King James can be somewhat difficult, even though I have been reading it over forty years. But the language does have a beauty that I do not seem to get from the others.I have also found it to be the most reliable. I have found it to be very useful to use more than one translation.

I also found some of the newer ones to be intentionally misleading. Those have gone into the garbage. A few years back, having a large number of translations, I found myself in a quandry trying to decide which one should be the benchmark when a contridiction came about. In other words which one would I accept as the Lord's or final word.

After prayer and some days in waiting for an answer, it came, back that the answer for me was the King James. I certainly would not tell anyone else that their choice is wrong. Just that if you run into the problem I did, that this is the way I received positive assurance.

Thanks for the info on angels and the Book of Genesis - your explanation is very exact.

I daresay that the majority of Israelis are not actively in favor of transfer as a policy - but usually the majority of a population is not consulted. These things are foisted on them by elites. The "they" whom I referred to are a group of military/political types around Sharon. As to whether it is possible - as you say, there are millions of Israelis already. But to totally empty cities like Jerico, Bethlehem and Nablus would leave the land devestated and empty-looking. It could only be accomplished in the context of a regional war. The worst possible outcome. If the Israelis wanted to expell the population they should have done it in the first instance (in 1967). Or it should be a fair and honourable settlement. In recent years, it was suggested that in exchange for lifting the sanctions on Iraq, they could be persuaded to take much of the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza, who would be paid large sums in order to relocate. Although that idea sounds odd, it is better thinking than some "push them over the Jordan" option.

But the desire to be rid of the Palestinians, for good and for all, puts people in realm of evil dreams. It was an idea running at the time of Lebanon invasion, when the Israelis fell into an alliance with the Phalangists. It is the notion of wiping them out, never seeing them again ... and with this comes talk of purification of the race, elimination of the inferior, wiping out those of mixed blood. The Israelis have some extremist allies in the Christian communties, just look at comment 26 on this very thread:

"The mixed mongrel people Arafat represents and rules are ARABS, not Pleshtim, thus Semite/Hamite mixed, .... and it is highly ironic that when his group of mixties ... they took the name of an ancient people the Jews had exterminated... The fate of that end-time people is given, and it is one they well deserve and which we are eagerly awaiting."posted on 5/5/02 10:49 PM Pacific by crystalk

You're welcome. MRN

I daresay that the majority of Israelis are not actively in favor of transfer as a policy - but usually the majority of a population is not consulted. These things are foisted on them by elites.

Would this be the same elites who made Meir Kahane's PArty illegal? Would it be the same elites who are pushing affirmative action for Israeli Arabs? Is it the same elite which has been trying to shut down right-wing and settler radio stations? I don't think so. The elite in Israel is made up of leftist Ashkenazis.

The "they" whom I referred to are a group of military/political types around Sharon. As to whether it is possible - as you say, there are millions of Israelis already. But to totally empty cities like Jerico, Bethlehem and Nablus would leave the land devestated and empty-looking.

Jericho, Bethlehem, and Nablus(Shechem) were Jewish cities and would not be empty for long.

It could only be accomplished in the context of a regional war. The worst possible outcome.
True. However, many see this conflict as inevitable.

If the Israelis wanted to expell the population they should have done it in the first instance (in 1967). Or it should be a fair and honourable settlement.

1973 was another option. However, there was no political will or mass support for it then. Somehow I don't think you would support the scheme of National-Union to expell the Arabs but compensate them for property and for the difficulties of leaving. (property value plus 20-50 thousand per Palestinian.)

In recent years, it was suggested that in exchange for lifting the sanctions on Iraq, they could be persuaded to take much of the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza, who would be paid large sums in order to relocate. Although that idea sounds odd, it is better thinking than some "push them over the Jordan" option.

While some of the PAlestinians are decended from Iraqis who migrated between 1890 and 1946, most are not. Far more have relatives in teh sovereign Arab state composed of 75% of Palestin, Jordan.

But the desire to be rid of the Palestinians, for good and for all, puts people in realm of evil dreams.

1. The Palestinains and Jordanina expelled virtually all Jews out of Transjordan and the West bank from 1923-1950. This included 3000 year old communities and the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem.
2. Most people are calling for the Jews to be expelled from the West Bank and Gaza. Is that evil?

It was an idea running at the time of Lebanon invasion, when the Israelis fell into an alliance with the Phalangists. It is the notion of wiping them out, never seeing them again ... and with this comes talk of purification of the race, elimination of the inferior, wiping out those of mixed blood. The Israelis have some extremist allies in the Christian communties, just look at comment 26 on this very thread:

1. Israel fell in with the Phalangists because they had the same enemies, the PLO, Hizbullah, and Amal.
2.I am no apologist for the Arab haters in this forum.

1. But the Arabs don't want to assimilate. They want to destroy Israel, all of it.

I think for many Palestinians that's true. On the other hand, Sharon wants to drive all the Palestinians across the Jordan River. Furthermore, a recent Maariv poll shows that half all Israelis do too.

America is a fairly unique contry. Most countries are based on nationality. You would erase this. That is not tolerance any more than forcing interracial marriges would be.

Does this mean you want the United States to return to an immigration policy which discriminates on the basis of ethnicity? The last time we had such a policy (1965)American Jews fought long, hard and successfully to change the law. Do you really want to turn back the clock?

That is not tolerance any more than forcing interracial marriges would be.

I'm talking about having an imigration policy which ignores ethnicity and religion. That doesn't mean just because someone of a different ethnicity/religion was admitted to your country that you are required to marry them. Maybe you could live next door to them, go bowling with them, and invite them to help you celebrate your wedding to someone you freely chose.

I daresay that the majority of Israelis are not actively in favor of transfer as a policy - but usually the majority of a population is not consulted.

According to an October 2001 Ma'ariv poll, 50% of Israelis were in favor of transferring the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza. Since the poll is seven months old now, I assume the percentage today is considerably higher.

The opinion polls reflect various views, but there is no agreement on this issue, most especially HOW such an expulsion might be achieved. Israeli society is complex, and I don't pretend expertise about them. I think that they have more than one establishment, and unusually involved, well-educated and politicised population. Ethics matter to them, to an unusual degree, but that does not prevent extremism. Rmlew writes that "The elite in Israel is made up of leftist Ashkenazis." Yet note that the idea of transfer also has a pedigree on the side of left-wing Zionism, as well. Also, Ariel Sharon has been complaining all his life about the left-liberal Israeli establishment, and how they keep him down, and not allow him power. If only! While making all these complaints, he has gone from strength to strength. I don't like him, so that's my view. I wish someone had managed to keep him down.

Israel's alliance with the Phalangists in Lebanon, that was largely the work of my unfavorite person, Sharon. It is not accurate to say that they entered it because the had the same opponents - the Palestinians, Amal and the Hezbollah. Hezbollah wasn't founded at the time when Israel invaded Lebanon, it was a product of the occupation. Up until 1980, Israel had a good relationship with Amal, which represented a conservative Shia view, hostile to the PLO. (The type of view which one finds in the writings of Fouard Ajami.) But they swapped that for an alliance with Gemayel's forces. The lure was ideological (it can't have been tactical - the Maronite forces were as useless as tits on a bull.) The Kataeb (Phalangists) were left overs from 1936. The Lebanese Jews could tell you a thing or two about them.

Also, Ariel Sharon has been complaining all his life about the left-liberal Israeli establishment, and how they keep him down, and not allow him power. If only! While making all these complaints, he has gone from strength to strength. I don't like him, so that's my view. I wish someone had managed to keep him down.

Sharon has been a diaster for Israel. As minister of housing he's the one would started diverting money to build all the settlements in the occupied territories. He said he did it to establish "facts on the ground," meaning it would much harder for any future prime minister to ever consider giving back the land if settlers had build their homes there. He was right too. What he didn't forsee was that the formerly compliant and docile Palestinians, who in some cases welcomed the IDF with cups of coffee and cries of shalom in the 1967 war, would eventually turn against the checkpoints and permits and quotas and Israeli-only highways. Now, I really don't think there's any solution to the problem (at least not a humane one). The Palestinians are so furious and bereft of hope they are willing to blow themselves up in order to kill Israelis. The Israelis say, quite correctly, you can't just expect us not to defend ourselfs while suicide bombers blow up our children. Both sides see their (self-defeating) actions as completly justified. So the Palestinian bombings go on and the Israeli attacks on Palestinian cities go on. And the person who put both sides in this incredible mess from which there is no exit is Ariel Sharon.

i wrote:

But the Arabs don't want to assimilate. They want to destroy Israel, all of it.

DentsRun wrote:
I think for many Palestinians that's true. On the other hand, Sharon wants to drive all the Palestinians across the Jordan River. Furthermore, a recent Maariv poll shows that half all Israelis do too.

1. Please cite.
2. If so, I imagine that terrorism has caused a backlash.

America is a fairly unique contry. Most countries are based on nationality. You would erase this. That is not tolerance any more than forcing interracial marriges would be.

Does this mean you want the United States to return to an immigration policy which discriminates on the basis of ethnicity? The last time we had such a policy (1965)American Jews fought long, hard and successfully to change the law. Do you really want to turn back the clock?
1. I took the US out of the debate on nationality. What part of unique and most don't you get?
2. I want all immigration reduced to assimilate immigrants. This is entirely irrelevent.
3. Jew supported the 1965 law and it is to our detriment. The importation of 4 million Muslims is not in the interest of American Jews. Balkanizing America is not in our interest.

That is not tolerance any more than forcing interracial marriges would be.

I'm talking about having an imigration policy which ignores ethnicity and religion. That doesn't mean just because someone of a different ethnicity/religion was admitted to your country that you are required to marry them. Maybe you could live next door to them, go bowling with them, and invite them to help you celebrate your wedding to someone you freely chose.

1. This changes the nature of the culture and people. It is a forced mixing of peoples.
2. In the case of Israel it would be suicide.

'Sharon has been a disaster ... he's the one who started diverting money to build all the settlements in the occupied territories. He said he did it to establish "facts on the ground,"' And he did establish facts on the ground. As you say - what a problem. Sharon even put settlements in Gaza - the world's most densely populated place and he clears a space to put settlements. He was a failure in his military campaign in Lebanon too. He didn't achieve his objectives, and he put the Israeli army in a position where they faced steady losses, so then they withdrew. Sending a message to the Palestinians that while negotiations are no good (they don't alter facts on the ground) violence certainly works.

I think for many Palestinians that's true. On the other hand, Sharon wants to drive all the Palestinians across the Jordan River. Furthermore, a recent Maariv poll shows that half all Israelis do too.
1. Please cite.

That was from an October 27, 2001 column by New York Times writer Anthony Lewis. The full quote is as follows: "In a poll of Israelis just published by the newspaper Maariv, 50 percent said they favored "transferring" all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza — sending them to Arab countries."

Do you really want to turn back the clock?

1. I took the US out of the debate on nationality. What part of unique and most don't you get?

And I put the U.S. back in. There are a lot of things wrong with current U.S. immigration policy, but one of the few things we do right, it seems to me, is not discriminate on the basis of religion or ethnicity.

Jew(s) supported the 1965 law and it is to our detriment. The importation of 4 million Muslims is not in the interest of American Jews. Balkanizing America is not in our interest.

Are you saying therefore that we should halt immigration of Muslims on the grounds that Muslims don't assimilate? I don't know if that's true. But if it is they certainly are not unique. Let me ask you a question. Do you distinguish between people who call themselves "American Jews" and people who call themselves "Jewish Americans?"

1. [Non-discrimination on the basis of religion or ethnicity] changes the nature of the culture and people. It is a forced mixing of peoples.

I don't know what's forced about it. No one says that just because we eliminated miscegination laws in the American south that southerners are "forced" to marry people of a different race. It just gives them a choice if, in case, they want to. As far as I can tell, most Americans agree that it is right and proper not to consider religion or ethnicity as a factor in immigration. Do you think most Americans are wrong? What would be a better policy when it came to religion/ethnicity?

Well, you're right. Sharon has left the Israelis in a totally untenable position. He put settlements in the occupied territories. Now he can't draw back to defensible borders because that would leave the settlements on the wrong side of the fence. The only solution is to annex the entire west bank and gaza but then what do you do with 3 million fast-breeding Palestinians? That's why I say he's waiting for the U.S. to attack Iraq. Saddam will launch missles at Israel in retaliation. The Palestinians will go wild with joy and launch sympathy attacks all over Israel and the occupied territories. Sharon will send in the IDF to drive the Palestinians across the Jordan at a time when the world's attention is focused on the U.S. war with Iraq. When the dust settles, the west bank and gaza will be Arab-free. But first he has to get the U.S. to attack, which is why he sent Netanyahu to tell Cheney not to wait for an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but to attack Iraq immediately.

It now appears that, contrary to the views expressed by some on this thread, the ruling Likud party of Israel is ALSO chanting, "3,5,7,9 - There's No Such Thing As Palestine..."