Holocaust a "myth"/Move Israel to Canada

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The only thing that the Iranian president said that makes any sense; why was it that Isreal was created there? I would think that if any land was to be given up; wouldn't Germany have had to give up some of theirs?

The modern State of Israel is where the ancient/biblical Kingdon of Israel was. The strip of land between the Jordan river and the Meditereanen Sea has been the Spiritual and national Homeland of the Jewish people since Joshua lead them across the river Jordan. Ancient Jewish sites of worship have been found at Meggido, Tel Dan, Hebron, Shechem and Jerusalem. Sfat has been a centre of Jewish learning for centuries (even under the Ottoman Empire). When the Persian King Cyrus gave them leave, Jews returned to Israel, not Europe or Egypt. When Jews pray they face Jerusalem - when Muslims pray they face Mecca.

Saying that 'moving Israel to Germany' makes sense is equvilant to saying that ALL the Palestinians should move to Jordan - a country with a Palestianian MAJORITY population - since the Arab countries lost all the wars they started.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Lanny, how can you be so full of hate? I think you should take a class on islam too

What was so hateful in what I said? That his comments were reflective of his culture and environment? That his upbringing and education have lead him to where he is today? Or are you saying he developed these ideas all on his own?

If I am wrong in my comments, prove it. Show me where there is an out pouring of understanding to the Jewish plight by the Arab community! Show me where there is an Arab tear shed for the Jews every time an Arab straps TNT to his chest and detonates it in a Israeli market! Show me where there are protests against what this guy is saying! Show me where the other leaders in the Arab world are speaking out against him! Bring the proof as to where I am wrong.

Seems to me you're just talking out your ass like you always do.

[ken0042]

Thanks Bleeding, that makes total sense now.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

The modern State of Israel is where the ancient/biblical Kingdon of Israel was. The strip of land between the Jordan river and the Meditereanen Sea has been the Spiritual and national Homeland of the Jewish people since Joshua lead them across the river Jordan. Ancient Jewish sites of worship have been found at Meggido, Tel Dan, Hebron, Shechem and Jerusalem. Sfat has been a centre of Jewish learning for centuries (even under the Ottoman Empire). When the Persian King Cyrus gave them leave, Jews returned to Israel, not Europe or Egypt. When Jews pray they face Jerusalem - when Muslims pray they face Mecca.

Saying that 'moving Israel to Germany' makes sense is equvilant to saying that ALL the Palestinians should move to Jordan - a country with a Palestianian MAJORITY population - since the Arab countries lost all the wars they started.

Weren't the Israelites without a land? Weren't they just another series of nomadic (forced or not) tribes in a land shared by many? It seems to me that the region in question was one shared by many peoples, not identified strictly as Israeli land. In fact, for many hundred years the Jews had little claim on this land. It was fought over by the Christians and Muslims, with the Jews co-existing with who ever was ruling at the time. I don't seem to recall the Jews being recognized as the rulers of the land at any point in history. The problems really started when political boundries were established and the UN went into the region to create a new homeland for the Jews at the expense of the Palestinians.

This would be the same as the UN coming to Canada and forcing the Newfies out of Newfoundland to establish a homeland for the followers of Norse mythology. There is artifactual evidence that the Norse were the first inhabitants of the region, practiced their religion there, so should have the right to the land as their homeland? Now, would we side with the Newfies in this instance? Or would we expect them to just pickup and leave the place they have built their lives?

I can see both sides of the argument here, but I do sympathize with the Arabs that were displaced so the country of Israel could be created. Moving one people to create a home for another just ain't kosher in my books. I think the only solution is to find a common ground through negotiation and education. If that fails, its time to back away and let them fight it out, once and for all. Maybe when enough blood has been spilled these two factions will realize they aren't that much different and will find peace together.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

No worries, Ag said Iran wont use nukem once it gets them. What does it matter that the Iranian president said otherwise, Ag is the one who knows whats goin on...

Ah yes, and the obvious alternative to your sarcasm is that I know nothing, and you know exactly what's going on? I love the irony.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Weren't the Israelites without a land? Weren't they just another series of nomadic (forced or not) tribes in a land shared by many? It seems to me that the region in question was one shared by many peoples, not identified strictly as Israeli land. In fact, for many hundred years the Jews had little claim on this land. It was fought over by the Christians and Muslims, with the Jews co-existing with who ever was ruling at the time. I don't seem to recall the Jews being recognized as the rulers of the land at any point in history. The problems really started when political boundries were established and the UN went into the region to create a new homeland for the Jews at the expense of the Palestinians.

This would be the same as the UN coming to Canada and forcing the Newfies out of Newfoundland to establish a homeland for the followers of Norse mythology. There is artifactual evidence that the Norse were the first inhabitants of the region, practiced their religion there, so should have the right to the land as their homeland? Now, would we side with the Newfies in this instance? Or would we expect them to just pickup and leave the place they have built their lives?

I can see both sides of the argument here, but I do sympathize with the Arabs that were displaced so the country of Israel could be created. Moving one people to create a home for another just ain't kosher in my books. I think the only solution is to find a common ground through negotiation and education. If that fails, its time to back away and let them fight it out, once and for all. Maybe when enough blood has been spilled these two factions will realize they aren't that much different and will find peace together.

There is Mesapotaimian (Iraq) and Egyptian archialogocal records of 'the Kingdon of the Hebrews' in the geographical area of Israel. In the accounts of wars in the region - there is archialogical evedince that supports the Book of Kings as historical. As well as on stone tribute records - where the Pharoh or Babylonian/Assyrian/Persian/Mesapotanian King received goods and cash from smaller conquered kingdoms - yes, they may have been conquered, but to be conquered one needs to be in charge first, hardly the acts of a nomadic tribe. And the Jews of history never 'co-existed', they always survived as third-class citizens with no rights other than to be a punching bag at a moments notice.

Biblically- Abraham purchased specific plots of land for wells and buriels. the people may move but the sites are still there.

In modernity - Jews in the late 19th and early 20th century bought the land - mostly from absentee landlords in Syria - at a preimium. The majority was uninhabited and arid, almost un-farmable - until the Jews made it so.

There would have been no displacement if not for the Arab initiated wars. The displacement was a result of people fleeing the fighting, some Jewish army forces forcing some residents out and the Jordanian army ordering civilians to leave with the belief that they would return after "pushing the Jews into the Sea".

No you cannot just go to a country and declare it your homeland because you were there first. However, your Newfoundland example is missing a few things - continued religious observance to this day of the Norse religion in any significant centre on the Island, the birth of the religion on the Island, NL being the Norse religious centre for centuries, or the proclimation that the Norse people consider it THE Norse Homeland. If that were the case then we may have a topic for debate - a short one though as I think Norway and Sweden are arguing about which of them is the home of Odin. Also, displacement of a population was never a realistic option when the partition plan was accepted in '48. Jews were happy to live side-by-side with the Arabs, and are still willing to do so with the two-state solution.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

The modern State of Israel is where the ancient/biblical Kingdon of Israel was. The strip of land between the Jordan river and the Meditereanen Sea has been the Spiritual and national Homeland of the Jewish people since Joshua lead them across the river Jordan. Ancient Jewish sites of worship have been found at Meggido, Tel Dan, Hebron, Shechem and Jerusalem. Sfat has been a centre of Jewish learning for centuries (even under the Ottoman Empire). When the Persian King Cyrus gave them leave, Jews returned to Israel, not Europe or Egypt. When Jews pray they face Jerusalem - when Muslims pray they face Mecca.

Saying that 'moving Israel to Germany' makes sense is equvilant to saying that ALL the Palestinians should move to Jordan - a country with a Palestianian MAJORITY population - since the Arab countries lost all the wars they started.

Hey Red, I'm not disagreeing with you - I know they didn't throw darts on a map and just make it up. I understand that there is significant religious birth and history there, I know that it can be considered the true home of the Jews for a very extended period in History. I know and understand the significance.

However - Imagine this. The US government decides to finally pay the Native Americans back for taking their land. The price is to turn over the entire area of New York City to the Native people.

That would be the analogy I would use to describe it.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

However - Imagine this. The US government decides to finally pay the Native Americans back for taking their land. The price is to turn over the entire area of New York City to the Native people.

That would be the analogy I would use to describe it.

I guess "they" should have just cut the Jews a cheque after WWII and called it a day.

If I'm not mistaken, there were already Jews living throughout the area for thousands of years and also to the point when the partitian happened. Trying to figure out who had more right to the land - black and white - is probably a losing game.

Withdrawing to the 1947 boundaries in exchange for peace is probably what will happen in the end . . . . and probably within five to ten years.

But the thing that might never be settled is what to do with Jeruseleum . . . unless all sides declare it an open city. That could be the deal breaker and certainly the place where Israeli's will do the most crying.

Cowperson

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I guess "they" should have just cut the Jews a cheque after WWII and called it a day.

If I'm not mistaken, there were already Jews living throughout the area for thousands of years and also to the point when the partitian happened. Trying to figure out who had more right to the land - black and white - is probably a losing game.

Withdrawing to the 1947 boundaries in exchange for peace is probably what will happen in the end . . . . and probably within five to ten years.

But the thing that might never be settled is what to do with Jeruseleum . . . unless all sides declare it an open city. That could be the deal breaker and certainly the place where Israeli's will do the most crying.

Cowperson

Did I suggest cutting them a cheque?

They deserved a home without a doubt, but to be honest, I really don't think there is any place in the world which could have been WORSE than the location they are in now as far as conflict goes.

There were also other regions considered in the debate as well, I beleive North Africa was one of the places. There is a better chance creating the state of Israel there wouldn't have had nearly as many implications for religious bloodshed.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

There is Mesapotaimian (Iraq) and Egyptian archialogocal records of 'the Kingdon of the Hebrews' in the geographical area of Israel. In the accounts of wars in the region - there is archialogical evedince that supports the Book of Kings as historical. As well as on stone tribute records - where the Pharoh or Babylonian/Assyrian/Persian/Mesapotanian King received goods and cash from smaller conquered kingdoms - yes, they may have been conquered, but to be conquered one needs to be in charge first, hardly the acts of a nomadic tribe. And the Jews of history never 'co-existed', they always survived as third-class citizens with no rights other than to be a punching bag at a moments notice.

Biblically- Abraham purchased specific plots of land for wells and buriels. the people may move but the sites are still there.

In modernity - Jews in the late 19th and early 20th century bought the land - mostly from absentee landlords in Syria - at a preimium. The majority was uninhabited and arid, almost un-farmable - until the Jews made it so.

There would have been no displacement if not for the Arab initiated wars. The displacement was a result of people fleeing the fighting, some Jewish army forces forcing some residents out and the Jordanian army ordering civilians to leave with the belief that they would return after "pushing the Jews into the Sea".

No you cannot just go to a country and declare it your homeland because you were there first. However, your Newfoundland example is missing a few things - continued religious observance to this day of the Norse religion in any significant centre on the Island, the birth of the religion on the Island, NL being the Norse religious centre for centuries, or the proclimation that the Norse people consider it THE Norse Homeland. If that were the case then we may have a topic for debate - a short one though as I think Norway and Sweden are arguing about which of them is the home of Odin. Also, displacement of a population was never a realistic option when the partition plan was accepted in '48. Jews were happy to live side-by-side with the Arabs, and are still willing to do so with the two-state solution.

Some excellent points all around!

Anything that has been purchased in the past 100 years is a pretty good starting place for prescedent. This is the argument that should be used. Compensation maybe the way to go in this regard and lead to a settlement.

Going to the historical question of homeland, I'm not sure whether the purchase of wells and burial plots is exactly a quality argument for designation of a homeland, or rights to those lands two and a half thousand years after the fact. As well I don't think the Jews were any more tied to the lands than the Arabs of the past 1000 years have been. The people of the region (irregardless of religion) have been mostly nomadic. The connection to the land is different to what we westerners think. But I think this is part of the problem. We continue to try and force western values on a culture that does not hold the same values near to their hearts. The concept of borders has been foreign to these folks and it is anew way of thinking for them. I believe this is a major part of the issue that needs to be resolved. How we get there is the $64,000 question. How do you educate a culture that does not wish to be educated on a subject?

The Norse example was probably a bad one, but it was one that came to mind and would hit closest to home for us Canucks. I sometimes feel that we lose track of the fact that this is happening to people's lives and that they are real and face the same challenges we do on a daily basis. We tend to marginalyize issues when it isn't in our own backyard, hence me trying to connect the issue to our own backyard. Maybe a better example would be if the UN came in and MADE Quebec its own country, expelling the english, and said fata you to the rest of Canada. How would that make us feel? Would we not be ****ed as hell? Wouldn't there be years and years of hatred towards Quebec (I mean, worse than there already uis)? Think about how this would affect us and how we would think day-to-day. Now try and think how the Arabs feel about what has happened to them. All that beach front property that was once theirs was given to someone else. I don't think it would matter who was there, there would be animosity.

[moon]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Did I suggest cutting them a cheque?

They deserved a home without a doubt, but to be honest, I really don't think there is any place in the world which could have been WORSE than the location they are in now as far as conflict goes.

There were also other regions considered in the debate as well, I beleive North Africa was one of the places. There is a better chance creating the state of Israel there wouldn't have had nearly as many implications for religious bloodshed.

Why did they deserve a home?? I agree that what happened to them was hrroible in may places in Europe but why did they deserve to have other countries create an artificial country for them, especially one that would negatively affect so many people??

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Did I suggest cutting them a cheque?

They deserved a home without a doubt, but to be honest, I really don't think there is any place in the world which could have been WORSE than the location they are in now as far as conflict goes.

There were also other regions considered in the debate as well, I beleive North Africa was one of the places. There is a better chance creating the state of Israel there wouldn't have had nearly as many implications for religious bloodshed.

The first World Zionist Conference did discuss a homeland in Uganda, but it was dismissed as having no ties to the Jews - Jews had never had a major population there, Uganda has no religious significance for Jews, Judaism wan't born there, our forfather never spent any time there. Again, it is like asking the Northern Irish to create their republic on some land in Brazil, or, like asking the First Nations People to move to New Zealand and fight for fishing rights there instead of off the coast of NB.

As for worse places - How about Eastern Europe, Stalin was no friend to the Jews (or anyone). How about Argentina where fleeing Nazis went, sure to be a powder keg.

Israel is the only logical choice as the Jewish Homeland.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by moon

Why did they deserve a home?? I agree that what happened to them was hrroible in may places in Europe but why did they deserve to have other countries create an artificial country for them, especially one that would negatively affect so many people??

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

Some very good reference points in this article.

The just of it:

Persecution of the Jews isn't some new Phenomenon, it has been existing for a very long time.

Zionism (creation of a Jewish State in the Homeland of Israel where they came from) was in response to the persecution of the Jews.

They deserved a state moon, they have been persecuted throughout history and desired a homeland with some method of self direction, something they have not been able to do for a very long time. I think that they do deserve a state, however, I think it would have been best to relocate elsewhere.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by moon

Why did they deserve a home?? I agree that what happened to them was hrroible in may places in Europe but why did they deserve to have other countries create an artificial country for them, especially one that would negatively affect so many people??

Why did they deserve a home?!?!?!? The same reason every human being deserves a home.

Why did they deserve to have a COUNTRY?? The same reason that the Italians, Greeks, French, English, Irish, Indian, Japanese,Palestinians.....etc.etc.. deserve a country. To live without fear of persecution.

Would the creation of the modern state of Israel afected people so negatively had the Arab states accepted the UN partition plan? Once again, the area designated by the plan was mostly uninhabited, unfarmable swamp land in the north and dessert land in the south - a lot of this land had already been purchased by Jews from absentee land owners by '47.

Do not forget the positive influence the modern state of Israel has had on it's Arab populace. The first mid-east country to allow Arab women to vote - Israel. Israeli-Arabs live longer and healthier than in other parts of the mid-east. Israeli-Arabs are free to work in the Israeli civil service, the Israeli forgien service and in the IDF if they choose, be elected to government and sit on the Israeli Supreme Court.

why do Jews derserve a home.....that's good.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Again, it is like asking the Northern Irish to create their republic on some land in Brazil, or, like asking the First Nations People to move to New Zealand and fight for fishing rights there instead of off the coast of NB.


Israel is the only logical choice as the Jewish Homeland.

I know Red, I don't disagree with you on that.

It is just that, if it was determined that it could provide a stable environment for the state, I think people could get used to the idea of living elsewhere after a period of time.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I think it would have been best to relocate elsewhere.

Relocate them where??

To a land with which they had NO connection, NO historical association, NO established population centres, NO religious connection?

That is like saying that Quebec deserves their own country, but it should be in Africa.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Relocate them where??

To a land with which they had NO connection, NO historical association, NO established population centres, NO religious connection?

That is like saying that Quebec deserves their own country, but it should be in Africa.

If everywhere Quebecers went they were persecuted, and it was clear they wouldn't be welcome back in their homeland, be greeted with massive violence.

They'd probably have to move to Africa.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I know Red, I don't disagree with you on that.

It is just that, if it was determined that it could provide a stable environment for the state, I think people could get used to the idea of living elsewhere after a period of time.

Clearly not.

Let's turn this around a bit and put it in terms of today, with the understanding that Israel as a Jewish state is a fact on the ground and here to stay.

Today, it is the Palestinians who are without a state/homeland.

If it could be proven to provide a stable environment for the state, do you think that the Palestinians could get used to the idea of living in Jordan (or Lebanon, or Gaza+West Bank) after a period of time?

(consequently giving up on the hope of "the-right-of-return" - a major stumbling bloc in negotiations for demographic reasons) I am not even suggesting that they go to another continent, just stay where they are in peace.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

If everywhere Quebecers went they were persecuted, and it was clear they wouldn't be welcome back in their homeland, be greeted with massive violence.

They'd probably have to move to Africa.

You don't think that Quebecers would fight for QC rather than move to Africa? quick, call Paul Martin, he may have a job for you.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Clearly not.

Let's turn this around a bit and put it in terms of today, with the understanding that Israel as a Jewish state is a fact on the ground and here to stay.

Today, it is the Palestinians who are without a state/homeland.

If it could be proven to provide a stable environment for the state, do you think that the Palestinians could get used to the idea of living in Jordan (or Lebanon, or Gaza+West Bank) after a period of time?

(consequently giving up on the hope of "the-right-of-return" - a major stumbling bloc in negotiations for demographic reasons) I am not even suggesting that they go to another continent, just stay where they are in peace.

Yes, I do think that they will eventually get used to the boundries. But I think some more of the land which they got during the wars might have to be given back.

As well mutual access to Jerusalum is probably going to be negoitated.

The problem is right now, it will take time. The Palestinians still have the visions of people ripping this land from them.

Time will heal these wounds though as well as some concessions by Israel (I don't think it is ultimately fair that they will have to make them, but I think it is the ultimate price for peace in this instance).