Israel going in?

[Lurker66]

No, it was a matter of refuge from persecution (I wouldn't have picked the Holy Land personally).
Sumerians came first, followed by Akkadians (Semites), Babylonians (Semites), then the Hebrews. The oldest city (not civilization) in known existence is considered to be Jericho on the West Bank. The etymology of Jericho is considered to be Canaanite (Semitic) by some. As part of the Fertile Crescent, control the lands currently considered Israel have been more or less continuously contested throughout all of recorded history. As such, I don't consider any current tribe to have any exclusive right to control the Holy Lands or Israel. What I do recognize is the right of ALL tribes to exist and have secure lands over which to expand their existence. Palestinians have that right and Israelis have that right. Since one recognizes the other but not vice-versa, overall I come down on the side of the one doing the recognizing. It's really that simple.

Within that I have the ability to objectively judge each sequence of actions and assign proportional blame to both sides. Israel is not always "right", but they are more often than the warring Palestinians. Neither of them require the other and they don't have to be mortal enemies. At some point it was a choice to be that way. Until that choice changes, nothing else will change. Nothing the United States or any Islamic nation could do will alter the course of history in the region. Nothing.

Hatred was the justification for persecuting Jews. Nothing more, nothing less.

Pretty good history lesson. Old timers know stuff.

 

[Glocktogo]

Not trying to derail or nitpick...just curious(it caught my attention). Is there a reason you didn't put (Semite) behind Hebrews as well(since you did it for the others)?

Nice summary btw.

Just that I figured it was a given.

Pretty good history lesson. Old timers know stuff.

Who you callin' old Willis?

I've been studying the conflict for decades in the context of security and counter-terrorism. I was signed up for the Corps when the Beirut bombing occurred. I spent a good deal of time in the region on the 2nd MEU(SOC) and MAGTF 2-88. I'm one of a handful of Americans that's been shot at by Iran and not by proxy. In my day job I have to keep up with current trends in terrorism. Rather than just look at the actions, I like to understand the cause. That way if I discuss the matter with a colleague, I can speak from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. For those who've done the research, it's easier to understand why the radicals hate us (hint, it has nothing whatsoever to do with our "freedom" or "democracy"). That doesn't mean they aren't some truly reprehensible people in their own right. In many cases they're just a powder-keg desperately looking for any excuse to ignite. The shame of it is when we invariably give them one.

 

[Lurker66]

Just that I figured it was a given.



Who you callin' old Willis?

I've been studying the conflict for decades in the context of security and counter-terrorism. I was signed up for the Corps when the Beirut bombing occurred. I spent a good deal of time in the region on the 2nd MEU(SOC) and MAGTF 2-88. I'm one of a handful of Americans that's been shot at by Iran and not by proxy. In my day job I have to keep up with current trends in terrorism. Rather than just look at the actions, I like to understand the cause. That way if I discuss the matter with a colleague, I can speak from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. For those who've done the research, it's easier to understand why the radicals hate us (hint, it has nothing whatsoever to do with our "freedom" or "democracy"). That doesn't mean they aren't some truly reprehensible people in their own right. In many cases they're just a powder-keg desperately looking for any excuse to ignite. The shame of it is when we invariably give them one.

In modern times ive always looked at it from a socioreligious point. One thing ive noticed is that Israel is so deeply religious and the poor and uneducated are the primary targets of the fanaticly religious. Its really not hard for educated Muslims/Christians/Jews to use religious zeal of the poor and uneducated as a tool of terrorism. If that makes any sense.

 

[TedKennedy]

In modern times ive always looked at it from a socioreligious point. One thing ive noticed is that Israel is so deeply religious and the poor and uneducated are the primary targets of the fanaticly religious. Its really not hard for educated Muslims/Christians/Jews to use religious zeal of the poor and uneducated as a tool of terrorism. If that makes any sense.

Makes perfect sense. I listened to Baptist preachers expound on the virtues of modern day Israel for way too many years. Seemed they could do no wrong, and the US would surely crumble should we fail to support them. Maybe I'm a slow learner, but my observations did not jibe with the weekly dose of world news coming from the pulpit. Start questioning or criticizing in that venue, and results are pretty predictable.

 

[RickN]

No, it was a matter of refuge from persecution (I wouldn't have picked the Holy Land personally).
Sumerians came first, followed by Akkadians (Semites), Babylonians (Semites), then the Hebrews. The oldest city (not civilization) in known existence is considered to be Jericho on the West Bank. The etymology of Jericho is considered to be Canaanite (Semitic) by some. As part of the Fertile Crescent, control the lands currently considered Israel have been more or less continuously contested throughout all of recorded history. As such, I don't consider any current tribe to have any exclusive right to control the Holy Lands or Israel. What I do recognize is the right of ALL tribes to exist and have secure lands over which to expand their existence. Palestinians have that right and Israelis have that right. Since one recognizes the other but not vice-versa, overall I come down on the side of the one doing the recognizing. It's really that simple.

Within that I have the ability to objectively judge each sequence of actions and assign proportional blame to both sides. Israel is not always "right", but they are more often than the warring Palestinians. Neither of them require the other and they don't have to be mortal enemies. At some point it was a choice to be that way. Until that choice changes, nothing else will change. Nothing the United States or any Islamic nation could do will alter the course of history in the region. Nothing.

Hatred was the justification for persecuting Jews. Nothing more, nothing less.

Great post!

 

[Billybob]

No, it was a matter of refuge from persecution (I wouldn't have picked the Holy Land personally).
Sumerians came first, followed by Akkadians (Semites), Babylonians (Semites), then the Hebrews. The oldest city (not civilization) in known existence is considered to be Jericho on the West Bank. The etymology of Jericho is considered to be Canaanite (Semitic) by some. As part of the Fertile Crescent, control the lands currently considered Israel have been more or less continuously contested throughout all of recorded history. As such, I don't consider any current tribe to have any exclusive right to control the Holy Lands or Israel. What I do recognize is the right of ALL tribes to exist and have secure lands over which to expand their existence. Palestinians have that right and Israelis have that right. Since one recognizes the other but not vice-versa, overall I come down on the side of the one doing the recognizing. It's really that simple.

Within that I have the ability to objectively judge each sequence of actions and assign proportional blame to both sides. Israel is not always "right", but they are more often than the warring Palestinians. Neither of them require the other and they don't have to be mortal enemies. At some point it was a choice to be that way. Until that choice changes, nothing else will change. Nothing the United States or any Islamic nation could do will alter the course of history in the region. Nothing.

Hatred was the justification for persecuting Jews. Nothing more, nothing less.

By the time of the Balour Declaration much of the real persecution of the Jews had ended, most of the world had emancipated them before that. But that in itself was not enough and even caused the Jews problems and lead to the conflict within and the changing of their religion didn't it?
And if the Brits wanted to save the Jews from persecution why didn't they let them emigrate there or did the Brits not like them anymore than other people did? Or was it about Zionism and a Jewish state?
And while the hatred remained in many cases the question is still why. What was the persecution and hatred based on, religion, race, or actions?

If all "tribes" have the right to exist do some have more of a right than others? And if a tribe has a right to exist does it have a right to hold it's culture and heritage intact even if some don't agree with it?(self determination), does it have a right to nationalism?
Some have compared it to our taking of America, that was based on "might makes right" backed by religion wasn't it?

Isn't the Jews claim on Israel based on the Bible(religion) even though others where there first?
While I agree the Palestinians are the main aggressors now has it always been that way? Didn't the Israelis get the Brits out by terrorism? And what did they do to the Palestinians afterwards?

For many years the Israelis and Palestinians did get along and in fact Israel did depend on them for cheap labor.
What changed, what caused the Intifada that has basically lead to where things are now?

There are perceived and real rights and wrongs on both sides that's for certain but it would seem deeper questions do remain and some would cherry pick parts of history for justifications while ignoring others.

As for who the Palestinians are what does genetics tell us? What had others been saying for a long time that was not accepted by certain groups? And does it mean the real divisions are about religion and culture as opposed to race?


David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben Zvi, later becoming Israel's first Prime Minister and second President, respectively, tried to establish in a 1918 paper written in Yiddish that Palestinian peasants and their mode of life were living historical testimonies to Israelite practices in the biblical period.[104][106] Tamari notes that "the ideological implications of this claim became very problematic and were soon withdrawn from circulation."[104]
Ahad Ha'am believed that, "the Moslems [of Palestine] are the ancient residents of the land ... who became Christians on the rise of Christianity and became Moslems on the arrival of Islam."[104] Israel Belkind, the founder of the Bilu movement also asserted that the Palestinian Arabs were the blood brothers of the Jews.[107] In his book on the Palestinians, The Arabs in Eretz-Israel, Belkind advanced the idea that the dispersion of Jews out of the Land of Israel after the destruction of the Second Temple by the Roman emperor Titus is a "historic error" that must be corrected. While it dispersed much of the land's Jewish community around the world, those "workers of the land that remained attached to their land," stayed behind and were eventually converted to Christianity and then Islam.

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

Israeli Historian: Palestinians Are Biological Descendants of Bible’s Jews

http://mondoweiss.net/2008/09/israe...re-biological-descendants-of-bibles-jews.html

The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html

Jews Are The Genetic Brothers Of Palestinians, Syrians, And Lebanese

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

 

[JD8]

The video put forth that it's simply everyone against the Jews, what we call anti-Semitism, which some might contend is simply a dismissal of deeper questions regarding the whole issue.

Yeah, still not getting it or rather a really reaching view IMO. I didn't see the anti-Semitism theme, rather aspects of the situation that are hard to argue given the history of what I've seen in my lifetime.

 

[Billybob]

I don't understand your question within the context of the discussion.

Just a point, anytime someone speaks without favoritism to the Jews they're called anti-Semitic, yet the Arabs and Palestinian are Semitic while a great many Jews are not.

 

[Billybob]

Yeah, still not getting it or rather a really reaching view IMO. I didn't see the anti-Semitism theme, rather aspects of the situation that are hard to argue given the history of what I've seen in my lifetime.

Really, then why in retrospect are there Controversies over the Six Day War? Why did Israel lie about it then change their story? Was the U.S.S Liberty attacked to keep the U.S. from knowing what was really going on?


Initially, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country. Gideon Rafael, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN, received a message from the Israeli foreign office: "inform immediately the President of the Sec. Co. that Israel is now engaged in repelling Egyptian land and air forces." At 3:10 am, Rafael woke ambassador Hans Tabor, the Danish President of the Security Council for June, with the news that Egyptian forces had "moved against Israel" .[1] and that Israel was responding to a "cowardly and treacherous" attack from Egypt…"[2] At the Security Council meeting of June 5, both Israel and Egypt claimed to be repelling an invasion by the other,[1] and "Israeli officials – Eban and Evron – swore that Egypt had fired first".[3]
Israel claimed that Egypt had struck first, telling the council that “in the early hours of this morning Egyptian armoured columns moved in an offensive thrust against Israel’s borders. At the same time Egyptian planes took off from airfields in Sinai and struck out towards Israel. Israeli artillery in the Gaza strip shelled the Israel villages of Kissufim, Nahal-Oz and Ein Hashelosha..." In fact, this was not the case,[4] The US Office of Current Intelligence "...soon concluded that the Israelis – contrary to their claims – had fired first." [5] and it is known the war started by a surprise Israeli attack against Egypt's air forces that left its ground troops vulnerable to further Israeli air strikes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_relating_to_the_Six-Day_War#Combat_support

 

[JD8]

Really, then why in retrospect are there Controversies over the Six Day War? Why did Israel lie about it then change their story? Was the U.S.S Liberty attacked to keep the U.S. from knowing what was really going on?


Initially, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country. Gideon Rafael, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN, received a message from the Israeli foreign office: "inform immediately the President of the Sec. Co. that Israel is now engaged in repelling Egyptian land and air forces." At 3:10 am, Rafael woke ambassador Hans Tabor, the Danish President of the Security Council for June, with the news that Egyptian forces had "moved against Israel" .[1] and that Israel was responding to a "cowardly and treacherous" attack from Egypt…"[2] At the Security Council meeting of June 5, both Israel and Egypt claimed to be repelling an invasion by the other,[1] and "Israeli officials – Eban and Evron – swore that Egypt had fired first".[3]
Israel claimed that Egypt had struck first, telling the council that “in the early hours of this morning Egyptian armoured columns moved in an offensive thrust against Israel’s borders. At the same time Egyptian planes took off from airfields in Sinai and struck out towards Israel. Israeli artillery in the Gaza strip shelled the Israel villages of Kissufim, Nahal-Oz and Ein Hashelosha..." In fact, this was not the case,[4] The US Office of Current Intelligence "...soon concluded that the Israelis – contrary to their claims – had fired first." [5] and it is known the war started by a surprise Israeli attack against Egypt's air forces that left its ground troops vulnerable to further Israeli air strikes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_relating_to_the_Six-Day_War#Combat_support

Seriously? A Wikipedia article being petty about who fired first. Considering all that led up that point? I asked Ted a question several pages back, basically highlighting a simple truth about what is and has been going on for years. Yes it's oversimplified in the video, but fundamentally the point remains.