Posted on 11/17/2007 9:31:32 PM PST by Psychic Dice
Who is the rightful owner of the land now occupied by Israel? Anyone interested in a fair solution to the Palestian/Israeli question has to ask this question.
Back in the 1970s Joan Peters was a liberal who set out to prove that American policies were the cause of conflicts going on there. Two years into her research she realize that she had it wrong. Her book From Time Immemorial (The Origins Of The Arab Jewish Conflict Over Palestine) details what she discovered.
It is a tome (600 pages) and isn’t a recent release. Although I remember its 1984 publication, I didn’t read it until two year ago.
To be honest, most Jews don’t know this history – especially the young who have recently gone through American universities. Many of them believe that underneath it all the Israelis ripped off the Arabs. Peters documents a very different history.
Peters discovered that the Arab propaganda machine had - for some time - been convincing the West of three lies: • 1) The Jews and Arabs got along famously for the last 1,200 years before the Zionists came along. • 2) Millions of Arabs had owned and worked the land of Palestine from time immemorial. • 3) The Jews drove those millions off their land in 1948.
Having researched thousand of sources: British libraries, Ottoman and other Muslim records, many living Jews and Muslims (including Yasser Arafat), Winston Churchill, even Mark Twain, Peters shows that: • 1) Every Muslim country perpetuated third or fourth class citizenship on its Jewish populations for 12 centuries through habitual mass murders, rapes, extortion, theft, beatings, lies, and many other special rules that would make the Third Reich proud. • 2) Islam reduced the thriving population of the Holy Land (including what is now Jordan) from millions in the 8th Century to mere hundreds of thousands as it over and over and over and over again and again and again and again looted it - until most of the land was owned by three families of Syrians in Damascus. In 1887, 60,000 Jews and a couple thousand less Muslims (only 28,000 of which were Bedouin Arabs who were nomadic, not land owners) lived within the boundaries of what would become the modern day Israel. • 3) In 1948, the only Muslims who were not allowed to return to their land after seven Islamic countries declared war on Israel were the ones who had left Israel to fight against the Jews.
From Time Immemorial documents precisely why the Israelis are right and why we are right to back them.
>>Here’s another thing that get’s ignored; the Egyptians built a wall to prevent the Palestinians from entering Egypt. About a year ago a group of Palestinians broke through and entered Egypt. They were driven back by the Egyptian soldiers.
After the Palestinian excursions into Jordan and Lebanon, Egypt might have had it right. :)
>>Why won’t Roger Waters, Sean Penn and the rest of the delusional wonders protest that?
The Left wants to destroy everything they don’t control: our government, our military, our corporations, our religions, our families.
The enemy of their enemy is their friend. That includes Chavez, drugees, thugs, Islamofascists.
More like replacements for pagan feasts. Devotion to Mary, if you sre implying this, goes back into the second century, because it relates closely to the doctrine of the incarnation. No festival dats for the Nativity was universdally celebrated. Some belived that Jesus died on the anniversary of his birth. The real date controversy was over when to celebrate Easter, since this is the principal Christian feast.
Have you of this barrier?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi-Yemen_barrier
Arabs are free to kill, rape, beat, deprive of human rights, and fence their own.
Well newbie, since you asked so nicely, I will provide it.
Thomas Baylis, How Israel was Won, page 22.
It should be noted that the brand of Christianity of the Puritans, namely strict Calvinism, more than any other Christian theology, most thoroughly integrates the Tanak (the Old Testament) with the New Testament. Essential to the Calvinism of the Puritans (and conservative Presbyterians today) is what is known as “Covenant Theology” the idea God works through a series of interlocking covenants with his people all throughout history. This seems to be exactly the way God related to Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, Moses and David too.
Covenantal Calvinists, like the Puritans were, will emphasize God’s covenant promise to David—that an heir would be the eternal King and Messiah, was fulfilled in Jesus. The New Testament book of Hebrews too, clearly says Christians are grafted into the tree of faith established by Abraham...and that we are his spiritual children and heirs as it were. The Puritan, very thorough bible scholars that they were, knew these things.
This may have as much to do with Puritan affinity with Jews than anything else.
The only people in America who have as much confidence in, and knowledge of, the bible as the Puritans did, are evangelicals...(especially the Calvinist ones)....hence, as someone said above, Southern evangelicals are, in a lot of ways, the “spiritual” heirs of New England Puritans.
102 posted on 11/22/2007 8:11:37 PM MST by RobbyS
Constantine at Nicea in order to disassociate from anything Jewish, Fifty days after the feast of First Fruits was the G-d commanded feastYah'shua's resurrection occurred on the G-d's Commanded Feast of First Fruits,
shalom b'shem Yah'shua
which occurs ( as detailed in Leviticus 23:15) on the day following the Shabbat
following Pesach, which was the first day of the week (a Sunday).
introduced pagan feasts as a substitute for G-d's commanded feast day.
of Shavuot (Pentecost in the Greek) where all observant Jews were
to be in Jerusalem to celebrate the giving of the Torah to Moses, spending
the day reading YHvH's Word (Jesus).
>>At the risk of sounding like the “name it and claim it” people, I must truthfully state that if all Israel returned to HaShem with a full heart there would be no need to rely on human instrumentalities at all.
>>I suggest you read some of the recent articles by David Klinghoffer I’ve been posting the past few weeks.
To be honest, praise the lord and pass the ammunition is in my opinion the necessary point of view.
However, you might be right. I will try to make the time to find the articles you reference.
>>Well newbie, since you asked so nicely, I will provide it.
Thomas Baylis, How Israel was Won, page 22.
I don’t know what “newbie” is supposed to mean. Am I sitting at the feet of a wise old master?
How Israel Was Won will arrive next week.
In the meantime, can you provide a date and the perimeter of the territory for your assertion: “The Zionists purchased only 7% of Palestine?”
>>Have you of this barrier?
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi-Yemen_barrier
>>Arabs are free to kill, rape, beat, deprive of human rights, and fence their own.
Here in the USA, our southern border needs a fence. Fortunately, we are dealing mostly with Mexican peasants, whom the Catholic Church, it seems to me, did a pretty good job of Christianizing.
However, Muslim prayer books and other Islamic paraphernalia have been found along the invasion trails, so that border has to come under control.
I point out to our illegal aliens that if a nuke goes off in LA that it is going to kill a lot of Mexicans on both sides of the border as the winds blow its fallout east.
I usually am very protective of newbies, but I find your attitude and your demands very offputting. So, if you want to find the date and perimeter of the territory for my assertion, read the Baylis book when it comes. Or learn to ask and not demand.
Welcome to FR
History as written by a shrink?
I think I’m going to need an explanation as to what your post means. Thanks.
Psychologist Thomas
Surely, you can offer a better argument for or against his conclusions based on more than that.
>>>>What’s your documentation?
>>>Well newbie, since you asked so nicely, I will provide it. Thomas Baylis, How Israel was Won, page 22.
I hadn’t asked nicely or nastily. There was intentionally no emotion in my question. You had disagreed with me with a statement of fact as you see it and I wanted to hear why. My thinking: get in quick; get out quick; see what he’s got.
Further, in a lot of years of Internet action, I don’t recall “newbee” ever being used affectionately. Sometimes it is a statement of fact, but usually has slightly diminutive connotations.
So what was I to make of your inaccurate representation of my four word question? The most negative possibility was sarcasm, at precisely what I had no idea.
More importantly, you were deigning to provide me your info so long as my behavior fits your sense of propriety? But there was no attitude one way or another when you came out with your bargain.
I have no intention of tiptoeing through your tulips. I call ‘em as I see ‘em and sometimes that is passionately. Obviously you are the one setting up the demand as to the behavior you are going to require of me in future posts.
In other words, if you want to have the conversation, have it. If you want to start bargaining over how I express myself, forgetaboutit.
>>I usually am very protective of newbies
Thanks, but I don’t require protection,
>>but I find your attitude and your demands very offputting.
Likewise. By now you won’t be enjoying my attitude, but you are still inaccurate. I have made no demand on you, except to make none on me.
>>So, if you want to find the date and perimeter of the territory for my assertion, read the Baylis book when it comes.
I no longer do. I am cancelling the order for the Baylis book.
>>Or learn to ask and not demand.
One more time with the lesson in manners?
If you want to find out more, go here and here.
Whatever the final verdict, it's clear that Peters didn't prove anything with that book.
The dissociation of Christians from the Jews began within ten years of the death of Jesus, with the missions of Paul and the others to the Jews of the Disapora and to the gentiles. , or certainly with the Jewish wars. That would be after the killing of James the “brother” of Jesus, and the subsequent scattering of the Jerusalem Church.
Well, since you have told me in no uncertain terms that I am wrong, you and I have nothing more to discuss. In the future, you can skip right on over my posts. I will make sure I do the same with yours.
Peters’ book had many flaws, but her critics did not disprove her contention that the huge increase in the Arab population came not from natural increase, but from in-migration. Her critics depend heavily one official records which I do not accept as conclusive. If 12-20 million Latinos can slip into the USA unrecorded, why do they think that the Ottoman or British bean-counters could keep any better tabs on the movements of the Arabs of the region?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.