Y'all GOT to check this out..

[doormat]

Sorry if you don't like the implication that you saw, Curio, but people supporting your position are claiming that they have a right to territory and superiority based on nothing more than their religion and race.

Religion:

I dont understand how you can possibally think that if the Jews legally purchased land, no matter however long ago, it isnt theirs.

Race:

There fore, the land legally belongs to them. Think of it as a sort of inheritance.

Need I go on?

Crying "Holocaust" does not end the argument as well as once it did; Nor does calling me a racist. Jewish presure groups have done it too often. It seems the politics of the state of Israel cannot be censored now without some commentator crying to any who will listen about how it's "anti-semitic". As it happens, I wasn't thinking of Nazi Germany at the time so much as Rowanda, and wasn't making a comment regarding the policy of israel so much as pointing out the stupity of describing any race as "genetically pure" (because it leads to exactly what Stews and I oppose), but your reaction should not have surprised me.

As far as I can see no-one has said that. We've argued that it is applied unfairly and to a ridiculous degree. We've argued that it doesn't apply. But we haven't said it doesn't apply because "we're Jews".

Is it your positon that it would be acceptable to annex Jerusalem even if you weren't Jewish? Your only argument seems to be "the people there before were of the Jewish faith, so are we and so it belongs to us."

Were you aware that a lot of land was purchased quite legally from the landowners of the region? No? Well, you should be. And what exactly does Israel 'do now' that needs justifying?

Maintains a illegal occupation of Jerusalem and many areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip; enforces laws and ordances by force in the territory of Palistine; Disregards UN resolutions and generaly acts like a spoilt child.

they are no longer in existence in any cogent form

Nor (and I say this again for the hard of hearing) is the "Kingdom of Israel". The state that now goes by that name is NOT LEGALLY CONNECTED to the collection of city-states which are grouped under that name in Jewish history, whatever religion it might practice.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Nor (and I say this again for the hard of hearing) is the "Kingdom of Israel". The state that now goes by that name is NOT LEGALLY CONNECTED to the collection of city-states which are grouped under that name in Jewish history, whatever religion it might practice.

That is quite correct. The racial and cultural link that Jews claim (I feel rightfully) to the ancient "Kingdom of Israel" in no way implies any legal or moral claim to the land the kingdom once ruled. I can trace my heritage back to the Scottish Royal line (I'm a Stewart), but that does not give me any legitimate claim to Scotland.

As I said before I don't have any desire to continue this discussion at present, but I just wanted to clairify my position on this specific issue.

[ToRmEnToR]

The "Jebusite" is said in Genesis 10:16; 1 Chronicles 1:14 to be the 3rd son of Canaan, i.e. of the country of Canaan. Elsewhere he represents a tribe separate from the Canaanites. He stands between Heth and the Amorite. In the lists of the peoples inhabiting Palestine the "Jebusite" is always placed last, a fact indicative, probably, of their smaller number.

After looking for some information on the internet and reading a bit in the tanah, I got my shit together about the jebusites.

They can in fact be considered canaanites.

The Torah even refers to at least one King of the Jebusites and the Jebusites controlled a vast area of land in the area.

They were a small tribe, and your claim that they controlled a vast area of land seems like bullshit to me. (note how I dont faint while crying: "OMG UR SO IGNORANT I'M GONNA DIE").

In Judges 19:10 it was said that jerusalem was under Jebusite control. Note that in the beggining of chapters 19, 18, and 17 it is said that "in that time there was no king in the land of israel", and in chapter 17 you can also find eveidence to the fact that there was no real law system implemented across the entier land of israel.

So apearently, the jebusite king was so roxor and leet that no one has realy ever heard of him even while the jebusites were in control of jerusalem.

King david's kingdom was the first real kingdom to control israel as a country.

When Jerusalem was taken by David, the lives and property of its Jebusite inhabitants were spared, and they continued to inhabit the temple-hill <...> The Jebusites seem ultimately to have blended with the Israelite population.

This part is also important because even if you can claim that the jebusites are the rightfull owners of this land (even though you realy cant), since they have blended into israeli population, the owner shift was only natural.

And the jews being genetically pure and stuff is bullshit. Note ishmael , the son of abram and hagar.

Every religious family would prefer that their children would mary to others from the same religon. It makes simple sense.

And doormat, this part of the argument is purely a 'what-if' argument. If the control over israel would of been given to some people on a purely historical and religious basis, who should it be given to? That's our argument.

And so far it looks like the palestinians are the last kind of people to whom this land should be given on a purely historical and religous basis.

[doormat]

Ok, I'll play that game.

Archaeology says the city was founded about 3000 B.C., probably by the Canaanites [a Semitic people of the ancient land of Canaan]. The Jebusites took control about 1250bc.

Then we come upon a odd influx Israelite control in the area. No one knows where the Israelite faction came from; it seems to have either been a slow settlement of nomads, or a peacefull change in majorty group in the area. David conqured the city in 1000bc.

Some Israelis begin the history of Jerusalem with David's conquest in 1000 B.C. We know from archaeological evidence that the city was inhabited from 3000 B.C.

Many Palestinians (Including Arafat) claim to trace their linage back to the Canaanites, but obviously there is no proof for these claims. Still, if you ask an Palestinian he'll probably consider it true.

In the same way, many modern Israelis claim to be decended from the ancient Israelites, but this is a religious belief and had not been proven.

In fact, neither claim is likely to be valid. Most of the Arabs in that area came in from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and other places after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 638 A.D. Israelites were expelled from Jerusalem in 597bc, when Nebuchadnezzar, a neo-Babylonian ruler, conquered Jerusalem and burnt it to the ground. He took the Jews off to Babylon and began the Babylonian exile. The chances of maintaining a cultural identity for the interviening length of time are very slim. The blood of the Israelites has been watered down at the least.

Since then the city has been mostly in Arab hands.

The constant shifts in ownership in Jerusalem make it one of the most contested areas on earth: which is funny, because it has no resorces or stratigic importance. It is contested because it is contested. (Sometimes I wonder how humanity survived.)

Even the christians held Jerusalem for a brief period. The past is a bad indication of who the territory "realy" belongs to.

[Rkiver]

I'll just say this small piece and leave it at that.

Religion as a reason or excuse is poor at the best of time. Religion is nothing more then a widely accepted myth.

[Agent Spike]

So how did the world come about?
You'll probably say the big bang
But then how did what the big bang came from exist...?

[Rkiver]

I honestly do not know. I have my own theories, but I don't ram them down peoples throats or kill in the name of them. Why? Because I'm not a fucking idiot.

[Curiosity]

Sorry if you don't like the implication that you saw, Curio, but people supporting your position are claiming that they have a right to territory and superiority based on nothing more than their religion and race.

Bullshit. As I show below.

Religion:

I dont understand how you can possibally think that if the Jews legally purchased land, no matter however long ago, it isnt theirs.

And that's religion how? They bought land, it's theirs, where's religion? Jut because people of a certain religion bought it, does that make it a religious issue? Fuckhead.

Race:

There fore, the land legally belongs to them. Think of it as a sort of inheritance.

BOUGHT. CAN YOU NOT READ YOU FUCKING MORON. THEY BOUGHT THE LAND, IT IS THEIRS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT RACE OR RELIGION. SOME PEOPLE BOUGHT LAND, IT IS THEIRS.

Need I go on?

NO. Because you are clearly a stupid, ignorant little fuck.

Nor does calling me a racist.

You levelled the accusation in claiming taht Jews thought they were somehow genrtically better.

Jewish presure groups have done it too often.

Awww.....

As it happens, I wasn't thinking of Nazi Germany at the time so much as Rowanda, and wasn't making a comment regarding the policy of israel so much as pointing out the stupity of describing any race as "genetically pure" (because it leads to exactly what Stews and I oppose), but your reaction should not have surprised me.

THE GENETICALLY PURE STATEMENT WAS MADE BY YOUR SIDE. IT WAS MADE BY SBM, HE IS YOUR SIDE. NO-ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE SAID IT. IT WAS YOUR SIDE. HAVE YOU GOT THE MESSAGE YET?! WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MY REACTION YOU FUCKED UP STUPID CUNT?!

Fucking hell, you're an idiot. You just called STEWS an idiot, HE MADE THE COMMENT. IDIOT. You say 'that's what me and Stews' oppose' and HE WAS THE ONE THAT SAID IT. FUCKING. HELL.

Is it your positon that it would be acceptable to annex Jerusalem even if you weren't Jewish? Your only argument seems to be "the people there before were of the Jewish faith, so are we and so it belongs to us."

It's Jewish land, and the Jews have a right to self-determination and to return to their homeland and have a state. Right. That's the same as 'international law doesn't apply, we're Jews' is it?
Oh, I'm sorry, were you extrapolating?

Maintains a illegal occupation of Jerusalem and many areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip;

Territory won fighting a defensive war against hostile surrounding countries...

enforces laws and ordances by force in the territory of Palistine;

What the fuck? Do you mean 'carries out operations aimed at preventing terror against it's citizens'? Cause that would be, you know, ACCURATE.

Disregards UN resolutions and generaly acts like a spoilt child.

... You know my views on the UN....

Nor (and I say this again for the hard of hearing) is the "Kingdom of Israel". The state that now goes by that name is NOT LEGALLY CONNECTED to the collection of city-states which are grouped under that name in Jewish history, whatever religion it might practice.

Well, I just plain disagree with the principle of this point. The Jews have a right to a State and self-determination as much as anyone else, why are you so keen on denying them that?

[doormat]

Curio.

Judaisum is a Religion. "Jew" is a complex term, meaning both a practitioner of Judaisum, and a self-definied "race" of people.

They bought land, it's theirs, where's religion?

"The JEWS" bought the land. Not "The Democratic Republic of Israel". "The JEWS". Practioners of a Religion or members of a race. You now claim that you "inherit" that ownership, since you share that Religion and race.

Your claims are based entirly upon Race and Religion. At no point have you even suggested a legal link between king david (who lived 3000 years ago) and the state of Israel that today exists.

THE GENETICALLY PURE STATEMENT WAS MADE BY YOUR SIDE. IT WAS MADE BY SBM, HE IS YOUR SIDE. NO-ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE SAID IT. IT WAS YOUR SIDE. HAVE YOU GOT THE MESSAGE YET?! WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MY REACTION YOU FUCKED UP STUPID CUNT?!

You'll excuse me if I don't restore the formating. My comment was addressed to S.B.M. It was intended to point out to him that "Genetically pure" was a poor choice of words. He and I were debating in oppostion to occupations, and the concept of "genetic purity" has been used to justify quite a few. When I said "It's what we oppose" I was making clear to him and to everyone else that he used the term unwisly, and did not support what it implied.

It was never even directed at you, or at Isreali policy, nor was it directly referacing Nazi Germany. Yet you started becoming very agitated and agressive, claiming to be offended and demanding an apology. As I said, this is used all too frequently as a cheap debating tactic by people arguing your position, and lessens the impact of the events that gave rise to it. The sad fact is that when the news reports that "Jewish groups demand an appology for X", people tend to assume that their case has no merit even before they've heard it. One day, someone will do something that the Jewish people can genuinely take offence at, and the public reation will be "well, they always complain."

(Oh, and S.M.B. is not "on my side." The issue unites a lot of groups, but we have many diffrences of opinion. For example, he considers that the people who lived in Jerusalem in the time of King David do share a significant common heritage with modern Israel. I consider that 3000 years is too long to maintain any true connection, and that the modern Israelite claim to be "directly decended from them" is firmly a matter of belief, rather than scientific fact.)

It's Jewish land, and the Jews have a right to self-determination and to return to their homeland and have a state. Right. That's the same as 'international law doesn't apply, we're Jews' is it?
Oh, I'm sorry, were you extrapolating?

We're back to these 3000 year old "Jews" again, arn't we? Race and Religion. It's as though a small, breakaway republic were to rise practicing Roman Paganism, and claim the entire mediteratian as there terrority because "Jupiter gave it to them". In fact, their claim would be almost 1000 years fresher than yours.

Well, I just plain disagree with the principle of this point. The Jews have a right to a State and self-determination as much as anyone else, why are you so keen on denying them that?

You have a state. It's called Israel. It is not the same state founded by King David. It is a new state, formed after the second world war. You are the only person here who could possibly interpret the above sentence as representing a desire to desolve this Israel.

[ToRmEnToR]

Ok, I'll play that game.

Archaeology says the city was founded about 3000 B.C., probably by the Canaanites [a Semitic people of the ancient land of Canaan]. The Jebusites took control about 1250bc.

Then we come upon a odd influx Israelite control in the area. No one knows where the Israelite faction came from; it seems to have either been a slow settlement of nomads, or a peacefull change in majorty group in the area. David conqured the city in 1000bc.

Some Israelis begin the history of Jerusalem with David's conquest in 1000 B.C. We know from archaeological evidence that the city was inhabited from 3000 B.C.

Many Palestinians (Including Arafat) claim to trace their linage back to the Canaanites, but obviously there is no proof for these claims. Still, if you ask an Palestinian he'll probably consider it true.

In the same way, many modern Israelis claim to be decended from the ancient Israelites, but this is a religious belief and had not been proven.

In fact, neither claim is likely to be valid. Most of the Arabs in that area came in from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and other places after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 638 A.D. Israelites were expelled from Jerusalem in 597bc, when Nebuchadnezzar, a neo-Babylonian ruler, conquered Jerusalem and burnt it to the ground. He took the Jews off to Babylon and began the Babylonian exile. The chances of maintaining a cultural identity for the interviening length of time are very slim. The blood of the Israelites has been watered down at the least.

Since then the city has been mostly in Arab hands.

So you have just desided to skip the last two posts I've made in order to post an argument which I've already bashed to the ground?

If you are gonna try to pull the "who was there first" card, you'll get nothing out of it. At least nothing practical. There was always someone there first.

If you want to select an owner on a purely historical and religious base, you'll need to find a strong one. David's kingdom is probably the strongest base you are ever going to find. All the people who lived in israel before that didnt create a large kingdom which had an army and which had laws.
If you want to give the ownership over a piece of land to someone that just grew tomatos on it a thousand years ago, dont forget that there was someone before him hunting for food a thousand years before him. I would prefer giving the land to someone who was first to actually struggled to make a change, someone that implemented a law system, collected taxes, created an army to protect the land, etc...

All of the warlords that took over israel and controled it for a while dont realy have a historic or a religious claim. The conquered land was nothing more than a colony... It is far from being their homeland.

And you dont have to be a genetical descendant of someone in order to claim his property (if a father dies his property can be given to his adopted son for example). I wont even debate about the purely religious point of view when it comes to jerusalem, because it's not even the holyest city for the muslims... So their claim on a religious point is irrational.

Anyways, I'm sure that you and I both understand that the last people who should be givent this land on a purely historical and religious basis are the palestinians.

The constant shifts in ownership in Jerusalem make it one of the most contested areas on earth: which is funny, because it has no resorces or stratigic importance.

Actually jerusalem has some stratigic importance. It was in the middle of the country (kinda). Far from the sea from which annoying enemies came, and it was located on a mountainish terrain.

The past is a bad indication of who the territory "realy" belongs to.

No shit? You kinda lost track in the middle of the argument. So let me make 2 important points here.


1) The part of the argument is all about a purely historical and religious point of view. If you are looking for logical claims about the control of israel which is based more on consequences of modern situations, look at pages 2-14 (or something like that). This purely a 'what if' argument which is here to show that the palestinians dont have any valid claim for this land even when we are talking about a purely historical and religious points of view. So if

2) Read point 1.

[doormat]

Actually jerusalem has some stratigic importance. It was in the middle of the country (kinda). Far from the sea from which annoying enemies came, and it was located on a mountainish terrain.

So it's in the middle of nowhere, has no transport links, and you can't grow anything. Sweet.

I don't think any party in this debate has any historical claim on Jerusalem that stands up. The Israelites had the most sophisticated civilisation: the Arabs where there for longest, the Cananites were there first... None of it realy matters any more. The issue is that the land was occupied by force, and that such occupations should not be permited in this day and age. International law has been ignored (and is being ignored) by both sides, and the international community needs to get up off its ass and sort it.

[Banker]

So it's in the middle of nowhere, has no transport links, and you can't grow anything. Sweet.

I don't think any party in this debate has any historical claim on Jerusalem that stands up. The Israelites had the most sophisticated civilisation: the Arabs where there for longest, the Cananites were there first... None of it realy matters any more. The issue is that the land was occupied by force, and that such occupations should not be permited in this day and age. International law has been ignored (and is being ignored) by both sides, and the international community needs to get up off its ass and sort it.

Actually, the Romans were the ones that made it "civilised" and "sophisticated".. Before that it was pretty much just a backwater city in a desert that pretty much nobody except those living there cared about.

Like they say in "Life of Brian": "Well okay, except healtcare, public sanitation, roads, law and order... What has the Romans ever done for us?"

Maybe the Italians could make a claim to Israel then, after all, they did just like the jews did.. They conquered it.
And even better, they civilised the whole place.

Jerusalem to the Romans!

[ToRmEnToR]

So it's in the middle of nowhere, has no transport links, and you can't grow anything. Sweet.

Not the middle of nowhere. The middle of israel. The temple in shilo was hard for some to reach, and the temple in jerusalem solved that problem. And you dont necesseraly have to grow food successfully in your capital in order to call it your capital (even at those times). And it's location was important, because the city itself was like a fortified castle on a mountain, which is much more effective than a fortified castle on flat land.

And about transport links, I'm sure jerusalem had those. In Shloshet ha regalim (3 major holidays in jewish traditions) people from all over israel come to visit jerusalem with all kinds of things that they want to sacrifice in the temple. So I'm sure jerusalem wasnt that hard to get to if people from all over israel visited it a few times each year.


@Banker,

You keep on skipping my arguments and keep on posting bullshit.

The israelis at that king david's time managed to keep the plishtim away from the land of israel. It was mentioned that the plishtim came from the sea, and had well built weapons of steel. I'm not sure that the average savages could of stopped an attack like that.

So the israelis were never civilised nor sophisticated eh? Well how about the temple in jerusalem, numbnuts?

It was built a good 1000 years (that means thousand years) before the romans invaded israel! A THOUSAND YEARS. The jerusalem temple was an architectural marvle, and it stayed that way for centuries (right untill the time it was destoryed). People who arent civilized cannot, I repeat, cannot build a structure like that. And that happened a thousand years before the romans came here and made us all civilized and ophisticated.

Can you imagine how much can things change in a thousand years? It's the difference between sticks an' rocks and nukes an' space.

You could claim that the romans were more sophisticated than the israelis at that time, and I wont argue with that... After all, by the time the romans came there, the israelis were conquered so many times over that they didnt realy have much time to be as sophisticated as the romans.

As for the civilized claim, it's just funny.

And for the rest of your post, all I have to say is - next time read my posts.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Well just to be clear, the temple of Solomon was basically a copy of other temples (definity a good deal of Egyptian influence) and was built with substantial help from the Kingdom of Tyre so I don't know that you can simply point to it as a symbol of culture. After all nearly all societies build such things. Even the Jebusites had a palace/fortress in Jerusalem well before the comming of the Jews. Also the Temple did not remain until the Romans came, it was destroyed by the Babylonians well before the Romans rose to power and was then rebuilt (and later expanded). This is not to say the Jews didn't have culture, but simply that this is a rather poor way to "prove it".

[doormat]

I was thinking of Stonehenge.