Holocaust a "myth"/Move Israel to Canada

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

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.

I think they would fight for QC, but this is a different situation. If Quebecers had been virtually nomadic for an extended period of time such as the Jews and had mostly settled other places, I think that the creation of a state somewhere would be good.

I just see the Jews as a very unique situation. They do deserve their homeland, but it is causing so much damage to the whole region.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

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).

How much land should the winner have to give to the loser of a war? Israel offered between 94-96% depending on the source, in 2001. Some of it just cannot be given back now - to which Israel was prepared to swap and give up some "Israel proper" land. Israel also tried to work out a monetary compensation program for refugees. The Arabs balked.

No one "ripped" the land from them. Many of them up and left - either because they thought the violence would happen outside their door, or because the Arab leaders said to move, but "no worries we will win and you will be back". Once again, a lot of land was bought with good money (sometimes gold).

As for access to Jerusalem - only ONE country has a record for allowing for free access and practice of religion in Jerusalem - can you guess which one? Jews were not allowed to pray at the holiest site in Judaism when Jordan ran the show. Access to the Mosques on the Temple Mount are at times restricted for two reasons - Muslim worshipers throwing stones on Jewish worshipers and when the crowd gets too large for the ancient structure to hold them, much like fire regulations. Who runs and oversees the Mosques on the Temple Mount - The Wakaif of Jerusalem, not Israel.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I think they would fight for QC, but this is a different situation. If Quebecers had been virtually nomadic for an extended period of time such as the Jews and had mostly settled other places, I think that the creation of a state somewhere would be good.

I just see the Jews as a very unique situation. They do deserve their homeland, but it is causing so much damage to the whole region.

How does having established population centres for hundreds of years - Jerusalem, Haifa, Sfat - make Jews nomads? Are the English nomads because they settled in some other places?

And why are the Jews causing so much damage to the region?
The Arabs could have accepted partition (whether legitamitly or as a consession for backing Hitler in WWII) and we all could have gone on our marry way. They could have accepted the peace deal in 2000-2001 and avoided years of violence.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

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.

How do established cities and communities thousands of years old make a peopel nomadic?

There are Jewish communities all over the world, but there are also Italian, Greek, Indian, English....etc. all over the world as well. Are they all nomadic?

"quote-Lanny" 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)? "end-quote"

You mean if the English sold them their homes, or left to avoid violence, or were told by Martin (or Treudeau) "Just go to Ontario for a bit, I'll get your homes, Just watch me!"

"quote-Lanny" 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."end-quote"

Most of that beach front property was theirs, and would have stayed that way if they had accepted the UN partition plan.


(damn quotes!!)

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

How does having established population centres for hundreds of years - Jerusalem, Haifa, Sfat - make Jews nomads? Are the English nomads because they settled in some other places?

And why are the Jews causing so much damage to the region?
The Arabs could have accepted partition (whether legitamitly or as a consession for backing Hitler in WWII) and we all could have gone on our marry way. They could have accepted the peace deal in 2000-2001 and avoided years of violence.

You really are misunderstanding me, and I'm not sure how I can clarify it for you either. Because in effect I agree with you whole heartedly.

The Jews have a right to their homeland in Jerusalem.
The Jews have had to suffer through so much to get to where they are today.

The thing is, I blame the Arabs for not giving up or trying to at least negoitate something else for not honoring the peace or for attacking jews and wanting them wiped out.

The thing is, I have a feeling this conflict is going to last another 50 some years, and it just isn't going to be settled because it seems like it has gone way beyond just the possession of land to anti-semetism.

Is this the fault of the Jews? NO.

But maybe I'm being naive when I think 60 years of violence is pointless, It just seems like one side has to cave. It doesn't look like it is going to be the Arabs for peace in the region.

There are times I don't think the Jews are dealing with a rational enemy.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

How do established cities and communities thousands of years old make a peopel nomadic?

And where are these established cities and communities? And who founded them? Are there letters of incorporation around from that time? Or does ownership go to the majority of the citizenry? As well, the tradition of the middle east has been that of a nomadic culture for hundreds of a couple thousand years. The Jews in the area were part of that tradition.

There are Jewish communities all over the world, but there are also Italian, Greek, Indian, English....etc. all over the world as well. Are they all nomadic?

Ah, so I see, we can just go and make a homeland for who ever we want then! Gotcha!

Something lost here is that Judiasm is a RELIGION. When you are a JEW, you follow the Jewish reigious tradition. It doesn't matter where you are born, you are a Jew because of the religion you practice. Since when did being a member of a religion give you the right to any LANDS??? Jews from all over the world immediately traveled to Palestine in '48 to live in the newly created "Israel". Even though they were German, Russian, Polish, American, Italian, French, etc., they were given lands because they followed the JEWISH FAITH. It would be interesting to know how many Israelis are actually of PALESTINIAN decent and how many moved to Israel after its creation? How many "residents" got what they deserved?

You mean if the English sold them their homes, or left to avoid violence, or were told by Martin (or Treudeau) "Just go to Ontario for a bit, I'll get your homes, Just watch me!"

No, this is if the UN came in and said, all you english speaking folks now live under the rule of these here french speaking fellas and they can do what they want. Its their land now and you have no say. Sure, they could stay and try to co-exist, but I suspect there will be some awfully hard feelings as their rights are oppressed in the place that is their "home".

Most of that beach front property was theirs, and would have stayed that way if they had accepted the UN partition plan.

So because they didn't want to give up their homes they got the total shaft? And that's okay? So Hitler coming in and supplanting the Jews during WWII wasn't that bad after all? Forcing people from their homes is okay as long as you give them advanced warning? I don't think so. Zionism was a poorly thought out concept and has lead to social unrest that will takes generations to quell. Partitioning was a stupid idea and is still in dispute almost 60 years later. Attitudes have to change on both sides of the argument, and reparations have to be made to those that were supplanted.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

You really are misunderstanding me, and I'm not sure how I can clarify it for you either. Because in effect I agree with you whole heartedly.

The Jews have a right to their homeland in Jerusalem.
The Jews have had to suffer through so much to get to where they are today.

The thing is, I blame the Arabs for not giving up or trying to at least negoitate something else for not honoring the peace or for attacking jews and wanting them wiped out.

The thing is, I have a feeling this conflict is going to last another 50 some years, and it just isn't going to be settled because it seems like it has gone way beyond just the possession of land to anti-semetism.

Is this the fault of the Jews? NO.

But maybe I'm being naive when I think 60 years of violence is pointless, It just seems like one side has to cave. It doesn't look like it is going to be the Arabs for peace in the region.

There are times I don't think the Jews are dealing with a rational enemy.

I do not think I am misunderstanding you, but I may be losing track of to whom I am responding (and if so, apologize). But now I think you may be working two positions: 1- Your View in the quote above - which can be construed as pro-Israel and 2- Why did the Jewish himeland have to be in the middle east - which de-legitamizes the State of Israel and can be construed as anti-Israel.

The conflict could go on for years, but a sometime the Arabs will have to bend at least a little.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

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

They had homes in Europe, Canada, United States etc. Just like any other human being.

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.

So we take land away from others who have done everything to deserve it and give it to those that have done nothing do deserve it?

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.

Great so now rich dudes can go around buying up parts of countries and just we'll just give them their own countries as well. Maybe Gates could buy up Alaska and set it up as Microsoftland. I understand that they owned much of the land and that it may not have been "great" land but I would think there should be more to nation building than that.

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.

Positive influences?? Come on. I don't think other countries in the region are that influenced because of stuff that Israel is doing and how much of those reforms came from Western influence and the desire to keep the US happy during the early years of the country. And the Israelis have done plenty of negative things to counteract any of their "positve" influences.

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

I think what happened to them sucked but still don't see how the rest of the world should be forced to create a fictional homeland for them. The negative aspect of Israel far outweigh any positives they may have brought to the area.

It sucks what happened to many of them in parts of Europe, but still does not mean that they rest of the world should out of its way to create a fictional country for these people to go live.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by moon

I think what happened to them sucked but still don't see how the rest of the world should be forced to create a fictional homeland for them. The negative aspect of Israel far outweigh any positives they may have brought to the area.

It sucks what happened to many of them in parts of Europe, but still does not mean that they rest of the world should out of its way to create a fictional country for these people to go live.

I guessed you missed the Iranian leaders comments to start this thread . . . . . what happened to the Jews never happened so it didn't suck to be them. Its all an invention to get Muslims.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I guessed you missed the Iranian leaders comments to start this thread . . . . . what happened to the Jews never happened so it didn't suck to be them. Its all an invention to get Muslims.

Cowperson

And no one has yet to figure out why the Arabs hate the Jews so badly? Wouldn't have anything to do with the Arabs getting punted from their homes so the Jews could have a "homeland"?

BTW... I'm looking forward to the time when half of India gets "partitioned" so all the Buddhists in the world can have a "homeland" too.

[Bleeding Red]

"quote=Lanny_MacDonald"And where are these established cities and communities? And who founded them? Are there letters of incorporation around from that time? Or does ownership go to the majority of the citizenry? As well, the tradition of the middle east has been that of a nomadic culture for hundreds of a couple thousand years. The Jews in the area were part of that tradition. "end-Quote"

So there was nothing but beduin-like camps throughout the middle east?
Jerusalem, Sfat, Haifa, Jericho Acco, Jaffa are just old versions of KOA campsites?

This nomadic tradition may be more centred on the Araibian Peninsula.



"quote-Lanny" Ah, so I see, we can just go and make a homeland for who ever we want then! Gotcha!

Something lost here is that Judiasm is a RELIGION. When you are a JEW, you follow the Jewish reigious tradition. It doesn't matter where you are born, you are a Jew because of the religion you practice. Since when did being a member of a religion give you the right to any LANDS??? Jews from all over the world immediately traveled to Palestine in '48 to live in the newly created "Israel". Even though they were German, Russian, Polish, American, Italian, French, etc., they were given lands because they followed the JEWISH FAITH. It would be interesting to know how many Israelis are actually of PALESTINIAN decent and how many moved to Israel after its creation? How many "residents" got what they deserved? "end-quote"

The Jewish People are a NATION. As a nation they have a right to their NATIONAL HOMELAND. Jews were moving to Israel long before 1948. The first modern major Aliyah (immagration to Israel) was in the 1890's, and the second was in the 1910's. In 1948 those that came to Israel were given citizenship because they were members of the Jewish NATION.



"quote-Lanny" No, this is if the UN came in and said, all you english speaking folks now live under the rule of these here french speaking fellas and they can do what they want. Its their land now and you have no say. Sure, they could stay and try to co-exist, but I suspect there will be some awfully hard feelings as their rights are oppressed in the place that is their "home". "end-quote"

oh..a totally different scenario, ok.



'quote-Lanny" So because they didn't want to give up their homes they got the total shaft? And that's okay? So Hitler coming in and supplanting the Jews during WWII wasn't that bad after all? Forcing people from their homes is okay as long as you give them advanced warning? I don't think so. Zionism was a poorly thought out concept and has lead to social unrest that will takes generations to quell. Partitioning was a stupid idea and is still in dispute almost 60 years later. Attitudes have to change on both sides of the argument, and reparations have to be made to those that were supplanted."end-quote"

Many who left could have stayed. Many left out of fear after being told that the Jews would eat their babies and sodomize the women. The IDF didn't drag families from their homes and force march them to Jordan. Many who left calmly locked their doors and pocketed the key, believing that the Arab armies would win and they would come back in a day or two.

And just so I am clear, the National asperations of the Jewish People (zionism) was a poorly though out concept. could you clarify or elaborate this for me, please.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

And no one has yet to figure out why the Arabs hate the Jews so badly? Wouldn't have anything to do with the Arabs getting punted from their homes so the Jews could have a "homeland"?

BTW... I'm looking forward to the time when half of India gets "partitioned" so all the Buddhists in the world can have a "homeland" too.

Uh, I wasn't defending 1947. Frankly, it seemed like a stupid thing to do.

I think Israeli's were quite the little terrorists themselves at the time, fighting for a homeland and blowing up everything British.

Israel is a fact though and that isn't going to change.

Its also true most Muslim leaders through the years have continually fueled the fires not out of any natural brotherhood for Palestinians but rather to divert attention from problems in their own malodious countries.

You can continue to hate them AND gain peace from them AND even do business with them as Egypt and Jordan have done.

Most of the region seems to be coming around to that, figuring its time to settle up and get on with life. This is a fight that's more likely to wind down now than pick up steam.

Except Iran of course.

Cowperson

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by moon

I think what happened to them sucked but still don't see how the rest of the world should be forced to create a fictional homeland for them. The negative aspect of Israel far outweigh any positives they may have brought to the area.

It sucks what happened to many of them in parts of Europe, but still does not mean that they rest of the world should out of its way to create a fictional country for these people to go live.

Once again, Israel is no more a fictional homeland for the Jews than Italy is a fictional homeland for the Italians, Greece is a fictional homeland for the Greeks.....etc.etc.

They rest of the world went out of it's way to create a lot of states - Syria, Iraq, Iran, Quatar, Saudi Araibia, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait.

Calling Israel a fictional country is ignoring thousands of years of archiological evedince.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Uh, I wasn't defending 1947. Frankly, it seemed like a stupid thing to do.

I think Israeli's were quite the little terrorists themselves at the time, fighting for a homeland and blowing up everything British.

Israel is a fact though and that isn't going to change.

Its also true most Muslim leaders through the years have continually fueled the fires not out of any natural brotherhood for Palestinians but rather to divert attention from problems in their own malodious countries.

You can continue to hate them AND gain peace from them AND even do business with them as Egypt and Jordan have done.

Most of the region seems to be coming around to that, figuring its time to settle up and get on with life. This is a fight that's more likely to wind down now than pick up steam.

Except Iran of course.

Cowperson

What should they have done then Cow instead?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

So there was nothing but beduin-like camps throughout the middle east?
Jerusalem, Sfat, Haifa, Jericho Acco, Jaffa are just old versions of KOA campsites?

And these were strictly Jewish cities and not Arab cities? Yeah, the Arabs likely had nothing to do with these cities, especially since the Jews were slaves back in the day.

This nomadic tradition may be more centred on the Araibian Peninsula.

Or maybe not. How many of the prophets were sheperds again? I don't recall many of them being mechants, acountants or lawyers!

The Jewish People are a NATION. As a nation they have a right to their NATIONAL HOMELAND. Jews were moving to Israel long before 1948. The first modern major Aliyah (immagration to Israel) was in the 1890's, and the second was in the 1910's. In 1948 those that came to Israel were given citizenship because they were members of the Jewish NATION.

Excuse me, but bull****. The Jewish people are as much a NATION as Islam. They are a collective of people that share a common cause or trait, making them a nation, but that and $2.50 will get you a mochachino latte at any coffee shop. But we are not talking about collectives, otherwise we have to find land someplace to create a country for the LEAF NATION.

Unfortunately, prior to 1948, Jews were not a community of people living in a defined territory under a government. In other words, they are not a NATION in the context in which the discussion is focused, which is that of statehood. Too bad, so sad, but the fact of the matter is that Jews have no more of a claim to nationhood than any collective.

Many who left could have stayed. Many left out of fear after being told that the Jews would eat their babies and sodomize the women. The IDF didn't drag families from their homes and force march them to Jordan. Many who left calmly locked their doors and pocketed the key, believing that the Arab armies would win and they would come back in a day or two.

Fine. The government is going to "partition" your home and a nice family of foreigners is going to move in with you. And you're cool with that? Probably not. You'd probably be pretty ****ed. Man, remember when that first POLISH family moved into the neighborhood, and how outraged people were? Now imagine you had a few hundred thousand POLISH families dropped into your neighborhood? Now imagine that those people had a diametrical belief system to yours. Are you thinking of calling the realtor yet?

And just so I am clear, the National asperations of the Jewish People (zionism) was a poorly though out concept. could you clarify or elaborate this for me, please.

How difficult is it to get through your head that Judiasm is a religion, not a nationality? The idea of "creation" of a homeland is flawed all around. You are "from" where you are "born". I was born in Calgary. I am from Calgary. Even though I am Catholic does not mean that I should be hoping for the creation of a "homeland" in Rome, so I can be closer to where my religion has the most significance. Its rediculous to consider that its okay to move one group of people, already living someplace, to create a country to appease another group. If the Jews want that, mount up and find a deserted piece of land someplace that no one has staked a claim to and assume that as your "homeland". Zionism is one of the stupidest things I've read about and shows how delusional some people can be! Like the concept had ANY chance of success and NOT ****ing someone off? Sheesh!

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

What should they have done then Cow instead?

Aw, what a loaded question. Fortunately, I've got a loaded answer or an answer that some might think is a load of something else.

Don't you wonder what would have happened if the UN had done NOTHING and the British had simply left, leaving behind a country called Palestine with Arabs and and the established Jewish insurgency facing off against each other?

Don't you ask yourself how the history of that region, perhaps the political history of the planet, might be different today versus what we've seen?

Would the Soviets and Americans have engaged in endless proxy conflicts in this region during the Cold War as an example, or would one side or the other have dominated and how would that have impacted history?

For 50 years, Muslim leaders have been able to divert the attention of their citizens away from themselves for a cause that could have easily been settled long ago with a Palestinian homeland, the very boundaries they will probably settle for anyway. Without Israel to blame, would we have seen Muslim cultures still stuck in a time warp the last 50 years, only now seemingly emerging, or would we have seen an age of enlightenment and the culture of compassion Muslims claim to own?

As Dennis Miller famously opined a few years ago: "What the fata have Muslims done lately?" Do you blame that stagnation on Israel? Have Muslims been so diverted by attention and hatred to the Israeli situation that they've sat wallowing in their misery? Or was this a problem for that culture since the Crusades?

In Israel today, Arabs and Jews, I think, are roughly equal demographically and seem to live together in relative harmony. Maybe we would have been surprised after a bit of early bloodletting if they'd simply been left to their own devices.

Aren't Muslims angry that Israel was imposed on the region? Would they be just as angry if the Jews already resident in British Palestine had stomped the Muslims and simply taken over the area?

Or would the Jews, already in open agitation for a homeland in Palestine, have been obliterated by their neighbours . . . .

Don't you wonder if the answer to your queston might have been . . . . "do nothing."

Having said all that, history is what it is and Israel is a fact and its not going away. Time for Palestinians, who DO have their own land and the prospect of their own country, along with their Muslim brothers, to settle up and get on with life.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Once again, Israel is no more a fictional homeland for the Jews than Italy is a fictional homeland for the Italians, Greece is a fictional homeland for the Greeks.....etc.etc.

One big problem, the Italians and Greeks are a nationality, Jews are not. The Italians and Greeks both founded nations and grew from those lands. The Jews never had a historical nation, no matter how many ARAB cities you care to toss out there.

They rest of the world went out of it's way to create a lot of states - Syria, Iraq, Iran, Quatar, Saudi Araibia, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait.

Those boundries were defined by the peoples who lived in those countries and ruling class who over saw the regions. The world did not pull those countries out of their asses the way they did with Israel. There was no royal family from Israel overseeing the region. Israel was a Zionist dream, one the UN felt was a good idea because of how badly the Jews got screwed over by the Germans.

Calling Israel a fictional country is ignoring thousands of years of archiological evedince.

No, its not. At no time did a country of Israel existed prior to 1948. Again, Judiasm is a religion. A religion practiced all over the world. That does not make an ancient cities any more Jewish than they do Christian, or Aramaic, or Syrian, or Mesopotamian.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Aw, what a loaded question. Fortunately, I've got a loaded answer or an answer that some might think is a load of something else.

Don't you wonder what would have happened if the UN had done NOTHING and the British had simply left, leaving behind a country called Palestine with Arabs and and the established Jewish insurgency facing off against each other?

Don't you ask yourself how the history of that region, perhaps the political history of the planet, might be different today versus what we've seen?

Would the Soviets and Americans have engaged in endless proxy conflicts in this region during the Cold War as an example, or would one side or the other have dominated and how would that have impacted history?

For 50 years, Muslim leaders have been able to divert the attention of their citizens away from themselves for a cause that could have easily been settled long ago with a Palestinian homeland, the very boundaries they will probably settle for anyway. Without Israel to blame, would we have seen Muslim cultures still stuck in a time warp the last 50 years, only now seemingly emerging, or would we have seen an age of enlightenment and the culture of compassion Muslims claim to own?

As Dennis Miller famously opined a few years ago: "What the fata have Muslims done lately?" Do you blame that stagnation on Israel? Have Muslims been so diverted by attention and hatred to the Israeli situation that they've sat wallowing in their misery? Or was this a problem for that culture since the Crusades?

In Israel today, Arabs and Jews, I think, are roughly equal demographically and seem to live together in relative harmony. Maybe we would have been surprised after a bit of early bloodletting if they'd simply been left to their own devices.

Aren't Muslims angry that Israel was imposed on the region? Would they be just as angry if the Jews already resident in British Palestine had stomped the Muslims and simply taken over the area?

Or would the Jews, already in open agitation for a homeland in Palestine, have been obliterated by their neighbours . . . .

Don't you wonder if the answer to your queston might have been . . . . "do nothing."

Having said all that, history is what it is and Israel is a fact and its not going away. Time for Palestinians, who DO have their own land and the prospect of their own country, along with their Muslim brothers, to settle up and get on with life.

Cowperson

Bravo Cow! Bravo!!! Right on the money. Now if we can only get the two sides to sit down and talk we'll make some headway!

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Bravo Cow! Bravo!!! Right on the money. Now if we can only get the two sides to sit down and talk we'll make some headway!

By and large its trending that way right now, both sides conceding things, conquered land being ceded with conditions, the violence abating somewhat, the wall helping whether Palestinians like to admit it or not, negative external influences waning . . . . . but when they get everything else settled, you'll still have Jeruseleum to talk about and, as I said earlier in the thread, I have no idea how you settle that one except to declare it an open city. And that would be a tough one for the Israeli's to swallow in the end.

Cowperson

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

And these were strictly Jewish cities and not Arab cities? Yeah, the Arabs likely had nothing to do with these cities, especially since the Jews were slaves back in the day.

I never said they were strictly anything other than aincient established cities home to people who were not nomadic - wandering from place to place. Jewish communities were in Jerusalem, Tsfat, Tiberias and Hebron. Yes, Acco, Jaffa and Jericho were predominantly Arab cities.

Or maybe not. How many of the prophets were sheperds again? I don't recall many of them being mechants, acountants or lawyers!

The forefathers were shepherds, the prophets were just that - Prophacy was a job back in the day - mainly advising kings.

Excuse me, but bull****. The Jewish people are as much a NATION as Islam. They are a collective of people that share a common cause or trait, making them a nation, but that and $2.50 will get you a mochachino latte at any coffee shop. But we are not talking about collectives, otherwise we have to find land someplace to create a country for the LEAF NATION. (they have one - Canada - just ask them)

Unfortunately, prior to 1948, Jews were not a community of people living in a defined territory under a government. In other words, they are not a NATION in the context in which the discussion is focused, which is that of statehood. Too bad, so sad, but the fact of the matter is that Jews have no more of a claim to nationhood than any collective.

-At that time no, but that does not mean that there never was a Jewish State - The Romans came with more spears and the rest is history.

Fine. The government is going to "partition" your home and a nice family of foreigners is going to move in with you. And you're cool with that? Probably not. You'd probably be pretty ****ed. Man, remember when that first POLISH family moved into the neighborhood, and how outraged people were? Now imagine you had a few hundred thousand POLISH families dropped into your neighborhood? Now imagine that those people had a diametrical belief system to yours. Are you thinking of calling the realtor yet?

So which is it - either it is an empty land with wandering bands of nomads or it is bulging with cities and communities and homes everywhere.

"Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced.
They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population." Ben-Gurion said, "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."2"


For more, and the footnotes go to: http://www.israelactivism.com/resour..._Factsheet.asp




How difficult is it to get through your head that Judiasm is a religion, not a nationality? The idea of "creation" of a homeland is flawed all around. You are "from" where you are "born". I was born in Calgary. I am from Calgary.

- So most would refer to you as a 'Calgarian' or 'Canadian', no one refers to you as 'Christian'. What does that mean then when people call me 'Jew' or 'Jewish-Calgarian/Canadian'? Italians born in Calgary still refer to themselves as 'Italian', where is the religious aspect in that. You can substitute Italian for Greek, Mexican, Indian, Irish....the list goes on.

Even though I am Catholic does not mean that I should be hoping for the creation of a "homeland" in Rome, so I can be closer to where my religion has the most significance.
- It is already there, and you can go visit if you like.

Its rediculous to consider that its okay to move one group of people, already living someplace, to create a country to appease another group. If the Jews want that, mount up and find a deserted piece of land someplace that no one has staked a claim to and assume that as your "homeland". Zionism is one of the stupidest things I've read about and shows how delusional some people can be! Like the concept had ANY chance of success and NOT ****ing someone off? - Like Candian Federalism? - Sheesh!

Again - empty land of wandering nomads or heavily populated developed country?


"Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. " Martin Luther King Jr. - 1968