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.
Nine months back from Sukkot is Chanukah where My research has shown the error crept in There was an effort to disassociate from anything The Annunciation would have occurred at Chanukah.
shalom b'shem Yah'shua
the "light of the world" entered the temple.
during the fourth century under Constantine and
during the council of Nicea.
Jewish and introduce substitutes from paganism:
Ishtar and Sol Invictus .
Jews killed Christ according to most hell-fire preachers..... and all the preachers I’ve ever heard in 57 years added, “as part of God’s plan.” So what?
The Zionists purchased only 7% of Palestine.....There is NO Palestine. Only a desert area so named by the Bitish.
Yes, there was a Palestine.
My manners are impeccable - - like my English.
>>3) The Jews drove those millions off their land in 1948.
>Wrong. The Arab nations called on the Arabs living in Israel to “come out so that we may cleanse the land.”
>They abandoned their homes anticipating a quick return after the “war.” Unfortunately for them the Arab armies were repelled by the Israelis who were using antiquated and inferior military equipment.
>The food in the larders and the water in the cisterns found at the abandoned houses saved the Israelis from starvation and dehydration until they could grow/collect their own resources.
Peters makes a point that is ignored by everyone. After that war, at least as many Jews as Arabs who were expelled from Israel were stripped of everything they owned and thrown out of Arab countries.
>>Has anyone looked into what kind of rent the Jews could collect if they rented it out and lived in another country?
Do you know of any place that the Palestinians move in and the property values go up?
And after the Jews move out, would you have Fatah or Hamas mediate landlord tenant disputes?
Jefferson wouldn't have burned Bibles, just done a cut and paste job. Imagine what he could have done with internet access in his post Presidential years at Monticello.
Ironically, the Southern planter Jefferson, as the representative of the "left" of those days, received the majority of Jewish support. That's the start of American Jews' love affair with what is today the Democrat party, but you have to realize that these "left wing" Democrats espoused an interpretation of the Constitution and of the Union that in our day is considered "rightwing" (ie, proto-Confederate "states' rights" and strict Constitutional constructionism). Meanwhile the "right wing," which was paranoid about "French atheists," was strongest in what we think of today as the secular northeast, which was Federalist, loose constructionist, and nationalist.
Neo-Confederates like to claim that Puritanism is the direct lineal ancestor of contemporary Northeastern liberalism. And while the charge horrifies me, there is no doubt that if you look at a political map today you will see that the "blue states" are the states traditionally associated with the historically conservative Federalist/Whig/Republican tradition, while the "red states" are states associated with Jeffersonian and Jacksonian radicalism.
So is contemporary liberalism merely the continuation of the "lordly purse-proud aristocracy" that the Jacksonians railed against? I don't like to think so, but nature makes no leap, and the conservative Federalists certainly were more sympathetic to native Blacks and Indians than to "French atheists." Could this be connected with contemporary Eastern liberalism's preference of "Blacks and Hispanics" to European immigrants? Or were the McKinley/Bryan campaigns, in which the socialist was a Biblical Fundamentalist and the "conservatives" associated with the Old Ivy Leage Establishment connected to today's Coastal/Heartland political divide? And shoot, is there some logical reason that Vermont, historically the most Republican state is today one of the most radical while the conservative ones (including even New England's New Hampshire) were historically Democrat?
I certainly hope none of this is true, but it's hard not to notice.
It is certain that today's red states were historically Jacksonian and the blue ones historicall Federalist/Whig/Republican. It's also certain that the radical populists blamed all their troubles on the Eastern bankers, and that for much of the past one hundred years radical conservatives have blamed the same villains for being "secretly behind Communism."
Maybe at the turn of the twentieth century our universe collided with another one where John D. Rockefeller was the radical and Williams Jennings Bryan was the conservative, and their personalities got mixed up. Maybe the Eastern blue-bloods turned against conservatism when conservatism ceased to consider eugenics (for the purpose of worldwide white supremacy) as one of its primary causes (the "conservative" Lothrop Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color, was a eugenicist and friend of Margaret Sanger). Or maybe the Eastern Establishment was merely so terrified by the leftwing assassination of William McKinley they decided to coopt the Left and take it over (which may be one reason the American Left is so non-anarchist and committed to the historical American government; the American Left, far from advocating revolution, seems to have nightmares about camouflaged rightwingers marching on Washington and overthrowing the government). All one can say is that the historically conservative regions have turned radical and the historically radical regions have turned conservative. One could also point out that in the nineteenth century John D. Rockefeller's pastor was the Fundamentalist Baptist and chr*stian Zionist William Blackstone; in the twentieth his pastor was the notorious liberal Harry Emerson Fosdick, who gave Fundamentalists their name (and it wasn't a compliment).
So I don't know. What do you think is going on?
PS: Please don't ping this to the neo-Confederates. They're unbearable enough as it is!
If any of them were less pro-Israel than GB, he*d have to be Paul. The Bush-Rice-Hamas Axis seems bent on destroying Israel. Israel*s PM Ohmert must have a death-wish, much like many of our own leaders here in the US. Ohmert*s latest concession, coerced by our deranged State Dept is a total shocker. I heard it yesterday on Savage Nation: giving missiles, rockets & guns plus ammo to—Hamas. That*s right. Maybe Hamas already went thru the billions GW handed them recently, maybe the Iranians upped the price. And our soldiers die,lose limbs and eyes, while our government aids and abets the enemy. Israel needs a few good men—l967caliber. A coup—bloodless or not. I think we need one here, too.
>>It’s a great book, very illuminating.
I think so too.
>>But, fundamentally it doesn’t matter who’s right and who’s wrong.
It always matters who’s right and who’s wrong.
If not, we should quit resisting the Islamofascists, scrap the Constitution, quit voting, revert to the Ottoman system and let a caliph top our judiciary. He would sleep with a woman until she produced a boy. She was then never again allowed sex. When he died, his 5 to 40 sons killed each other until one was left.
And we could work business ownership the way they do in Saudi Arabia. If you build a successful business that a prince wants to take from you, he simply buys you out whether you want to sell or not, for half price.
In other words, we either want brute force to rule, especially when it comes to individual rights and personal propety, or not.
>>Hitler was right about the Sudetenland and Danzig being historically German, but it still started WWII.
Hitler might have been historically right, but I don’t think that anyone would agree that that is why he started WWII. His goal was to dominate the world.
>>That’s why irredentism has been discredited as a ground for war. The solution instead is partition and exchange populations, not fight wars.
Had to look up irredentism: “the recovery of territory culturally or historically related to one’s nation but now subject to a foreign government.” It’s a good word.
But I don’t think the concept can be discredited totally. In specific conflicts, cultural and historical roots will weigh in importance differently from every other. It doesn’t seem possible to say that irredentism is always 100% or 0% a factor.
>>This is the only area in the world where diplomats encourage irredentism, which has gotten a bad name everywhere else in the world for starting wars. It’s abetted by the UN running those hideous “refugee” camps that add gasoline to the fire.
After their first war, just as many Jews were expelled from Arab countries as Arabs tossed out of Israel. Those Jews, though losing everything they owned, didn’t end up in “refugee” camps.
Could it be that the rulers of the Arab countries need an impoverished mob/army to destabilize the region whenever they want the price of oil to go up?
>>Instead of encouraging Arab irredentism, the world ought to recognize the UN’s 1948 decision was the only one that can lead to peace, which means partition into a Jewish and Arab state, which has effectively been done after 50+ years of Israel’s existence.
Arabs encourage irredentism and it’s not going away. They get a lot of support around the world – even here in the USA – by perpetuating their irredentist lies. Why not refute them?
>>HaShem owns it (along with the rest of the universe), and He has allotted it to `Am Yisra’el as their homeland and as the sacristy of the human race, where the chosen priestly Nation performs the Divine Service and the fullness of the mitzvot.
You’ll get a lot further with that argument and an Uzi than with just that argument alone.
Further many of the folks around the world who can help you create an economy that is strong enough to buy as many Uzis as you need don’t believe the same as you do. Why not humor them with a winning argument?
>>American Infidel
Isn’t that redundant? :)
>>The Zionists purchased only 7% of Palestine.
What’s your documentation?
>>But the LEFT, that is to say the Enlightment crowd, have bought into a rosy view of Islam. His monotheism was acceptable to the deists and even to the atheists among them because it denied the notion of incarnation that was so hated by the Enlightenment. The fallacy of this approach is that they “misunderestimated” the power of his religion to resist their own doctrines.
I have no idea what this is a reference to. I think that you are trying to answer someone else.
>>If you have to explain what it is you meant, then I am not the one who needs to learn English.
>>My manners are impeccable - - like my English.
Didn’t have to explain the obvious to anybody but you.
You are a waste of time, so I won’t bother with further posts from you.
Welcome to FR!
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.
Why won’t Roger Waters, Sean Penn and the rest of the delusional wonders protest that?
Do you know of any place that the Palestinians move in and the property values go up?
Did you see the “Crap” they left in the Church of the Nativity? Literally! They crapped in the sacred places in sanctuary!
Further many of the folks around the world who can help you create an economy that is strong enough to buy as many Uzis as you need don’t believe the same as you do. Why not humor them with a winning argument?
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.
>>Did you see the “Crap” they left in the Church of the Nativity? Literally! They crapped in the sacred places in sanctuary!
Peters documents in their own words (letters to home) how during the conquest of Spain they killed the priests and raped/killed the nuns, which they stopped during prayer times and went back to as soon as they were finished.
That barbarity was business as usual for the time, but Islam has never reformed.
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.
