Fate:

The cool thing is . . . Hezekiah's tunnel. Ever been there? I would not do it again, because it's not built for men over 6 feet tall. Still, it ought to be considered a wonder of the ancient world.

I think I was when I was 15 ... time to go back ... i'll fit and even wear my hat.

Doctor Fate wrote:I think you've done a great job of explaining why the two situations are not comparable.

No, I am explaining that any situation in which an ethnic group with the power that oppresses one with less power is comparable.

And, I agree--a two-State solution is the ideal resolution. So, why won't the Palestinians accept it? They refuse to accept an Israel as currently constituted, even with diminished borders. They act as if the Arab peoples have not declared war after war upon Israel.

The PLO has accepted Israel's existence and all negotiations since the 1990s have been on the 2-state basis.

Terrific. The name was not pulled out of a hat. But, the Philistines were invaders. In any event, the Romans removed the Jews forcibly and/or eradicated them. Did some escape? Sure. Did some remain? Sure. The point is it would still be Israel if not for the Romans.

If some remained than they were neither eradicated nor forcibly removed.

Palestine was not actually named after the Philistines either, but it pretty much locates the same region as Israel. As it was the Philistines were coastal, and Israel was up in the hills. There is no real evidence where the Philistines came from, or if they were 'invaders' - certainly they were rivals of the Israeli kingdom, but equally they are mentioned at the time of Abraham as making deals with him and were not mentioned as a Canaanite people to be removed. Given that the Israelis were themselves 'invaders' - if you read what happened after Exodus in their own words, I don't get the point of making such a claim about another group from the same time.

Israel before the Romans arrived had not been independent for very long at all - the Hasmoneans gained full independence from the Seleucids in 110BC. This followed the Maccabees revolt, and start of the decline of the Empire (which was largely down to the growth of Rome). Israel had before then been under Ptolemaic Egypt, Alexander's Empire, Persia, Babylon and Assyria.

So when in 63BC Rome finished off the Seleucid empire and took over, Israel had only been a nation for 50 years. Had it not been the Romans, it could have been the Ptolemies, the Parthians or any other. And had it not been for successive Zealot revolts, Rome may not have been so harsh.

Apparently, when the Arab armies conquered the area, Christians and Jews were given the best access to Jerusalem that they'd had for 500 years.

That's nice.

Yes. That all ended when the Crusades evicted or killed anyone who was not a Christian, of course.

And at that point, it is likely that many people who were native to the area (Christian, Jewish, other) started to convert to Islam. So it's likely that there are Palestinians who are direct descended from pre-Revolt Jews. DNA testing suggests the same.

Okay, great. That's not the issue. The issue is whether there ought to be a Jewish homeland. The Palestinian position is "no."

And yet they have accepted Israel's right to exist, and have negotiated on a 2-state solution.

It is kind of the issue - if the Palestinians are not 'Arab invaders', but are indigenous and as likely to be so as the Israelis, then it's the homeland for both populations.

Things have changed. Not only did the 6-Day War demonstrate the non-defensible nature of the pre-67 borders, but we can be assured that a fully functioning nation of Palestine would be quickly armed. So, the question is can a 2-State solution based on defensible borders be agreed upon?

I doubt it. However, step one would be Palestine agreeing Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation. There are many others--like the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa Mosque that I think are nearly impossible.

Palestine has already agreed to Israel's right to exist. The "Jewish nation" is up to Israel, not anyone else.

On 'defencible borders', there are precious few places in the region that would count. With modern warfare and the existence of missiles, I doubt there could ever be any, for either side. The only 'defence' would be in how those borders were set up, manned and monitored.

Of course, you could prove me wrong and suggest what 'defensible borders' would look like out there.

Ray Jay wrote:

Sassenach wrote:Ah yes, the Assyrians, not the Hittites.

Of course the area was subsequently conquered by the Persians and the Greeks a long time before the Romans came along.

Egyptians: Passover
Persians: Purim
Greeks: Chanukah
Romans: Tisha b'av

its always the same ... they tried to kill us ... we are still here ... let's eat.

You put Passover in there? Isn't it called that because it was when 'God' was slaughtering the firstborn of the Egyptians and passed over the houses marked in lamb's blood that the Jews were living in?

As I recall, it was not even about the threat of death, but the escape from bondage that the Ten plagues (of which that one is the tenth and worst) was all about. Unsurprisingly, there's not a single feast for the tribes that the Jews were ordered to expel and/or massacre once they got to Canaan.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

Sassenach wrote:Ah yes, the Assyrians, not the Hittites.

Of course the area was subsequently conquered by the Persians and the Greeks a long time before the Romans came along.

Egyptians: Passover
Persians: Purim
Greeks: Chanukah
Romans: Tisha b'av

its always the same ... they tried to kill us ... we are still here ... let's eat.

You put Passover in there? Isn't it called that because it was when 'God' was slaughtering the firstborn of the Egyptians and passed over the houses marked in lamb's blood that the Jews were living in?

As I recall, it was not even about the threat of death, but the escape from bondage that the Ten plagues (of which that one is the tenth and worst) was all about. Unsurprisingly, there's not a single feast for the tribes that the Jews were ordered to expel and/or massacre once they got to Canaan.

Why unsurprising?

I'd say that Passover is an outlier, mostly because there isn't a corroborating historical record. I'm inclined to believe that it didn't happen.

But as long as you bring it up, the killing of the 1st born was a response to the Pharaoh who had ordered the killing of all Jewish males. That's why Moses was put in a basket and not raised by his mother, smarty pants.

Danivon:

It is kind of the issue - if the Palestinians are not 'Arab invaders',

I think you are taking the argument too far. There was a lot of movement amongst peoples over the 3,000 years. There were exiles and resettling. The land was in bad shape under Ottoman rule. The Palestinians who lived in the land that is currently Israel were often (but not always) recent arrivals after the Zionists came and created economic opportunity. There was fluid movement amongst Arab people within the Ottoman empire. The dominant situation is not that a Palestinian family was hanging out in Tel Aviv for 2,000 years and then the Jews came and kicked them out.

For the most part, the Palestinians did not consider themselves a separate people until somewhere between the 1600's and the 1900's depending on who you believe. In fact, up until 1947 the Jews in Palestine considered themselves to be Palestinians. Up until about the 1920's Palestinian Arabs often saw themselves as part of the Arab nation to be part of Syria and did not call for a separate state.. (The Brits and French divided the two when they carved up the area.) I think their consciousness as a separate people is a reaction to losing their land to the Zionists.

I'm not saying that the Palestinians have no claim. I believe they do. What I am saying is that it is not nearly as clear cut as either side claims.

A view from my Rabbi. His perspective is different than Danivons on what the Palestinians have agreed to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-jos ... 92936.html

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I think you've done a great job of explaining why the two situations are not comparable.

No, I am explaining that any situation in which an ethnic group with the power that oppresses one with less power is comparable.

But, did the blacks in South Africa attempt to wipe out the whites? Is there a genuine historical parallel to the wars launched by Arabs against Israel?

Or, are you just trying to make a political case?

And, I agree--a two-State solution is the ideal resolution. So, why won't the Palestinians accept it? They refuse to accept an Israel as currently constituted, even with diminished borders. They act as if the Arab peoples have not declared war after war upon Israel.

The PLO has accepted Israel's existence and all negotiations since the 1990s have been on the 2-state basis.

That is murky--at best.

Read "clauses regarding Israel" (to the end) here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinia ... ing_Israel

I submit the PLO charter has never been changed. Further, it's not just the PLO--what about Hamas?

Terrific. The name was not pulled out of a hat. But, the Philistines were invaders. In any event, the Romans removed the Jews forcibly and/or eradicated them. Did some escape? Sure. Did some remain? Sure. The point is it would still be Israel if not for the Romans.

If some remained than they were neither eradicated nor forcibly removed.

Um, yes they were. That they were not fully "eradicated" does not mean they were not targeted, removed, and/or dispersed. Maybe you prefer "driven out" or "crowded out?"

The complete destruction of Jerusalem and the settlement of several Greek and Roman colonies in Judah/Judaea and the Land of Israel (and the changing of its name to Palestina and of Jerusalem's name to Aelia Capitolina), indicated the intention of the Roman government to prevent the political regeneration of the Jewish nation and sever the connection to their homeland. Nevertheless, forty years later the Jews put forth efforts to recover their former freedom. With Israel exhausted, they strove to establish commonwealths on the ruins of Hellenism in Cyrene, Cyprus, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. These efforts, resolute but some would say unwise, were suppressed by Trajan (115–117 AD), and under the Emperor Hadrian the same fate befell the attempt of the Jews of Israel in a new uprising to regain their independence (133–135 AD). From this time on, in spite of unimportant movements under Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius, and Severus, the Jews, reduced in numbers, destitute, and crushed, lost their preponderance in their own homeland. Jerusalem had become, under the name "Ælia Capitolina", a Roman colony and entirely pagan city. Jews were forbidden entrance on pain of death, except for the day of Tisha B'Av, see also Anti-Judaism in the Roman Empire. Yet despite the decree, there has been an almost continual Jewish presence in Jerusalem for 3,300 years, and 43 Jewish communities in Israel remained in the 6th century: 12 on the coast, in the Negev desert, and east of the Jordan, and 31 villages in Galilee (in the northern Land of Israel) and in the Jordan Valley. Yavne on the coastal plain, associated with Yochanan ben Zakai, was an important center of Rabbinic Judaism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora

if you read what happened after Exodus in their own words, I don't get the point of making such a claim about another group from the same time.

Those other people groups . . . no longer exist as such.



So when in 63BC Rome finished off the Seleucid empire and took over, Israel had only been a nation for 50 years. Had it not been the Romans, it could have been the Ptolemies, the Parthians or any other. And had it not been for successive Zealot revolts, Rome may not have been so harsh.

Yes. That all ended when the Crusades evicted or killed anyone who was not a Christian, of course.

Yes, because the Muslims were kind, gentle souls--just as they are today. Maybe they need a new PR firm?

The Crusades, wrong as they were, were a response to something. Global warming, perhaps?

Wikipedia has a more balanced view than you present:

Some historians see the Crusades as part of a purely defensive war against Islamic conquest; some see them as part of long-running conflict at the frontiers of Europe; and others see them as confident, aggressive, papal-led expansion attempts by Western Christendom.

And yet they have accepted Israel's right to exist, and have negotiated on a 2-state solution.

Not true. Israel CANNOT exist, despite whatever promises are made, if "right of return" is part of the deal. There are too many Palestinians. Israel would quickly become "Palestine" by weight of numbers, even if there was no conflict.

It is kind of the issue - if the Palestinians are not 'Arab invaders', but are indigenous and as likely to be so as the Israelis, then it's the homeland for both populations.

Sure, sure. Try having a homeland with people who only desire to kill you . Oh wait. You do!

Palestine has already agreed to Israel's right to exist. The "Jewish nation" is up to Israel, not anyone else.

Not true.

On 'defencible borders', there are precious few places in the region that would count. With modern warfare and the existence of missiles, I doubt there could ever be any, for either side. The only 'defence' would be in how those borders were set up, manned and monitored.

Of course, you could prove me wrong and suggest what 'defensible borders' would look like out there.

No, I'll simply note the '67 borders are not. The Golan Heights, the narrow width at some points, it's just not.

Look, Israel has shown it can live in peace with Arab neighbors--see Jordan and Egypt. The issue is can the Palestinians, a people steeped in hatred of Jews, accept a Jewish nation?

Ray Jay wrote:I think their consciousness as a separate people is a reaction to losing their land to the Zionists.

Exactly.

Further, that "consciousness" has been fed by nations like Saudi Arabia, which funds terrorism instead of funding construction in the Palestinian areas. The goal seems to be keeping the Palestinians as fodder for the Islamic war against Israel.

On topic from today's WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/articles/andrew-r ... 1416613759

There were no fewer than 20 different groups—including the Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus of the Punjab, the Crimean Tatars, the Japanese and Korean Kuril and Sakhalin Islanders, the Soviet Chechens, Ingush and Balkars—many in the tens or even hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who were displaced and taken to different regions.

Yet all of these refugee groups, except one, chose to try to make the best of their new environments. Most have succeeded, and some, such as the refugees who reached America in that decade, have done so triumphantly. The sole exception has been the Palestinians, who made the choice to embrace fanatical irredentism and launch two intifadas—and perhaps now a third—resulting in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis.

After Germany lost World War II in 1945, more than three million of its people were forced to leave their homes in the Sudetenland, Silesia and regions east of the Oder and Neisse rivers—lands that their forefathers had tilled for centuries. These refugees embarked on a 300-mile journey westward under conditions of extreme deprivation and danger with only what they could carry in suitcases. ...

Having reached the new borders of East and West Germany, as delineated by the victorious Allies, they settled and made no irredentist claims to Poland and Czechoslovakia, the countries they had left. ...

Similarly, the late 1940s saw massive population transfers in the Punjab and Northwest Frontier territories of India when the British brought their empire there to a close in 1947. Some 16 million people crossed between the new states of Pakistan and India, leading to the deaths of between one-half and three-quarters of a million people in the communal massacres that ensued.

Yet while there are severe border disputes still between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, practically no one from the Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities is today agitating for restitution of the lands their forefathers farmed or owned in Punjab, the Northwest Frontier or elsewhere.

Ray Jay wrote:On topic from today's WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/articles/andrew-r ... 1416613759

There were no fewer than 20 different groups—including the Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus of the Punjab, the Crimean Tatars, the Japanese and Korean Kuril and Sakhalin Islanders, the Soviet Chechens, Ingush and Balkars—many in the tens or even hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who were displaced and taken to different regions.

Yet all of these refugee groups, except one, chose to try to make the best of their new environments. Most have succeeded, and some, such as the refugees who reached America in that decade, have done so triumphantly. The sole exception has been the Palestinians, who made the choice to embrace fanatical irredentism and launch two intifadas—and perhaps now a third—resulting in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis.

After Germany lost World War II in 1945, more than three million of its people were forced to leave their homes in the Sudetenland, Silesia and regions east of the Oder and Neisse rivers—lands that their forefathers had tilled for centuries. These refugees embarked on a 300-mile journey westward under conditions of extreme deprivation and danger with only what they could carry in suitcases. ...

Having reached the new borders of East and West Germany, as delineated by the victorious Allies, they settled and made no irredentist claims to Poland and Czechoslovakia, the countries they had left. ...

Similarly, the late 1940s saw massive population transfers in the Punjab and Northwest Frontier territories of India when the British brought their empire there to a close in 1947. Some 16 million people crossed between the new states of Pakistan and India, leading to the deaths of between one-half and three-quarters of a million people in the communal massacres that ensued.

Yet while there are severe border disputes still between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, practically no one from the Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities is today agitating for restitution of the lands their forefathers farmed or owned in Punjab, the Northwest Frontier or elsewhere.

You forgot this.

We will now read how the Palestinians are more oppressed than any people in history, save the slaves in the US, the Natives in the US, and women in the US.

It's kind of a theme: the US is the most oppressive country in history and Israel is second. Ask any liberal.

ray

A view from my Rabbi. His perspective is different than Danivons on what the Palestinians have agreed to.

I agree that the Palestinians don't have the leadership that the American Civil Rights had.Far from it.
But does that mean they deserve to be exploited and oppressed because ot this?
If MLK had never risen to leadership, would legal institutional segregation, and discrimination still be part of the American society? And would that be right?
Kind of blaming the victims your rabibi.

Your Rabbi says that the Palestinians have been let down by a lack of Palestinian leadership that has failed to make Israel behave morally. As if Israel had no reason to behave morally on its own..I suppose that the EU embargo is an attempt at the kind of civil rights actions that MLK was responsible for...
.
And the WSJ is saying that Palestinians should settle. Just because other ethnic and national groups have...

The sole exception has been the Palestinians, who made the choice to embrace fanatical irredentism and launch two intifadas—and perhaps now a third—resulting in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis.

Of course they forget any number of other groups. Kurds for instance, who's campaign to form a national home has been ongoing for some years with support from the WSJ editorial board in the past.
I wonder if we went back in time what the WSJ view was of the right of self determination ? There is certainly an unbalanced view of that right, when it comes to Palestinians...
worth a read when reviewing the actual circumstances regarding the creation of Israel. (More useful then arguing about the justification provided by one groups scriptures...)

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 ... of-israel/

fate

The Crusades, wrong as they were, were a response to something.

You quoted something in Wkipedia, but not the literal reason for the Crusades..

It was launched on 27 November 1095 by Pope Urban II with the primary goal of responding to an appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who requested that western volunteers come to his aid and help to repel the invading Seljuq Turks from Anatolia. An additional goal soon became the principal objective—the Christian reconquest of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and the freeing of the Eastern Christians from Muslim rule

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

And you also didn't mention that the First Crusade started with the first genocides of Jews in Europe. In fact anti-antisemitism and organized violence against Jews is usually tracked back to the First Crusades...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres

The call for the First Crusade touched off the Rhineland massacres,[1] also known as the German Crusade of 1096,[2] the persecutions of 1096 or Gezeroth Tatenu.[3] Prominent leaders of crusaders involved in the massacres included Peter the Hermit and especially Count Emicho.[4] As part of this persecution, the destruction of Jewish communities in Speyer, Worms and Mainz were noted as the "Hurban Shum" (Destruction of Shum).[5] These were new persecutions of the Jews in which peasant crusaders from France and Germany attacked Jewish communities. A number of historians refer to the Antisemitic events as "pogroms".[6]

According to David Nirenberg,[7] the events of 1096 in the Rhineland "occupy a significant place in modern Jewish historiography and are often presented as the first instance of an antisemitism that would henceforth never be forgotten and whose climax was the Holocaust."

For a thousand years, Jews had a fairly comfortable existence in Europe .... until theFirst Crusades.
They continued to have a fairly comfortable existence in the Middle East where Muslims ruled. Until 1947 over a million and a half lived comfortably in Iraq, Syria and other nations. The creation of Israel and the expulsion of Arabs in Israelis territory actually made their lives much more difficult .
If the right to self self determination is something we can agree upon, the creation of Israel is actually something that suspended this right for the majority of people in Israel at the time...

fate

But, did the blacks in South Africa attempt to wipe out the whites?

Yes.
One of the leading songs of the ANC was |Kill the Boers", taught to all black school children.

Some Boers accuse the South African government of allowing a continuing "genocide" against Boer farmers... (Many have been victims of violence by marauding bands of black bandits in the last 25 years..)

ricky:

worth a read when reviewing the actual circumstances regarding the creation of Israel. (More useful then arguing about the justification provided by one groups scriptures...)

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 ... of-israel/

You are right ... that is definitely worth a read. The comments are also very interesting.

You know, the writer basically questions the legitimacy of Israel going back to its founding in 1948. I think that is the mindset of the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab countries. It's not about the West Bank -- they want Israel to cease to exist.

Ricky:

For a thousand years, Jews had a fairly comfortable existence in Europe .... until theFirst Crusades.
They continued to have a fairly comfortable existence in the Middle East where Muslims ruled. Until 1947 over a million and a half lived comfortably in Iraq, Syria and other nations. The creation of Israel and the expulsion of Arabs in Israelis territory actually made their lives much more difficult .
If the right to self self determination is something we can agree upon, the creation of Israel is actually something that suspended this right for the majority of people in Israel at the time...

There are about 10 errors in history and logic in just these few short sentences. Let's see who can spot the most.