Posted on 11/04/2009 7:28:38 AM PST by Yaacov
When the Jordanians overran West Jerusalem in the 1948 war for independence, they massacred a Jewish population that had inhabited the Jewish quarter continuously for more than three thousand years and blew up ancient Synagogues and community buildings in order to expunge all trace of Jewish life there. Now Jewish people are referred to as "settlers" and Arab squatters are portrayed as "Palestinians". They are not "Palestinians", they are Arabs. They are of the same Arab tribes that compose a majority of Jordan. There was never such a thing as a "Palestinian" until 1968 - the name is the single biggest triumphant lie foisted by Arafat on the conscience of the world...
(Excerpt) Read more at breathofthebeast.blogspot.com ...
Arafat is also the inventor of airplane bombings and the sole person most reponsible for having your shoes removed and being x-rayed before you can board a plane.
How much of a ticket price is just for the costs of airplane security ALL OVER THE WORLD?
Very True Mr. K- the only difference I can think of is that the airplane bombing victims (along with the suicide bombing victims, bus bombing victims and people killed by qassams) are all too real and Palestine is a figment of the imagination- sort of a bloody, terror ridden anti-western Brigadoon.
I am generally sympathetic to the author's POV, but this is a non-starter as an argument.
There was no such thing as an "Israeli" until 1948, at least as the definition of a nationality. There was no such thing as an "American" until 1776, or as a Kenyan until 1964.
The date of origin of a "nationality" is pretty comprehensively irrelevant. What matters is that the members of this nationality identify themselves with it, which seems to apply to both the Palestinians and the Israelis.
If the Jews are considered ‘settlers’ - they are settlers in their OWN land! Hey, conservatives are terrorists according to HS - so much for name calling - we are Pro American to the hilt! Same for the Jews - pro Israel!
The term “Israeli” may be modern (since 1948), but there have been Israelites throughout history since the children of Israel (Jacob), whose forefathers had inhabited Canaan (pertaining to roughly the same piece of dirt) from the days of Abraham.
“Israelite” is the historic name for a member of that nation, which existed a far piece before 1948.
The Old Testament is an accurate record of these things.
Agreed.
However, there was no Jewish state in the area, not even a body claiming political authority, after 136.
If every other ethnic group that controlled an area 1800 years ago were considered to have the “right” to sovereignty over that area, the world would be a pretty big mess. Among other things, the USA would have zero legitimacy.
I support Israel, and there are excellent arguments for its legitimacy, but these arguments from history aren’t particularly effective. In particular, while they may be great for Bible-believing Christians and Jews, they will most certainly convince no one else.
IOW, they will not convert anyone not already supporting Israel. In fact, there is an excellent chance that some people, potential supporters of the Jewish state, are repelled by what they view as arguments from religious fanaticism.
As you know, Jews and Christians, unlike Muslims, are not allowed to be religious fanatics.
What about the Israelis in the Old Testament? They might take exception to your statement.
AFAIK, they didn’t use the term “Israeli.” They referred to themselves as Israelites.
Possibly this is nit-picking.
But I stand behind my point that the legitimacy of a “nation” or its control over a particular region needs to be argued on other issues than the date of origin of the “nation.”
Another point. The Israelis claim the “right” to the land based on their conquest of it under Joshua and the judges, during which they largely wiped out the previous inhabitants.
On what non-religious basis did this conquest confer legitimate title, but all later groups that conquered the area did not acquire proper title to its sovereignty?
Don’t know if you read my whole post at BotB but I don’t think we disagree. BTW, history is not religious fanaticism and I am only arguing that in the relative sequence of conquests and resettlements that are the total of human history, calling Jews settlers and Arabs Palestinians is the least accurate representation possible and is used by the left to invoke the rights of the oppressed for the poor Paliies.
“I support Israel, and there are excellent arguments for its legitimacy, but these arguments from history aren’t particularly effective. In particular, while they may be great for Bible-believing Christians and Jews, they will most certainly convince no one else.”
There would have been no movements dedicated to the re-establishment of a Jewish state (such movements already well in place back in the 1800s) had it not been for their Biblical heritage. Had there been no other reasons, the biblical history would have been plenty for men like Ronald Reagan to support Israel.
Islamists are all squatters anyway. There are no men in that cult. They are cowards and rapists of women and children, that is all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.