Boop His Tiny Tail!
Before He Turns Into an Enormous Fire-Breathing Monster
Donate!
A Sponsoring FReeper
Will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 07/24/2011 11:00:32 AM PDT by Eleutheria5
The Bible is an “ancient holy book” that is irrelevant to the Palestinian Authority's aim to take over all of Judea and Samaria from the Jews, a PA activist said in a rare debate last week with a “settler” in a Washington synagogue.
The Bible is full of “medieval” traditions that should not be considered or influence decisions on whether or not to create the Palestinian Authority as an independent state within Israel’s borders, Dr. Hussein Ibish, Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, said in the debate with David Ha’Ivri, director of the Shomron (Samaria) Liaison Office.
His comment is at odds with Palestinian Authority Muslim clerics who claim that Jews have “stolen” the Temple Mount, Rachel’s Tomb and other holy Jewish sites, which they say have no connection with Jews. The clerics have argued the sites' alleged connections with Islam, a religion which did not exist in Biblical times and which was not founded until centuries after the Holy Temples were built and approximately 2,000 years after the matriarch Rachel died. The Koran has many excerpts from the Bible.
Ibish’s comments were in answer to Ha’Ivri’s statement that Jerusalem is mentioned over 800 times in the Bible and not at all in the Koran and that most of the Biblical narrative relates to events in Judea and Samaria.
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
I can’t say I’d just like to shoot the bastards and be done with it, ‘cause I’ll be banned ... but if I could have Froggy’s magic twanger for just a short while ....
“The Bible is an “ancient holy book” that is irrelevant to the Palestinian Authority’s aim to take over all of Judea and Samaria from the Jews”
Maybe. But the promises of the God of the bible ain’t irrelevant...(and He’s not asleep...)
I do pay attention to MEMRI as well as Al Jazeera. As a Jewish conservative, I consider it a matter of self-preservation. Our own media are bull-tit useless in tracking the intentions of America’s enemies. And by that I mean those not already in the White House.
The Palestinian Authority Muslims and clerics and their Koran that is full of “medieval” traditions, will ultimately pay the full judgment of the Living God who will transport them permanently to the Lake of Fire for all eternity.
And of course Western academia (and religion) has been on this “the Bible is mythology” kick for over a century.
NOTHING terrifies a Liberal like talking about G-d. That they may yet be judged fills them with horror.
But what is relevant is that the land was essentially unoccupied and unwanted in the mid-19th Century. (See Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad for a first hand, non-political account.) Some Jews decided they wanted to buy up the land from the Turks who controlled it, and the Turks couldn't sell their worthless land fast enough. After the Turks were displaced by the British, the Jews continued as best they could to obtain legal title to land by purchasing it. Now some Arabs who never had legal title to anything want that land because they think some great-grandparent of theirs pitched a tent their once. That, this isn't how it works anywhere in the world never seems to occur to them.
ML/NJ
And that this is all fulfillment of the “irrelevant” Bible doesn’t occur to you. But our differences are moot. Either way, we come to the same conclusion, and neither way is mutually exclusive.
Actually Torah is QUITE relevant to me. I object to your insinuation that it is not.
ML/NJ
“I’ve got to say I agree with the Palie; about the Bible anyway.”
“Actually Torah is QUITE relevant to me. I object to your insinuation that it is not.”
???
Everything on this earth will pass away. Everything, except the Word of God.
The grass withers, the flower faids, but the Word of God shall stand forever.
Isaiah 40:8
Add all that together, and don't you have very solid legitimacy right there? Completely irrespective of genetic and biblical claims?
I ask this in all sincerity, looking for your perspective. Because it seems to me that the grounds I listed above, no one of them in itself, but added together, are solidly persuasive. Better, in my view, than the racial/Scriptural grounds, because then it's not open to charges of racism, Torah-vs-Koran fisticuffs, and so forth.
What say?
This has all the research you need: Who Are the Palestinians? by Yashiko Sagamori!
Not only that but the region was only called "Palestine" as a way chosen by the Romans to make it even more difficult for the Jewish (or nations) to return.
ML/NJ
You know what I meant. The Torah should not be our basis for present day legal arguments about title to the land.
ML/NJ
I think that trying to keep the Torah and the Koran out of the debate is like trying to see a marriage counselor and refusing to discuss sex or children. In fact, to discard the argument of the Torah as irrelevant is to discard our strongest claim against Muslims and the rest of the world as well.
The Koran, it so happens, supports our claim and reinforces that of the prophesies in the Bible.
http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/28575/allah-is-a-zionist/
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=429259
If all we rely on is the nation-building undertaken by the likes of Baron Edmond Benjamin de Rothschild, and the pioneers whose labors his financing enabled, then we beg the question, why pick a fight with the Muslims? Right in the middle of the Ottoman empire, you have to try to make a Jewish homeland? You have to help the British overthrow them? Why not Madagascar, or Grand Island, or Uganda? Why not do all your nation-building there?
The only answer possible is that this is our promised land, where we began and where we have nearly four thousand years of roots BECAUSE the Bible says so. We didn’t just start coming there one day. Not right after the Holocaust, not right after the Balfour declaration, not right after Le Baron made his bountiful capital available, nor right after the Land Reform Act of 1861, nor after the Ottoman conquest of 1515 (1526?). We have always, at every possible opportunity, at great risk, made our way here. More than the land belongs to us, we belong to it, BECAUSE the Bible says so.
As such, all the nation building and sanctioning of which you speak were inevitable. Nobody could have kept us from it.
What about fisticuffs between the Koran and the Torah? They are highly contrived and instigated by selfish, deceptive people within the Muslim community, and as I already noted, the Koran itself supports and foretells our eventual return and the rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple. Arabs, both inside and outside of Israel have actually benefited from our return, and continue to do so despite all the hoopla about “oppression”.
So what is there problem? It’s one of culture. The culture that grew from the Koran insisted that the “people of the book,” both Christians and Jews live in a humiliated and degraded state. The Koran may say that one day the Children of Israel will return and reestablish their kingdom, but they aren’t happy about no longer having us to kick around and treat like crap. They also don’t like the way that we make them look bad because their countries are so f@#$ed up compared to ours.
So they do what Montezuma did. His religion foretold the return of the white man and the end of his empire, so when Cortez and his company were inexorably moving towards Mexico City, he did all he could to test the veracity of that prophecy. He incited his provinces against the invaders, instigating ambushes and engineering rock slides. But when Cortez finally got to Mexico City, he rolled out the red carpet for him, even though he knew he wouldn’t like what came next.
So, too, with the Arabs. They won’t believe we are the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies that the Koran echos unless and until we act like it. The more we negotiate, concede, and waive our biblical rights, the less they believe it’s show time. If we would build the Beit Hamikdash now, they would fight like junkyard dogs, but once it was built, they would finally accept the fact that Mohammed’s words have come true along with those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and all them Jooo! prophets that Mohammed plagiarized.
Personally, I am against taking such a radical step at this time, but if we don’t stand by our Biblical birthright, our secularly acquired title will not be respected, either. If we do, then the latter will be seen for what it is, a fulfillment of the former.
As for the
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.