I too am sick of the Israeli Lobby in the United States. Infact, it has sicken the nation in so many ways. Being a jew myself, it would not be normal for you to assume that I would be a zionist. But I and many others are not, infact some of us, including myself have reliqinished our dual Israeli / American citizenships, granted to us at birth. and the sad part about that is the fact that now we have been shunned, not only by most zionest jews but also by many other fellow religions who have been strangely attracted to Israel.

It's obvious that their is a major Israel lobby here in America, its the sad truth. Obviously they pose no real economic benefit, as they're extremely limited in the means or resources. Other than that, Israel is in deep debt to the United States.

Guide to Argumentation By and For Zionists

Make dehumanizing comments about Arabs.

This eliminates a large amount of time and effort by immediately galvanizing the debate and forcing people to take sides. Your enemies will show themselves by disagreeing with you immediately. The whole idea is to paint Arabs as less than human, creating a climate wherein Israel can kill them with impunity on the dime of the American taxpayer and expand the borders of Israel to their Biblical proportions. That is the prize. Fight hard.

If met with agreement:

A small portion, the confirmed Zionists, will agree that Arabs are less than human. You win.

If met with disagreement:

An equally small portion of do-gooders will actually object strenuously. Immediately use an ad-hominem argument. This should work. If, however, the opponent points out the fact that you have employed a fallacy, denounce the opponent as anti-Semitic. This can scare away even the most courageous humanitarian. They are instinctively frightened of looking like Nazi sympathizers. On very rare occasions, one of these will persist in defending his point. Try to silence him. Tell his boss he is an anti-Semite and threaten to organize a boycott. If he cannot be silenced, retreat. Attack an easier target.

If met with uneasy acceptance:

The vast majority of people will simply not stand up for anything ever. They are sheep, and can be told to do almost anything, and they will obey. They are petrified of not being liked, and the absolute last thing they want to do is think for themselves. Note: Once you have instilled terror in them for disagreement, don’t forget to offer them approval for doing your will. We are the chosen people, and, deep down, they know it and want to please us. Have a heart. Give them a little approval. It doesn’t cost a thing.

Things That Can Go Wrong:

1. Someone might ask you to define your terms, i.e. exactly what is a Jew? Start with insults. For instance, “It’s no wonder you don’t know, because you are not one of us, and you are also ignorant,” or, “It is very complicated, and you wouldn’t understand it.” Surprisingly, this works sometimes. DO NOT enter into the discussion in any substantive sense. If Jewish is a race, that makes Israel racist. If it is a religion, that makes Israel a religious state. (Note: For some reason, Americans do not like religious states.) If it is a cultural group, that makes us a hegemony. If it is a tribe, that makes the whole concept look like a primitive construct. Develop your own style of evasion, but never ever attempt to define Jewishness.

2. The worst thing that can happen is that a Jew might disagree with you. Code Red! We have worked long and hard to convince the world that Zionism and Judaism are the same thing. When Judaism and Zionism are considered the same thing, it is possible for the Zionist to commit almost any crime in the name of Israeli defense and then claim the same protections due to ordinary Jews. Start by calling the disagreeing Jew anti-Semitic. I know, it is funny, isn’t it? But it works. I am not kidding. Here’s how it works. The actions of Zionists over the years have increased the level of anti-Semitism in the world quite a bit. That makes Jews conversely more dependent on our own people. This in turn makes rejection by Jews all the more terrifying for Jews. Remember, all we have going for us is fear. In other words, we must impress people with the strength of our convictions rather than the content.

3. Someone might bring up some particularly ugly action of Israel. If this happens, use the “They started it” argument. If your opponent brings up the fact that Arab casualties outnumber Israeli casualties by a factor of ten to one, raise your voice by a similar factor and use the “They started it” argument again, this time including graphic details about dead children. This will gross them out and make them feel icky and just want to get away from the whole situation. That works to our advantage, too.

As someone who was raised in a Reform Jewish family, I can certainly understand the vehemence of these reactions.

In the last 50 years, victimhood has been deeply ingrained in the cultural identity of Judaism, and it is very easy to associate the goals of Israel as a state with the goals of Jews as a people.

The problem of course comes when the Israeli state agenda differs in principle from the ideals of progressive pluralism, which is a philosophy American Jews have been traditionally associated with, much to our benefit and that of our society as a whole.

In the current environment of political polarization, it is easy to mistake the act of questioning the universality of the Israeli agenda (or even the degree to which it coincides with the American agenda) for an attack on the interests of Jews as individuals or as political actors.

This is really a symptom of the state of political debate and discourse in our time, not a specific problem of American and Israeli politics and policy.

Please treat this as an honest, non-leading question (because it is meant to be):

Why does Israel need/want U.S. assistance?

I mean, granted, they are surrounded by hostile, or at the least, unfriendly peoples and states, and their civilian population is under constant attack. But how can the U.S.' political support change any of that?

Hamas is still not going to recognize Israel, no matter how many U.S. presidents call for a Palestinian state.

And as the only 1st World economic power in the Middle East (excepting some burgs of its oil rich neighbors), Israel is a stone fortress next to straw huts.

I just don't see how it benefits Israel... so can some folks give me their thoughts?

One anwser to that q... Money.

Well, they need the money and military aid, not necessarily the political support. I think the political support is partly to justify the money. After all, it is tax money leveed from US citizens. It needs justification. Partly it is to keep the Zionist lobby happy. One might ask why do they need the money and military aid when they are rich and strong. Well, they have basically been ultra cautious since the krauts tried to wipe them off the face of the earth. Who can blame them? It's just that this Zionism thing is racism and has always been racism, and we should not feel like we should have to give our money to the cause. I am not sure Israel, however, can go from an ethnic hegemony to the modern world. Its people are mostly non-ideological, but holy crap look at that flag they lord over their Palestinian Muslim inhabitants.

I think the reason Jews get their back up when "the powerful Jewish lobby" issue is raised is because it smells of the bogie man Protocols of Zion issue.

I'm damned sure the Israel lobby does wield influence in Washington but i'm not exactly clear how it's always made out to be "the most powerful". I dont know how this is measured, certainly against the Saudis, but against the NRA, AARP or many others.

The US has supported Israel since its reconstitution in 1948. The reasons were complex and I'm sure they had a lot to do with shared values the US and Israel share (and feelings of guilt after the Holocaust).

Though not a perfect democracy, Israel is still a democracy-- the only one in the region (over 20 Arab countries, 0 stable democracies. ZERO -- Is that the Jews' fault too?) I'd say, lobby or no lobby, that still goes a long way. To say Jews have influence in the US is true, but moreso with the Democratic Party. Jews still vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Logic therefore would dictate that the Republicans, who get hardly any support and who more big-oil focused, would be much less supportive of Israel. That is not the case -- again for a variety of reasons (Christian Zionists, for example).

My point (I have one!) is that the "Israel lobby" is very easily brought forward as a bogie man. Why does the US support Israel? Well! It must be all that power and influence Israel (ie., The Jews) wield! I concede that's part of the story, but i dont think it's the full story.

Btw, heretic, can you explain to me why Zionism is racism -- succintly if you could.

Why are French nationalism, Polish nationalism, Iranian nationalism, Greek nationalism and Arab nationalism acceptable, but not Jewish nationalism?

Just curious.

Israel's influence over US policies far outstrips Saudi, or even combined Arab influence.

Evidence? The invasion of Iraq. The US was for it. Israel was most definitely for it. Other Western nations lent sort of lukewarm support for it. And of course, let's not forget Poland. But the rest of the world, and in particular the Arab world? They objected quite strongly, but basically got told to go to Hell.

I think one of the most striking mind fuck operations by the Israel and Israel lobby has been the whitewashing of the U.S.S. Liberty "incident".

It is certainly nice to have "the world's only superpower" in your back pocket.

because it smells of the bogie man Protocols of Zion issue.

Bullshit. It's you who invite that bogeyman in - to intimidate and shut down the debate. It's a particularly nauseating violation of Godwin's Law.

Mearsheimer and Walt are indeed way off base. Here's why. Read it, and learn how an actual argument is exponentially more powerful than babbling like a village idiot and slapping people with your fetid, decayed red herring.

I truly appreciate this site for continuing to discuss this issue. The "Israeli Lobby" is very real and very influential. In the interest of our own democracy we need to make this a more mainstream political issue so that politicians will have to be held accountable and be given(by the people) motivation to do what is in America's best interest. And it must be said that by ignoring the realities of the Israeli Lobby's existence and it's influence the American Jewish population will itself create a floodgate of anti-semitism.

LOL. "A village idiot and slapping people with your fetid, decayed red herring."

Sven, that's so sweet! Sounds like you're the one "intimidat[ing] and shut[ting] down the debate."

As for Godwin's Law, the Protocols have nothing to do with the Nazis. Nice try though.

"Though not a perfect democracy, Israel is still a democracy"

Its not a democracy in any way, shape, or form for the palestinians. That straightforwardly makes it NOT A DEMOCRACY.

What debate? Whether you're an obnoxious clown?

Your claim about the protocols shows that's a priori. What kind of buffoon doesn't even research his own dipshit insults?

Sven, how am I an obnoxious clown? I've been perfectly diplomatic with you in the face of your insults and ad hominem attacks. Incidently, it's called 'irony' when someone uses words like 'a priori' in sentence and has the gall to call me "obnoxious."

The protocols, are not a Nazi document. They pre-date the Nazis. Maybe I should have been more clear.

Stefan, Israel IS a democracy and it IS a democracy for Palestinians who chose to become Israeli citizens in 1948. You're correct that Israel is not a democracy for Palestinians in the lands Israel occupies. Last time I checked, the US didn't allow Germans and Japanese to vote for President when it occupied their countries either. And if memory serves, when Egypt and Jordan occupied Gaza and the West Bank respectively from 1948 to 1967, they didnt allow Palestinians to vote either.

So, where is your mock outrage about that?

Maybe I should have been more clear.

At least you have the gift of understatement.

Playing (being?) stupid about why anyone would take offense at your disgusting comments only adds another thick layer of obnoxiousness.

You want to engage? Go read something and bring an actual argument to the table (you can start with the link I provided, which makes your case about the Israel lobby).

Otherwise, go to hell.

I thought something Stefan posted was quite telling. He wrote:

"And it must be said that by ignoring the realities of the Israeli Lobby's existence and it's influence the American Jewish population will itself create a floodgate of anti-semitism."

So, if as you claim, criticizing the Israeli Lobby has nothing to do with anti-semitism, why will ignoring the realities of the lobby's influence unleash a "floodgate of anti-semitism"?

What you're basically saying is "hey Jews, better watch out because if you don't stop wielding so much power, there's no telling what unfortunate occurences might befall you." That's a threat. How refreshingly anti-semitic of you.

Sven, did you have a Jewish girlfriend who pissed you off or something? Because you seem really angry.

As for "reading something", I can assure you, I've read way more than you on this subject, from multiple points of view. It's what affords me, unlike you, the ability to see both sides of the argument. You on the other hand, are no different from the radical Zionists you hate and the radical Palestinians you love. Just another stupid small-minded bigot.

Heretic: Guide to Argumentation By and For Zionists

If, however, the opponent points out the fact that you have employed a fallacy, denounce the opponent as anti-Semitic

1. Someone might bring up some particularly ugly action of Israel. If this happens, use the “They started it” argument.

You on the other hand, are no different from the radical Zionists you hate and the radical Palestinians you love.

Dear dumbass,

I know I didn't spell it out for you in small words, but I agree that there is no such thing as the "Israel Lobby" driving U.S. policy.

I'm angry - justifiably - because it is schmucks like you who make it difficult to argue my side.

"because it smells of the bogie man Protocols of Zion issue."

Sven responds,

"Bullshit. It's you who invite that bogeyman in - to intimidate and shut down the debate. It's a particularly nauseating violation of Godwin's Law."

Sven, Sven, Sven. Have you read the M/W paper? M/W invited that "bogeyman" by referencing in their paper, and tearing it down like a strawman in an anticipatory action to discredit those who might smell the Protocols.

Why did they mention it? They mentioned it first.

Have you ever heard the expression, "I'm not a racist, but..."

Why are so many of the commenters here Zionists?

Boy, it sure doesn't take much to bring out the antisemitism in this crowd! Jews as victims are good, but Jews who fight are bad. The fact that most nations and corporations have lobbies is irrelevant--only the "Israel" lobby is bad. If a Catholic or fundamentalist lobby fights abortion, nobody accuses them of having split loyalties.

There is a reason that the Jews take it in the shorts if they defend themselves, and get killed if they don't. It is called antisemitism.

As to the reality of "Palestine": If the Arabs gave up their weapons they would have their state. If the Jews gave up their weapons they would all be dead.

"Palestine" is the first officially Judenrein (Jew-free) state to be declared since the end of Nazi Germany. The first act of Palestinians in Gaza was to destroy all Jewish houses of worship. When Jordan controlled Jerusalem, Jewish shrines were destroyed. Any Jewish holy site that has been in territory occupied by Palestinians has been destroyed.

Israel has granted the Muslims full control over their holy sites in Jerusalem, and has even refused to permit Jews to investigate credible charges that the Muslims are underminining the Wailing Wall under the guise of maintaining their own sites.

The raw deal handed to the Palestinian Arabs was handed to them by their fellow Arabs. The "camps" were created in territory controlled by Arabs, and only came to Israel when it was victorious against Arab aggression. Funny how those camps were not a problem until the Jews took control.

It is people like many of the posters here who helped get Bush elected in 2004. The mindless, reflexive defense of the Palestinians and attacks on Israel are offensive to anyone who values freedom and democratic values. Hell, listening you guys almost makes ME want to vote for Bush, and I would cut my hands off before I did that.

zakdegrassi: French, Polish, Greek, or whatever kind of nationalism don't seem to have much to do with your genetics. Israel is about the most racially styled state on the planet right now, but here we run into the problem of hazy definitions of Jewishness. Is it a race, ethnic group, tribe, religion, or what? I can almost guarantee you will never get a straight answer from a Zionist, unless they are totally honest, and they tell you it has to do with whether your mother was Jewish or not. To Jews, Jewishness is passed on kind of like mitachodrial DNA, just through the mommies. But what exactly is being passed on in the case of Jewishness? Is it a religion? Well, Jews still consider you Jewish even if you are an atheist. Half of my family are Jewish atheists. On the other hand, my mother is not Jewish, so Jews do not consider me Jewish. My atheist Jewish relatives, however, are considered Jews even though they do not believe any of that religious hogwash. So, it seems pretty clear that the concept of Jewishness is racially styled, even by Jews, and Zionism is nothing if not the belief that Israel is for the Jews. Now, if that patch of turf is reserved for members of one race by the philosophical principles of Zionism, I can't see how it could be anything but racism. Israel's immigration policy has changed many times, but Jewishness is always the big qualifier. To this, your LGF type will say, "What about the Arab states? They will kill any Jews or Christians in their borders." Yes, and I am not for giving my mfing tax money to them, either. Duh.

Not denying the existence of a Zionest lobby, but it's influence is exaggerated. The US also provides significant military aide to Taiwan, a country that isn't even surrounded by the massive oil reserves that the US is dependant on. Is there a Taiwanese lobby?

The premise that supporting Isreal is against the USA's own interest, is flawed. Just because Isreal does things that aren't always in US interests, it doesn't follow that the US would be better off if it abandoned Isreal as an ally.

If there is a Zionist lobby wielding disproportionate power, it is not wielding that power over the US, but rather over the vast majority of Jews, who are for the most part, (with a few exceptions) some of the LEAST racist people I've met.

It's funny that when the subjugation is by Jews on Palestinians, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE to right this horrible wrong.

But when Arab countries torture Jews, confiscate their property and exile them, as was done to my mother's family in Egypt, well what can you do? Shit happens right?

I'd be curious to know why all you people who are so concerned about the rights and plight of Palestinian Arabs are silent about the rights and plight of the Kurds. If you support a free Palestine, do you also support a free Kurdistan? Do Palestinian Arabs support a free Kurdistan? Because it seems to me, Arabs have a knack for demanding rights for themselves that they are unwilling to offer to others. Remember that next time you, say, want to open a church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia.

zakdegrassi: Stefan was not threatening you. He was trying to warn you about the millions of corn-fed idiots who are ripe for antisemitic conversion. I mean, tell them in Oklahoma that their kids are fighting and dying for New York Jews, and they will believe you a lot quicker than if you tell them a blue-eyed God-fearing Bush is really just a con man making fools of them. The perception is also that Jews have split loyalties. Now, split loyalties is not a problem with protestants. They can claim to put God before country when they are the majority. Jews, on the other hand, are a small minority, and if they try to put "their homeland" ahead of the interests of America and the vast majority of the people who are dying in the field and try to comandeer the foreign policy of the country for the support of a fairly insignificant country, my friend, they may be successful in the short run, but I pity the fool who thinks it is not done at great peril of a Bubba backlash. A warning is not a threat. Last time I was in Philly, I was in a rich neighborhood and saw someone flying an Israeli flag on the same post over an American flag. I asked my Jewish half-brother, "Can they do that?" And he was like, "What's the problem?" You know, it's just little stuff like that. The God's chosen people routine that doesn't play well with other people who think they, not you, are God's chosen people. A little anecdote. I was at my first Passover sader the other day, and had to read part of the ceremony, and there is a part where I had to ask God to strike dead those who deny God. Basically atheists, like myself. Fortunately, there was nobody there to hear my prayer.

zakdegrassi: I don't think you are going to find many Saudi Arabiaphiles here dude. I think you will not find anyone in here that is for sending money to repressive Arab countries. Remember, this is not about being against Israel. This is about having to give them blood and treasure.

To Onegoodmove, "Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security to advance the interests of another state?"
Well yes, there is a Israeli lobby in America. There is also a Saudi lobby, a UAE lobby, a Palestinian lobby, etc.,etc... In fact there are lobbies for almost anything anyone can think of. And each of those lobbies ability to wield influence in Washington is based on what's best for the elected officials they are lobbying. They are used by us in direct proportion to the amount they benefit us. Now Israel being the only Jewish state in the world will "by all means necessary" fight to exist. The history of the Jews is justification enough for that. (That is if you don't deny that history.) "I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment." - Malcom X Just maybe, you should suggest that the Palestinians re-examine their own tactics, but don't be holding your breath.

Hi all, I've read a lot of factual inaccuracies by the people here defending Israel. Let me try to clarify some of them.

1] Jewish Zionists was the first to use Public bombings were a terrist tactics in the 1940s to pressurise the withdrawal of British colonial powers from its British colony of Palestine. The Palestineans are nowing using the tactics against them.

2] The Jews in the 1940s have no right to a Jewish state as 80% of the Jews were immigrants, many of which came illegally.

3] Israel have seized its lands by premtiove wars, not as a result of Arab aggression. If everytime a country goes to war first because a neighboruing country mobilise forces on its frontiers, we would have expect China to destroy Taiwan as well as India and Pakistan destroying each other by now.

4] While Saddam have defied 17 UN edicts, 22 UN General Assemby edicts were issued against Israel for its military aggression, unlawful occupation of lands sezied from Palestinians, Syria and Egpt which Israel and US too defied.

5] Israel is not a signatory of the IPT policy and thus does not have the right to manufactured and stockpile buclear weapons. Israel has done this secretly and up to now US has stopped UN from delivering sanctions to it.

6] Archaologists have found no proof that the ancient Jewish kingdom led by David existed. This was covered by a Time Expose in 2000. So much for their biblical right to land in Palestine when the Palestines were the direct descendants of the Cannaites who have lived in the region even before the Exodus came to found the mythical ancient kingdom of Israel.

I am willing to provide proof to anyone who wants. Just drop an e-mail to my generic e-mail address: tshtsh@hotmail.com

I have all the relevant excepts from books, UN papers and historical writings as I used to debate on this topic under my ruling party's political forum.

Lobbyists for pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC passes US government information to AIPAC.

Kindly read how he had a hand in the wiring of Pro-Israel policies by the government:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/20/AR2006042001947.html

Apparently reason is dead, only radical religious ideas remain. In 60 or 70 years will the Arabs use the same arguements as the Zionists? Or are they the same now?

Is it possible to have a debate about Israel without ad hominem and bringing up the Protocols? Guess not.

Would it be possible to discuss the ideas advanced by Mearsheimer and Walt? Guess not. Sven started a discussion, but his comments were twisted all out of proportion. Too bad, because I was looking forward to a good debate, and instead, it deteriorated into name calling. :(

The article that Sven linked to brought up a good point, which is to be clear about the differences between a lobby, a pressure group, and a political coalition.

Sometimes I get the feeling that some people posting don't read the prior posts carefully, and instead just react and quickly post something.

Let me say this regarding the spam attack mentioned in this post.

I'm a European, sceptical of Israel's dealings with the Palestinian question and American unwavering support for Israel. In that "capacity" I've been, as a small blogger, repeatedly at the receiving end of spam attacks in various forms. I've been called an anti-Semite G-d knows how many times now. I've had on one occasion also to invoke the Godwin principle when one guy started repeating himself ad nauseam, ending with comparisons to Hitler.

Another openly declared anti-Palestinian blogger carpet-bombed my (unmoderated) comment section with spam comments and abuse. Turns out Blogger picked up on this (I wasn't the only one of his victims) and took his blog down.

Re the W & M piece: it's useful to read the Dershowitz rebuttal of their paper in which D. comes within a hair's breath of calling the authors anti-Semites. Most conservative pro-Israel bloggers don't have D.'s reserve though.

An Israeli official (Mr Seaman) recently said that the BBC coverage of Israel "competes with the worst Nazi propaganda"... Can these guys hear themselves talk?

Adam: One answer to that a... Money

Heretic: I think the political support is partly to justify the money.

As Adam said, money. Money represents food, pleasure, land, independence, etc..

Zad..: I think the reason Jews get their back up when "the powerful Jewish lobby" issue is raised is because it smells of the bogie man Protocols of Zion issue.

Ed: Israel's influence over US policies far outstrips Saudi, or even combined Arab influence. Evidence? The invasion of Iraq

Stefan: The "Israeli Lobby" is very real and very influential

Why use quotes? If Stefan had bothered to read the link provided by Stefan, he would have learned to distinguish between a lobby, a pressure group, and a coalition.

Zak: As for Godwin's Law, the Protocols have nothing to do with the Nazis.

Zak didn't do his homework before saying this.

Stefan: NOT A DEMOCRACY.

Capitalizing something, which is the same thing as screaming, or speaking louder than the person you are speaking to, does not make what you say more believable.

Zad: Stefan, Israel IS a democracy and it IS a democracy

Again, capitalizing the word "is" does not make it so.

Sven: You want to engage? Go read something and bring an actual argument to the table (you can start with the link I provided, which makes your case about the Israel lobby). Otherwise, go to hell.

Yes, go read something. Read something new. Expand your horizons.

Sven: I know I didn't spell it out for you in small words, but I agree

Ed: Why are so many of the commenters here Zionists?

Do we have to be either an anti-semite or a Zionist bigot?

Pulmon: Boy, it sure doesn't take much to bring out the antisemitism in this crowd!

The high-level discussion continues...

Brahm: Not denying the existence of a Zionest lobby, but it's influence is exaggerated.

Ah, no ad hominem. It was easier to concentrate on what he/she was saying because of this.

Zad..: I'd be curious to know why all you people who are so concerned about the rights and plight of Palestinian Arabs are silent about the rights and plight of the Kurds.

Discussion over. Back to ad hominem.

Heretic: zakdegrassi: Stefan was not threatening you.

An attempt to try to communicate again.

Israel's friend: Just maybe, you should suggest that the Palestinians re-examine their own tactics, but don't be holding your breath.

Two wrongs make a right fallacy.

Kes: Hi all, I've read a lot of factual inaccuracies by the people here defending Israel. Let me try to clarify some of them.

Yes, there are factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies flying around all over the place.

Fireblazes: Apparently reason is dead,

Yup, if not dead, then dying.

Gert: An Israeli official (Mr Seaman) recently said that the BBC coverage of Israel "competes with the worst Nazi propaganda"... Can these guys hear themselves talk?

I don't know. Can any of us hear ourselves talk?

It seems that very few people are commenting on the fact that the US administration are supporting a very specific Israel, the right wing, conservative Israel. The Israeli lobby are also basically made up of arch conservatives with a religious bias. It is indeed rare to ever hear more moderate or even oppisitional voices from within Israel in the debate. They do exist actually.

**P Meyer, if the Israel lobby is arch-conservative and so supportive of a right wing, conservative Israel how is it that most Jews in America (80%) vote Democrat? Please explain.

**And JoAnn, how is highlighting the fact that Arabs undermine Kurdish nationalism, while crying about the plight of Palestinians (ie., Arabs) an ad hominem attack? Maybe look up the definition of 'ad hominem'.

**I'd still love to hear an answer as to why Arabs have a right to their nationalism, but Jews and Kurds can't?? What are Arabs exactly? Are they a religion? No. Are they a race? No. Do they all share a common history? No. So how is their nationalism any more legitimate than Jewish Nationalism, i.e., Zionism. I doubt I'll get an answer the the question.

As someone once said, the issue for the Arabs is not that the Palestinians don't have a state (Jordan is 65% Palestinian and 2/3 of the original Palestine Mandate), the issue is that the Jews have one. And that inconvenient fact drives them mad.

kes, just because people like me are upset with having to give money to Israel for their brutal treatment of Palestinians, it doesn't mean we like the people who think the Israelis should be driven into the sea. In fact, we can't stand you and your retarded war. You are a bunch of religious fanatics and Islamo-fascist butchers. As long as Palestine votes Hamas into power, you will not have peace and you will not deserve peace. And the same goes for Israel, as long as they brutally occupy lands illegally, they will not have or deserve peace. The problem is that both sides have been taken over by butchers. Have fun butchering each other forever, but do us a favor and leave the USA out of your filthy wars, and we will do our part by trying our best to get the Republicans out of Washington and staying home.

Ok, Zad, it's not ad hominem exactly, but it is changing the subject by attacking the Palestinians and Arabs, rather than staying on topic as to why the U.S. should spend so much of its tax dollars on Israel.

The ad hominem was the "I'd be curious to know why all you people are so concerned about the plight of the Palestinians..".. Again, maybe this is more of a straw man, because once again, I thought that we were not discussing Israel vs Palestine.

As to the nationalism of Arabs, etc., I don't think that I ever said anything about that, and I am not sure who you are addressing with this question.

Regards

Jo Ann.

First off, it's Zak, not Zad.

Second, the US spends a lot of money on a lot of countries, from Israel to Egypt to other countries all around the world. If you're questioning why that is so, then it's important to understand all the reasons for it. Some of those reasons certainly involve Jewish/Israeli influence/lobbying. Some reasons involve a connection Americans feel for the Land of Israel. Some reasons involve geopolitics. Some involve the fact that Israel is the only (yes, ONLY in caps) democracy in the Middle East. If you're so concerned about those bad ol' Israelis hurting all those innocent Palestinians, then your bleeding heart should ache, as does mine, not just for them, but for the Kurds that Arab Iraqis have killed, for the Armenians the Turks slaughtered, for the Egyptian Copts that Egyptian Muslims torture, and for the 500,000 Jews in Arab lands who were persecuted and expelled from their homes and countries in the last 60 years. There's blood on everyone's hands, dear. Not just those 'sneaky all-powerful Jews.'

Jo Ann, I believe Israel should withdraw from occupied lands ASAP. But if you think that the Palestinian suicide bombs will end when Israel does, then you're stupendously naive. Hamas has made it clear Zionist occupied lands include all of Israel, not just the West Bank. I want Israel to withdraw from the West Bank so that Israel can secure its borders and show the world what this issue is really all about -- Jews having the gall to have a homeland of their own. The sooner Israel withdraws, the sooner you'll see that that's what this is all about.

Zak: (Sorry bout calling you Zad :)) "US spends a lot of money on a lot of countries, from Israel to Egypt to other countries all around the world"

The U.S. spends more on Israel than any other country (about 30% of total foreign aid). The question, is why so much in proportion to the size and economic needs of Israel. And why is this aid given even while Israel continues to illegally occupy Palestinian land?

Zak: "Some reasons involve a connection Americans feel for the Land of Israel"

Ok, Americans do feel a connection to Israel, and more of a connection to Israel than to the Palestinians, but again, why should this connection oblige the U.S. to spend 30% of total foreign aid on Israel?

Zak: "If you're so concerned about those bad ol' Israelis hurting all those innocent Palestinians, then your bleeding heart...etc etc "

Again, I am not talking about Israel vs Palestine. You are. I am just looking to Israel, and why is the U.S. spending so much of its foreign aid on Israel?

Yes, I know there's blood on everyone's hands and I don't think that the Jews are sneaky and all-powerful and bad, and that the Palestinians are all innocent. Please. However, Israel obviously has enough influence in the U.S to warrant so much foreign aid as compared to what other countries get based on size and need.

Zak: "Jo Ann, I believe Israel should withdraw from occupied lands ASAP. But if you think that the Palestinian suicide bombs will end when Israel does, then you're stupendously naive."

You are putting words in my mouth, and again, please, what does any of this have to do with the amount of foreign aid that the U.S. spends on Israel? What does the U.S. have to gain? Why is this in the best interest of the U.S.?

I am no expert on any of this. I am just trying to figure this all out and hoping that a good discussion here will be helpful in trying to understand all of this.

Yes, Zak, I have to agree with Jo Ann that you are putting words in everyone's mouths. Your ability to even hear other people's points of view without assuming they are Nazis has been stunted by years of war and subsequent training to hate Palestinians. No, your war will not end like magic one day. You and your enemies have seen to that. We can only do what is in our power. So, Israel should try to make peace as it has at times tried to do in the past. You should try sending some foreign aid to Palestine. That is why Hamas is so popular. Not just because they are terrorists but because they are the leading benevolent organization for Palestinians in the territories. You should try being responsible for those whom you illegally occupy. We have a statement in the US that goes, "You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar." I know it sounds funny to you to think about showing compassion for Palestinians, but you are going to have to get around to it if you don't want to leave your kids the same filthy barbarity you have lived with all your life. Stop pointing the finger at the Arabs every time somebody brings up how you are trying to force them off of their lands. It is revolting to see you acting like three-year-olds on the playground. Where there is no vision, the people perish.

Heretic, you are putting words in my mouth. I did not post that I was the Israelis pushed into the sea.

You are lying ot trying to do a reduction ad absurdum to discredit the facts I raised, which were proven historical facts from history and UN documents.

Let me state that I'm an Asia, a Chinese and I have a cousin who married an Israeli and I have no problems with them.

What I do have a problem is that why Israelis are not called to answer for introducing public bombings and other terroist methods to the Middle East to achieve their political objectives in 1940s? It's odd when you condemn only the Arabs for this when all they did was to learn from the Zionists.

This is my concern, as well as other historian based on a study of history.

As a supporter of human rights, I do not recognise the right of Israels in their violent attempts to dislocate Arabs from palestinean lands, where they have dealt for thousands of years and whose ancestors were there way before the time of the Exodus.

As a citizen of a country made of immigrants, I can tell you that Israelis have utterly no legal right to dispossess millions of Arab Palestineans of lands in the Arab Palestine region when most Israelis are European immigrants whose European ancestors converte to the Jewish religion in Europe. If that's the case, what's to stop Malaysia from sending 4 million Malays to immigrate to Singapore to turn it into a Muslim state. They tried to do it before in the late 1960s but were unsuccessful.

As an internationalist, I do not support military aggression, unlawful occupation and land grab as the sovereign rights of a nation. So far Israel is the only country that has not been prosecuted for such behaviour in the international areana

As a nationalst, I do see that the Palestineans whose lands are illegally occupied by Israels have the choice and the right to fight back. We see citizens in Nazi-occupied Europe doing this and that the Hizbollahs were able to free Southern Lebanon from unlawful Israeli occupation.

And the nuclear race in the Middle East is partly precipaited by Israels incandestine attempt to develop a stockhold of nuclear weapons. As they are not a signatory to the NPT pact, Israel is not under any checks and balances.

Why does Israel have the freedom to do these unlawful acts without fear or reprisals while other nations are labeled roque states when they commit just 1 thing that Israel does?

Zak, your comment below is not true: "the issue for the Arabs is not that the Palestinians don't have a state (Jordan is 65% Palestinian and 2/3 of the original Palestine Mandate), the issue is that the Jews have one. And that inconvenient fact drives them mad."

More than 2 million Palestinians live in refugees camps in Syria and the surrounding Arab nations.

If you can equate that Palestinians have a state in that they share common descent with 60% of the population, then we can also say that the Jews already has a state in whichever country they live in as long as they share common descent with the majority of the people here.

Jo, let me try to answer your question.

The Israeli lobby enjoys the favour of many Christians as one of the pre-requisite for the second coming of Christ is for the Jews to restore their kingdom or state at Jerusalem according to Biblical prophecies.

This is strictly a marriage of convenience as after this event takes place, only Christians will be saved.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=216

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/north7.html

One last thing though, I have not support the right to someone else's property based on any religious claims or documents. Such claims are not reasonable, not legal, not rational and more than not, not humane.

God does not make right.

For example, I find it as hard to take as Hannity did when Christians condemning US soldiers, who died in Iraq, as receipients of God's rage:

www.wimp.com/religious/

For me I condemn the actions of the Palestinians who kill innocent kids and children against the dictates of the Koran, though I respect their righht to self-defence against a hostile and illegal occupier of their lands.

However, I am equally against the actions of Israelis who indulge in land grabds that have dislocated millions of Arabs from their ancestral lands, terroist tactics, slaughters of innocents in villages.

No one here can deny that these actions by Israelis for the last 60 years are the primt cause of why the Hamas are elected today, as they are seen as the party most capable of protecting Palestinians from further atrocities.

"...when Christians condemning US soldiers, who died in Iraq, as receipients of God's rage:

www.wimp.com/religious/

... No one here can deny that these actions by Israelis for the last 60 years are the prime cause of why the Hamas are elected today, as they are seen as the party most capable of protecting Palestinians from further atrocities."

"Heretic, you are putting words in my mouth. I did not post that I wanted the Israelis pushed into the sea.

You are either lying or trying to do a reduction ad absurdum on my previous post, so as to discredit the facts I raised, which were proven historical facts from history and UN documents."

The "terror" bombings by the Irgun et al were directed against military targets, even if those military targets were quartered in civilian hotels. The Palestinian terrorists attack noncombatant women and children as their primary targets.

As to who was there first: the total population of the area in the mid 19th century was less than 50,000. The late 19th century Zionist movement caused an influx of Jews and money. Arabs were attracted to that and came in increasing numbers.

Historical and religious arguments will get nowhere. Try appealing to international law, which created Israel in 1948. Every attack on Israel since then was a violation of international law with attempted genocide added for fun.

The Palestinian camps existed before Israel occupied the "territories" and were never an issue as long as the arabs were oppressed by other arabs.

If Palestinians laid down their arms and accepted peace they would have virtually everything they wanted. Their phony right of return is an invented one, designed to sound like the Jewish right of return that has an entirely different basis. It is, however, a total dealbreaker. If the Palestinians want a land, and peace, then they need to compromise. They have never given anything meaningful in the name of compromise. They have never tried to stop terrorism. The newly elected government has come out strongly in support of terrorism.

As to international "law" against Israel, you need to understand the UN charter and the nature of the anti-Israel resolutions. NONE of these was binding. Israel has ignored nonbinding resolutions (such as the one that defined Zionism as racism) and should continue to do so.

Israel has accepted binding resolutions--the arabs have rejected them.

Peace in the middle east cannot happen as long as the Arabs think that they have the slightest chance of victory, and every time Israel has tried to compromise a little, the Arabs have turned the compromise back on them.

When Israel unilaterally pulled out of southern lebanon the arabs called it a "victory". They did the same when Israel pulled out of Gaza. The arabs have never said that Israel gave something, now it is our turn. The "concessions" they have given have all been verbal, not worth the paper they were not written on.

Pulmon, bad arguments and a few lies here and there.

Historical and religious reasons help explain why the issue in Israel is a vicious cycle that has been going on for the last 60 years.

The public bombings that the Zionists directed set of a copy-cat trend by the Arabs. Israeli's terrorist tactics have moved on to state-sponsored terrorism that attacks and kills non-combatant women and children i.e. demolishing Palestinian towns like Jenin and killing Arab Palestinian civilians while driving them from their lands have been going on for over 60 years and is condemned by UN's General Assembly.

Whatever Palestinian terrorist tactics that have appeared is simply tit-for-tat for what the Israelis did.

The only thing phoney is your arguments. Arguments rejecting the native Arab Palestinians return to their ancestral lands make fraudulent the Israeli claim to the right to return and set up the state of Israel, a claim that archaeology does not support.

As for attacks on Israel, stop revising history for Israel was the one who attacked the Arabs in the wars first, just like Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbour.

Kindly note that Israel only escaped censure by the UN Security Council because of the US veto. The fact remains that it is a rogue state that is worse than Saddam's Iraq is a fact backed by the 22 UN General Assembly resolutions, which was a far better measure of world opinion, compared to the UN's Security Council.

Israel has never accepted anything binding when it comes to international agreements or it would be held accountable to war crimes tribunals, human rights, clandestine development and possession of Atomic weapons.

Pulmon, please do not pass off fiction as proof for your arguments.

Keep plugging away, Norm. Most of the American left has either grown weary of the backlash and simply given in (e.g. Howard Dean has stricken the term "even-handed" from his vocabulary ever since he was brow-beaten into admitting that it means killing babies.), or in some cases gone way off to the other side. So few people are stating the basic facts of the matter, and so many are spewing propaganda.

From the UN records

www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

"During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewish populations. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after World War II. Great Britain tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. In 1947, Great Britain in frustration turned the problem over to the United Nations."

The issue does not really lie with the Arabs here but the Zionists were simply asking too much.

Go on and log on to Israel's foreign ministry's own links and find out for yourself:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00pp0

Simply put, the British will only support Israel's statehood only if the rights of the local people i.e. Arab palestinians are respected.)

Here's where Israel states its Biblical claims to statehood in its Foreign Affairs ministry press release:

THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL May 14, 1948: www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00hb0

ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books."

This creates a stalemate and the fact that both decision run counter to international laws at that time as both claims were made without taking into account the needs and wishes of the indigenous people.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/aeac80e740c782e4852561150071fdb0!OpenDocument

The origins of the Palestine problem as an international issue, however, lie in events occurring towards the end of the First World War. These events led to a League of Nations decision to place Palestine under the administration of Great Britain as the Mandatory Power under the Mandates System adopted by the League. In principle, the Mandate was meant to be in the nature of a transitory phase until Palestine attained the status of a fully independent nation, a status provisionally recognized in the League's Covenant, but in fact the Mandate's historical evolution did not result in the emergence of Palestine as an independent nation.

The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenant's requirements that "the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory". This assumed special significance because, almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, for which Zionist leaders had pressed a claim of "historical connection" since their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the "Diaspora".

Israel's tradition of flouting international law starts from here.

Pulmon also seemed to have forgotten to mention a few facts on the UN Mandate i.e. the Arabs had not given their consent before the Zionists declared the state of Israel. That certainly did not help make this a Mandate a reality, which called for an Arab State, Jewish state with the internationalisation of Jerusalem. The third term of this Mandate has never been followed by the Israelis.

And UN records recognise the fact that Israel was not attacked but launched a series of wars:

"After a quarter of a century of the Mandate, Great Britain submitted what had become "the Palestine problem" to the United Nations on the ground that the Mandatory Power was faced with conflicting obligations that had proved irreconcilable. At this point, when the United Nations itself was hardly two years old, violence ravaged Palestine. After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized. The partition plan did not bring peace to Palestine, and the prevailing violence spread into a Middle East war halted only by United Nations action. One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and, in a series of successive wars, its territorial control expanded to occupy all of Palestine. The Palestinian Arab State envisaged in the partition plan never appeared on the world's map and, over the following 30 years, the Palestinian people have struggled for their lost rights. "

More info here:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

If any of you need more proof, kindly just e-mail me directly at tshtsh@hotmail.com

There are other posters here and I do not want to dominate this thread.

Norm, my sympathies on your issue with the cyber stalking of the pro-Israel crowd. Hopefully you can remind him that this forum is for a lot of other issues as well.

"Why are French nationalism, Polish nationalism, Iranian nationalism, Greek nationalism and Arab nationalism acceptable, but not Jewish nationalism?"

nationalism == racism

clear?

"Jo Ann, I believe Israel should withdraw from occupied lands ASAP. But if you think that the Palestinian suicide bombs will end when Israel does, then you're stupendously naive. Hamas has made it clear Zionist occupied lands include all of Israel, not just the West Bank. I want Israel to withdraw from the West Bank so that Israel can secure its borders and show the world what this issue is really all about -- Jews having the gall to have a homeland of their own. The sooner Israel withdraws, the sooner you'll see that that's what this is all about."

i do not understand why people are so dissappointed with hamas winning the election. certainly it doesnt do anything in regards to the amount of terrorism, it just means the government finally has plausible means to control that terrorism (or some of it anyways). is it still considered terrorism if it is carried out by a government? it seems to me that if hamas were to bomb an isreali site, that wouldnt be terrorism, that would be an act of war. and hamas is not working towards the destruction of isreal (though you can make the argument that if they had the power to do so, they might, but it seems to me that's kind of missing the point). recently hamas has repeatedly called for a cease-fire (though it is true that this isnt peace, and i dont think they have recognized isreal as a legitimate state). this is just the most recent call for ceasefire: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040700137.html earlier calls for ceasefire by hamas were more demanding (i think one included right of return for refugees and end of west bank occupation--not the destruction of isreal), here they are barely demanding anything (though still isreal has rejected it, saying they refuse to negotiate with hamas--who is not recognizing whom?).

do you remember last year when sharon gave up gaza? while he was doing this, and afterwards, isreal created new settlements in the west bank.

also, this is an interesting (worthwile and civil) debate between a critic of isreal and the former isreali foreign minister: http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

hopefully this thread isnt dead yet, i would be interested to find out why everyone is so dismissive of the hamas-led government. if isreal accepted them on their terms, and would say they are legitimate, an act of terrorism would be an act of war, and reprisal actions would actually be justified (though the occupation still wouldnt be).

How can someone even compare the Jewish right of return to Israel and the Palestinians' right of return there?

The Jewish right of return to Israel is quasi-religious nonsense. The Palestinian right of return to Israel is the right of people who flee their homes in a time of war to be able to return there once hostilities have ceased. This right is guaranteed by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Jo Ann:

I'll try answer all your points as forthrightly as I can.

RE: US foreign aid. The US actually spent 2.62 billion on Israel and 22 billion in 2004 on four Arab countries: Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan and Jordan. (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/trade/files/98-916.pdf) I know the large amount the US spent on Iraq was because of the war, which someone will blame on Israel. So I likely can't win with this one. Just wanted to point out what the actual numbers are.

Also from that same link: "...the share of bilateral U.S. assistance consumed by the Middle East fell from 58% in FY1994 to 38% a decade later." So actually the trend in terms of US foreign aid has been giving less to Israel compared to other countries, not more. I think that's an important point.

Granted, without Iraq in the equation, the US spends a disproportionate amount on Israel. But watch the news, as i'm sure you do. Why does the news focus so much on Israel to begin with? Israel's size does not warrant the focus it receives. Israel's 'crimes' dont either. The Chinese occupy Tibet, for example yet tell me the last time you saw a news story on that. Point is, America is fascinated by Israel and that's not all, or even mostly, because of the 'all-powerful' Israel lobby.

You write: "why should this connection oblige the U.S. to spend 30% of total foreign aid on Israel?" The US isnt obliged to spend anything on Israel and as I pointed above it's actually spending proportionately less. Regardless of what the US spends, it spends based on its interests, whether your or I agree with those interests. It's actually not in Israel's interests for the US to spend on Egypt or Pakistan, but the US does.

Re: Why I bring up the Palestinians, I do so to provide context. The US doesnt wake up in the morning and start handing out foreign aid to Israel or any country. Every decision has a host of reasons and contexts and influences -- certainly, lobby groups are one of these. But every country and every company with an interest in getting US money lobbies the US government. Israel's lobby may be more successful than most, but it doesnt mean they're doing anything wrong. I just think we should all be mindful of this.

Unlike some fanatics in here, like kes, thanks for at least being willing to listen to reason.

Kes,

I have to say, I've read your posts and you're really out to lunch. It was the United Nations that created and Jewish state and an Arab Palestinian state in the 1/3 of the Palestine Mandate that was left in 1948. (The remaining 2/3 became a British client state called Jordan in 1922) Jews, despite not getting everything they wanted, accepted the UN decision. The Arabs did not. It was the Arabs who launched an invasion of UN-designated Jewish lands to destroy Israel before it even took its first breath. The Arabs lost fair and square. Now they want to turn back the clock. I've never seen a country or countries who consistently lose war after war and expect to be treated as victors. Still, Israel has shown that given certain guarantees of security, it is willing to give back land it won (Egypt's Sinai for example.)

Had Palestinian Arabs and their hapless allies accepted the UN decision in 1948, there would be two countries living side by side, Palestine and Israel, with a shared or internationalized capital in Jerusalem. Israel accepted the UN decision, the Arabs did not. Of that, there is no debate.

zak,

<>

It was a horrible deal for Arabs. This is well-known, and your omission of it shows your true colors as a propagandist.

Anyway, zak, let's just accept your claim that there should be no Palestinian state at face value. In that case, the Palestinian population of the Occupied Territories is clearly part of the population of Israel. There is no other existing state that they could reasonably said to be part of, and Israel exercises military rule of the West Bank, and even Gaza after the pullout, though to a much lesser extent. Given all this, what is your argument against simply declaring the Palestinians to be Israeli citizens, including the right to vote in Israeli elections and so forth? Some object to this since it would destroy the Jewish character of Israel, but surely someone so concerned with justice and human rights such as yourself wouldn't pay any regard to such nonsense considerations.

Well, let's see. We have seen archaeology invoked to justify killing people. We have heard history invoked to justify killing people. We have heard religion invoked to justify killing people. Now, let me invoke common sense. History, archaeology, and religion are all in the past and at least in some portion imaginary. The Israeli/Palestinian butchery is in the present and is non-fictional. My suggestion is that people like kes and zak, if they love archaeology and history so much, should go dig down through the strata of the earth until they reach a level before there were people in Israel/Palestine. Then, they can make peace. Okay, now nobody help them out of the hole.

Ed,

See this is when i get fucking pissed off. Tell where I've said "there should be no palestinian state"?????!!?!? PLEASE tell me.

I've repeatedly said there should and will be one on the West Bank and Gaza. I've also said that, historically speaking, the Palestinians actually already have a state in 2/3 of the original Palestine mandate, a place where they already make up 60% of the population. It's called Jordan.

But please do me a favour and tell me where I've said there should be no Palestinian state. You will not find it, because I have not said it.

And why, as you said was it "a horrible deal for the Arabs"? Dont you mean a horrible deal for the Palestinians? Because seems to me the Arabs already have 20 countries where they form the majority, so I'm not sure why losing a little sliver of land is "a horrible deal for the Arabs." Are the Palestinians part of the Arab nation? Or are they completely distinct? And what is this distinction based on?

But please, before you answer that, which you won't because you can't, tell me where I said there should be no Palestinian state. Come on. I dare you.

Rob,

You responded to my post with:

nationalism == racism

Yep, I agree, all nationalism is inherently racist. But stop being a hypocrite then and oppose all nationalisms. Because you see, everyone thinks everyone else's nationalism is hunky dory, except when the Jews came along and said they wanted their own place in the sun too. If you want to do away with nationalism, great, sign me up. Till then, if the Germans, the British, the French, the Russians and the Arabs all get their nations, then we get one too.

Heretic,

You write: History, archaeology, and religion are all in the past and at least in some portion imaginary.

Well, yesterday is history. So let me kick you out of your house today. You can come back tomorrow and try to take it back, but I'll tell you "it's in the past". Let's see if that convinces anyone.

You're right in that we can't hash and rehash the past forever, but to ignore the facts (both sides' facts) is idiotic.

Bottom line is the Palestinians and the Jews have a claim to that land. They were both, at various times in their history exiled from their house. In 1948 the United Nations tried to find a solution that would give both groups something. The Jews said yes, the Arabs said no. The Jews were satisfied with a small portion, the Arabs wanted it all. After 60 years, they still havent learned their lesson. They went and elected Hamas, which still talks about regaining all of 'occupied Palestine' and they don't just mean the West Bank.

nationalism=racism, if so not all nationalism is equally racist. It's not enough to say they're racist too, there are qualitative differences.

LOL. So Norm, why is Jewish nationalism more racist than, say French, German or Arab nationalism, for example, since I assume that's what you're implying?

Zak: "Well, yesterday is history. So let me kick you out of your house today. You can come back tomorrow and try to take it back, but I'll tell you 'it's in the past'. Let's see if that convinces anyone."

Well, right now you are arguing the Palestinian side of things. You confuse me. I still don't understand the talk about "rights" to the land. I mean, a lot of Israelis were born on that land, so that seems to give every bit as much right to it as being kicked off of it in ancient times. A lot of Palestinians were kicked off that land, and so that gives them the right to that land. So, you guys can just share it peacefully. Ha ha ha ha ha. I make joke. No, what I am getting at is there are good reasons you don't have peace that have anything to do with history, religion, and archaeology. Of course, there are great reasons that Palestinians don't have peace either. But you have to understand that it just kind of looks bad when Israelis keep expanding, are superior militarily and economically, and continue to inflict about ten times as much death and destruction as the Palestinains. I am just not buying you as the underdog yet, but keep it up, Custer, and I'm sure you will be victorious.

And again notice that I am not defending Hamas or Israel defending itself. Of course, if defending itself didn't include expansionism, well, maybe it might work, but I am willing to let you guys go on your merry ways without interfering. Now give me back my tax money.

The Israelis and the Palestinians are still, after all this time, trying to work out what the borders of their respective countries are. Just as I think that the United States should get its nose out of Iran and let the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis work it out themselves (yes, I know that will end up in civil war... but staying there will not have any better consequences); I also believe that the U.S. should get their nose out of Israel and let the Palestinians and the Israelis work this out on their own. The Israelis don't need our help. The Palestinians don't need our help. Let's just leave the two of them alone.

I can't speak to French, German or Arab nationalism, and the truth of the statement all nationalism/racism is not equal stands regardless of the individual cases, but I don't believe the United States has a special status comparable to Israel's law of return. You tell me do the other countries you mentioned have anything comparable.

The Law of Return (1950) grants every Jew, wherever he or she may be, the right to come to Israel as an oleh (a Jew immigrating to Israel) and become an Israeli citizen.

For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has converted to Judaism and is not a member of another religion.

source

Actually quite a few countries have right of return laws, Norm. All you have to do is look up "Right of Return" on wikipedia (I've provided an exerpt below.)

As for the US, you're right it doesnt have racist right of return law. But we really have short memories if we forget that 40 years ago, Blacks couldnt eat at the same restaurant counter or drink from the same fountain as Whites. So this holier than thou attitude of Americans is kind of annoying, considering they barely saw the light 2 generations ago. I'd add that, IMHO, US history is filled with, and in fact was founded on racist behaviour, not just on the black/white front. The US outlawed the teaching of French in Louisiana, for example, and then there's that wholesale ethnic cleansing of the continent's Indian population. I wonder, does the US intend of giving the Indians back the land they stole (ie, all the United States)? Somehow I doubt it. But I guess the rules are always different for the Jews.

Here's info on other countries' right of return laws:

In addition to Israel, several other countries provide immigration privileges to individuals with ethnic ties to these countries (so-called leges sanguinis). As examples: Section 116 of Germany's constitution allows people of "ethnic German origin" from Eastern Europe residency and citizenship rights. Section 375 of the Greek citizenship law confers automatic citizenship to people of "Greek nationality" if they enlist in military service. Section 25(1) of the Bulgarian constitution gives people of "Bulgarian origin" special access to obtaining Bulgarian citizenship. Section 13(3) of the Armenian constitution confers automatic citizenship on a "native Armenian" living in the Armenian republic. Section 18a of the Finnish foreigners' law states that a person from the Soviet Union who is of "Finnish origin" may, along with their spouse and children, receive permission for permanent residence and citizenship. Section 14a of the Irish citizenship law of 1986 grants the interior minister authority to confer automatic citizenship on any applicant of "Irish origin or affiliation". They also cite many other countries with similar laws, including Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Croatia[1]. Similiarly, the Liberian constitution (currently defunct and being rewritten) allows only people "of Negro descent" (regardless of ethno-national affiliation) to become citizens. All these peculiar citizenship laws seem to have been enacted by states wishing to guarantee a safe-haven to diaspora populations assumed to be living under precarious conditions.

Sorry, it's "Law of Return" , not "Right of Return" on wikipedia.

thanks t

Zad, kindly note that the law of return was passed by the Israeli themselves on 1950, 2 years after the UN Mandate that was never signed or rectified by the Arabs living in the region.

That is why the United Nations recognises the inalienable right of Palestinians to return to their homes and lands. Israel is the only country in UN that does not recognise this right as an official policy.

The fact remains that 80% of the Israelis who wanted an independent Jewish state in Palestine in 1948 were immigrants from Europe and whose ancestors had never lived in the Middle East.

They have no right to the ancestral lands held by the Arabs in the region whose ancestors had lived there for thousands of years, even before the Exodus. And the Arabs were the majority living in the Palestinian lands in 1948.

Last time I checked, democracy is the rule of the majority, not tyranny of the minority.

Why else would the Israelis forbid the Arab Palestinians from returning to Israel and Palestinian lands, where their Arab ancestors have lived for thousands of years?

Any wish by the Israeli to form their own state on lands that they do not own must first have the consent of the Arabs living on this land.

No international law recognises the right of immigrants to migrate to a foreign nation, especially if they do so by illegal immigration, so as to form an ethnocentric state in that foreign country.

Even the UN recognises this by calling Israel's wars as wars of aggression, unlawful occupation.

By the way, the Israelis are fighting a lost cause as the Arabs living in Israel will form a majority of the population there within the next 10 years.

Sorry for the outburst but as a former history student, I absolutely hate people rewriting history to suit political ends.

The local Arab majority living in the region of Palestine formed 85% of the population there and owned more than 50% of the lands. They had lived there for 1400 years.

In the 1940s, the Israeli Jews were a small minority of 16% with just 6% ownership of the lands and comprise mostly of European immigrants whose ancestors had never lived in the Middle East.

Thus any agreement to form a Jewish state on Arab Palestinean lands requires the approval of the Arab majority there.

Zad, your argument convinces me that the Israeli Jews have NO right to drive out the Arabs living on their ancestral lands in the Palestinean region. You articulated it well here:

"Well, yesterday is history. So let me kick you out of your house today. You can come back tomorrow and try to take it back, but I'll tell you "it's in the past". Let's see if that convinces anyone."

Archeaologists have not found evidence that a Jewish kingdom existed in the lands of Palestine. You can read about their findings at Times, which studied both Islamic and Jewish claims to Jerusalem:

"To Jews, the most important moment in this reverent progression occurred in about 1000 B.C. That is the date believers assign to the biblical description of King David's unification of the Israelite tribes and his choice of Jerusalem as his capital. The Bible's book of Samuel also recounts David's inducing his God to accept the location for his earthly seat, the Ark of the Covenant. It tells of David's purchase, for 50 shekels of silver, of a "threshing floor" on the mountain. And finally the book of Kings tells of David's son Solomon, who built upon it a splendid temple to the Lord, composed of successive courtyards, each one more holy than the next, with the innermost containing the Ark.

Or did he? Outside of the Bible, there is only the scantest evidence of either King's existence. A mere two commemorative inscriptions have been found referring to a "House of David," both from a later period. Solomon's trail is even colder. His name appears on a cylindrical seal owned by a London collector, but it may not be the same Solomon and the object's provenance is cloudy."

The rest of the article, Judaism's Stake, is listed at Time.com:

http://www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/juda.html

Even if one accepts ON FAITH that the Jewish kingdoms of David and Solomon did existed, they lasted for just 73 years and were only one of many periods in ancient Palestine "The extended kingdoms of David and Solomon, on which the Zionists base their territorial demands, endured for only about 73 years...Then it fell apart...[Even] if we allow independence to the entire life of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, from David's conquest of Canaan in 1000 B.C. to the wiping out of Judah in 586 B.C., we arrive at [only] a 414 year Jewish rule." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

"Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land." "But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan." If you are interested in reading more, there’s a Jewish website started by Jews who did not agree with the actions of the Zionists in Israel:

www.cactus48.com/earlyhistory.html

Zak, and how many of the others include religion.

"and is not a member of another religion"

kes:

The article you cited said, "Outside of the Bible, there is only the scantest evidence of either King's existence," but that does not prove your claim that "Archeaologists have not found evidence that a Jewish kingdom existed in the lands of Palestine." The Jewish kingdom lasted longer than two kings and 73 years. Archeology has confirmed the existence of a Jewish Kingdom. Here is a quotation from http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/biblical-archaeology.htm that I think you should read:

"Outside Egypt, we also discover a wealth of evidence for the early Israelites. The Moabite Stone (Mesha Stele) is a three-foot stone slab discovered near Dibon ,East of the Dead Sea, that describes the reign of Mesha, King of Moab, around 850 BC. According to Genesis 19, the Moabites were neighbors of the Israelites. The stele covers victories by King Omri and Ahab of Israel against Moab, and Mesha's later victories on behalf of Moab against King Ahab's descendants (2 Kings 3). The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser is a seven-foot, four-sided pillar of basalt that describes the victories of King Shalmaneser III of Assyria. Dated to about 841 BC, the Obelisk was discovered in the ancient palace of Nimrud and shows Israel's King Jehu kneeling before the Assyrian king in humble tribute (see 2 Kings 9-10)."

There are many more sources and I doubt that any archeologist would argue that there is no evidence for an ancient Jewish kingdom (even if there is little evidence for King David and Solomon's rule). While I do not think that Israel has a right to exist because of the archeological evidence, please do not make false claims about historical Israel.

Oy Vey!

What do the people who are against Israel in this discussion suggest that Israel does? If you were in power, what do you think Israel should do?

Should the Israeli prime minister recognize the Palestinian "right of return", and convert the country of Israel into another Arab country? Should the Israeli prime minister break down the security fence and allow suicide bombers to infiltrate and bomb Israel?

What would you do if you were the president of the United States? Would you reduce aid to Israel -- the only democratic nation in the region fighting to protect its people from terrorist attacks? Would we reduce our aid to other allies?

What is the goal of this discussion? Is it to paint Israel as a "rogue state" manipulating a super power to get its way?

What makes me distressed as an American and as a Jew is some people's lack of understanding that Israel is just like the United States, wearing the same clothing, eating the same food, listening to the same music and struggling with terrorism. One of the main reasons for our support of Israel is that we and Israel are very similar countries with very similar values.

Poor treatment of Palestinians is an embarassment to Israelis, Jews and Americans. But today, Israel is doing everything to prevent that. To gague the situation today: Read Israeli news: www.haaretz.com (which is a liberal paper that is not shy about describing both Palestinian and Israeli casualties). Listen to the rhetoric that comes from Hamas and the rhetoric that comes from Israel. Read the results of Israeli opinion polls. Look at who won the last election.

Israelis have grown very tired, unhappy and embarassed of the conflict. It conflicts with the fundamental principles which Jews cherish. The current Israeli government is more than happy to withdraw from the West Bank, and grant a connecting strip of land between Gaza and the West Bank if all of the violence ceases.

Today, why is Israel being portrayed as a villian? What would you do differently if you were in a position of leadership in the country?

(By the way, the incident about the flying of the Israeli flag above the American flag is an embarassment to American Jews everywhere. But it doesn't reflect a disloyalty to the United States, it reflects a feeling of connection that many American Jews feel to Israel ... as a struggling nation that we want to see in existance and that we want to show support for. American Jews love the United States, they adore the United States, (you should hear my mom talk about it), but the United States is considered as a very established and strong country. Our support for the United States is a given, it's an "axiom." American Jews feel that Israel is still under threat and that's probably why that flag was above the flag of the U.S. I still think it's very disrespectful and 99.9999% of Jews in America would never do that.

And what I'm saying isn't pro-Israeli propaganda (as others have been accused), it's the truth. It's a combination of everything that I have read from many sources, from the class I have taken, from the lectures I gone to -- lectures by Palestinians and by Israelis.

zak- "So this holier than thou attitude of Americans is kind of annoying, considering they barely saw the light 2 generations ago. I'd add that, IMHO, US history is filled with, and in fact was founded on racist behaviour, not just on the black/white front. The US outlawed the teaching of French in Louisiana, for example, and then there's that wholesale ethnic cleansing of the continent's Indian population. I wonder, does the US intend of giving the Indians back the land they stole (ie, all the United States)? Somehow I doubt it. But I guess the rules are always different for the Jews."

you do realize, of course, that here you seem to be seriously arguing in favor of racism and genocide. me, personally, i would condemn it no matter who it was committing these acts. but thats just me, i guess.

and as for the laws of return, none that you cite is really comparable to isreali law of return. most have limitations as to where the people can come from to recieve it, but more importantly none of those countries you mention has a population made up of primarily those people, nor were any founded upon that racial right to citizenship.

and you seemed to ignore my earlier post when you said "They went and elected Hamas, which still talks about regaining all of 'occupied Palestine' and they don't just mean the West Bank." as i said earlier, hamas isnt even asking for the west bank, let alone all of isreal. you can say that they would if they were in a position to, but that misses the point. even if palestine was actually a viable and healthy state, with control over its own people and a healthy society, lets say, optimistically, 50 years from now, palestine still wouldnt be in a position to demand anything from isreal. i dont see that they are ever going to, really. so, its really a moot point. i suppose in a while iran could be a threat to isreal, and a nuclear stand-off could even happen, but most regimes tend to want to stay in power, and surely iran knows sparking a third world war would be the end of them. so, in conclusion, nobody is working towards the destruction of isreal, and nobody will be for the foreseeable future.

you have said you would be in favor of isreal pulling out of the west bank, that is a good first step, i agree, but it seems highly unlikely as they seem to like expansion for some reason (even at the expense of security). actually a really good first step would be to at least give the palestinians a chance by agreeing to negotiate with hamas, as well as not refusing to hand over taxes collected for them. right now, palestine is making all the concessions, and practically begging for a ceasefire.

and if isreal is "more than happy to pull out of the west bank", then why dont they? i dont think anyone besides isreal wants them there.

Israel is working on pulling out of the west bank.. but it doesn't happen over night. The current Israeli prime minister promised it will happen by the end of his term. That was the party platform.

"right now, palestine is making all the concessions, and practically begging for a ceasefire."

how so? was it the rockets that fly into southern israel every day.. or was it the suicide bombing last week.. or was it when Hamas said it support the suicide bombing..

"more importantly none of those countries you mention has a population made up of primarily those people" yes, all of them do, I believe

"so, in conclusion, nobody is working towards the destruction of isreal, and nobody will be for the foreseeable future." What does the Iranian president need to do to convince people that he wants to destroy Israel? Does working to get the atomic bomb work? No? How about a declaration that Israel "will be eliminated by one storm"? Or saying that Israel needs to be wiped off the map? What does the Iranian president need to do to convince you.. will a time machine work .. so you can go to the future and see him drop the bomb so that you can say "Woops, I guess we were wrong"?

eugene- in the same order:

-i hope you are right about the west bank, i suppose i am being cynical. there isnt really any way to know, though, until it happens, especially seeing as the settlements were expanding late last year (i am not sure when/if that stopped).

-palestine is making all the concessions based on the fact that hamas is asking for a ceasefire, and the only condition, apperantly, is that isreal stop targetting them, whereas earlier calls for ceasefire came with calls for the end to the occupation of the west bank, and right of return, and maybe something else. isreal has rejected this ceasefire, saying they refuse to negotiate with hamas.

-the (primary) difference between all those countries and isreal is that isreal was formed based on this racial policy, the only one comparable i see is liberia (which i dont know too much about, but i understand that didnt work out very well either).

-i spoke to the threat of iran in my earlier post, and i just dont believe they are that much of a threat. they dont have the option of doing anything threatening. even if they are to get the bomb, i dont think they would use it, everyone knows isreal already has a nuclear arsenal. it would be a supremely stupid move. and its not like iran could realistically invade isreal or anything. i concede that people dont like isreal, but the existence of isreal is not seriously threatened, nor do i see a threat in the foreseeable future.

eugene, is it still terrorism if a government carries out the action? thats an honest question, not something to try and trap you.

B dog, First, your evidence is very weak in that i.e. Merneptah Stelethere, contains only one line about Israel – "Israel is wasted, bare of seed" – and very little about the region of Palestine as a whole. It does not make clear whether the Israel was a people or a kingdom in the land of Canaan

This directly contradicts the source your quoted me from a Pro-Bible Christian website, which slants information to support the Bible.

“As the stela mentions just one line about Israel it is difficult for scholars to draw a substantial amount of information about what "Israel" means in this stela. The stela does point out that Israel, at this stage, refers to a people since a hieroglyphic determinative for "country" is absent regarding Israel (whereas the other areas had the determinative for "country" applied to them). However, after that there is not much else that can be drawn about Israel at this time.”

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

Second, your evidence proves nothing as it does not address the lack of evidence for the Jewish kingdoms of David and Solomon on Arab Palestinian lands, which formed the basis of Israeli Zionist claims.

Third, historical evidence is still against Israeli claims with the archeologically verified existence of the land of Canaan inhabited by non-Jews in the region of Palestine before the Exodus of the Jews arrives in that region. The Arab Palestinians living in that region are the direct descendants of these Canaanites.

"Recent archaeological digs have provided evidence that Jerusalem was a big and fortified city already in 1800 BCE...Findings show that the sophisticated water system heretofore attributed to the conquering Israelites pre-dated them by eight centuries and was even more sophisticated than imagined...Dr. Ronny Reich, who directed the excavation along with Eli Shuikrun, said the entire system was built as a single complex by Canaanites in the Middle Bronze Period, around 1800 BCE." The Jewish Bulletin, July 31st, 1998.

Fourth, early civilisation in the region of Palestine was not Jewish in nature. “Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land."

fbdiofbio;ioh makes a good point in raising the fact that Israel’s state-sponsored terrorism in the destruction of the towns and lives of Arab Palestinians in the last 60 years are just as bad as Palestinian resistance tactics. In fact Israel’s actions invited the response by Palestinians.

On the issue of Israel’s concessions, the fact is that Israel is not making any concessions. Is it a concession when I give you a sweet while I rob your store?

Because Israel ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED The West Bank and Gaza Strip. UN had never recognised these territories as part of Israel.

Kindly equate this withdrawal to Israel's withdrawal from its illegal and armed occupation of Lebanon, because of the successful armed resistance mounted by the Hizbollah, which is considered just as bad as the Hamas in the eyes of the Israelis.

Israel’s so-called withdrawal is to deflect attention from its ongoing land grab to build a wall on Arab Palestinian lands, which will make it impossible for the Palestinians to set up a viable geographic contiguous state.

This action has been universally condemned by the UN and the international body, as well as the US, Israel’s closest ally.

What concessions?

thanks kes, for the compliment, but my question was more directed at the current situation, ie isreal's demands that hamas denounce terrorism.

"But stop being a hypocrite then and oppose all nationalisms."

excuse me? if you wouldn't mind, please direct me to the post where i endorse nationalism. or, rather than inventing an ideological position, ascribing it to me, and attacking me for it, find out what the hell i actually think, first.

Norm, you write on the issue of Laws of Return:

Zak, and how many of the others include religion.

And what's your point, now? You and others criticize Israel's right of return as being racist. I indicate that a dozen other perfectly civilized countries have similar laws for perfectly legitimate reasons, and now your issue is that no other 'religion' has a law of return?!

First off, Israel has a law of return, not Judaism. Last time I checked Israel was not a theocracy (like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Vatican City, for example).

Secondly, you and others have repeatedly held up Israel's Law of Return as proof that Israel is racist, yet when I show that other countries have similar laws, your argument shifts. Aha! Now Israel is bad because it's law of return comprises a religion! That's some fancy footwork there!

Kes,

Your arguments are so devoid of any sense, that I don't even know where to start. Let me try to start here:

You write: Zad, kindly note that the law of return was passed by the Israeli themselves on 1950, 2 years after the UN Mandate that was never signed or rectified by the Arabs living in the region. That is why the United Nations recognises the inalienable right of Palestinians to return to their homes and lands. Israel is the only country in UN that does not recognise this right as an official policy.

First off, it's Zak. If you can't even get that right, I'm supposed to have confidence in the rest of what you have to say?

Second off, "UN Mandate that was never signed or rectified by the Arabs living in the region." WTF!?! There was no "signing" or "rectifying" necessary by the Arabs. The British shifted the problem to the UN, the UN listened to both sides, proposed a solution and the majority of UN members voted for it. The Zionists accepted it, the Arabs "in the region" rejected it. The Arabs "in the region" invaded. The Arabs "in the region" lost.

Kes-

Did you even read my evidence? I never mentioned the Merneptah Stelethere. Even if this one archeological find is not difinitive, there are other finds (which I mention) that directly talk about kings of Israel. To answer your second point there were more kings of ancient Israel than just King David and Solomon. In fact, the first fixed date in archeology that relates in the area of ancient Israel is 853 BCE during the reign of King Ahab of Israel.

Additionally if you are going to argue that Palestianians are diret decendants of Canaanites (which your evidence does not say), Israelites were direct descendants of the land too. The ancient land was not made up of one people, but multiple clans with diverse traditions.

If you want to continue this arguement, please try to answer these questions: Are King David and King Solomon the ONLY kings of ancient Israel? Does any archeologist argue that there is no evidence at all for an ancient Israel kingdom (this does not mean that there is no evidence for certain kings or a specific find, but on a large scale)?

As I said before, I do not think that this is the sole reason why contemporary Israel should exist, but please stop promoting false claims.

In response to the question of what should an Israeli leader actually do to ease tensions, well, I would first start to negotiate with Hamas, the democratically elected party of the Palestinians. Then, I would bribe them with lots of humanitarian aid for the occupied territories. You could build some modern hospitals , rebuild some homes that were bulldozed, and generally give the Palestinians the idea that they are welcomed by their strongest and closest neighbor rather than the impression that Israel would rather that they and their children should curl up and die. You can't have it both ways. Either you get out and let them have their own control, or you have to take responsibility for their welfare. Yes, that means actually helping them. That doesn't mean retaliating for each suicide bombing. About Israel and America being similar, I guess we are kind of locked in an intractable bloody conflict with Mexico and Canada, with constant suicide bombings by guys named Juan and constant retaliatory missile strikes in Montreal. We have also found it a great idea to have an official race/religion. The public likes having the crucifix on our flag just to let the subhumans know who's boss. We find it maintains order.

No no no. The US is not like Israel, but it is starting to deteriorate into something similar; I will grant you that. I hate it when I see Americans looking to Israel for strategies to combat terrorism. That is like looking to Serbia for ideas on how to promote civil harmony. Israel is one country the US does NOT need to emulate.

As far as the assertion that Israel is happy to pull out of the west bank. Well, if building settlements is pulling out, I guess you're right.

Also, thanks for pointing out that the US committed genocide against the natives. How would you like to have your tax dollars sent over here to help us kill them? Truly, are you really defending Israel's actions by saying, "You did it first"? This is like five-year-olds on a playground. Five-year-olds with machine guns.

My argument hasn't shifted. We were discussing the degree to which the various countries were nationalist/racist I'm simply providing evidence that Israel goes beyond what others do. I'm not excusing bad behavior by others by pointing to discrimination practiced by Israel.

If the United States granted favored status to those seeking to become citizens who had converted to Christianity how would the Jewish community respond, how would you respond? How would you characterize such a policy?

Lets see if you can answer the question without using the worn out argument that others have done bad things.

Well Norm, you've made a completely subjective call that a law of return that includes religion is somehow "beyond what others do."

Maybe in terms of religion it goes beyond, it certainly doesnt in terms of race. You'd be hardpressed to call Ethiopian Jews the same race as Eastern Europea, Middle Eastern Jews or Indian Jews, yet they were welcomed (actually flown in by Israel en masse) and given the same rights as "white" Jews.

You can't really call Zionism racist, when Israel has welcomed Jews of all races. If you want to say Zionism is anti-Arab, you can try. But the 20% of Arab_Israelis have the same rights as Jewish Israelis. What we'll get down to is that Zionism is anti-Palestinian. I suppose it is, in the same way, the US is currently anti-Iraqi.

As for the US example, it's a fair point, but I think a bit naive. My answer would be that each democracy has its idiosyncracies. I don't mean that to sound like a cop-out, but hear me out. There are some states in the US that have made English the official language. Here in Canada we have two official languages. In Switzerland, 3 or 4. Are we all still democracies? Yes. Do we all offer comparable rights and privileges to their citizens. Yes. Is the US a worse country because some states have outlawed other languages? You'll have to tell me why that's worse than Israel granting favored status to Jews. There are instances where some democracies "go beyond what others do" (Jews get first dibs in Israel, Armenians get first dibs in Armenia). There are instances where it's the other way around (Jews of any race immigrate to Israel, no non-Muslims immigrate to Saudi Arabia, Israelis learn Hebrew, Arabic and English in school, Americans learn one.)

I may be wrong, but I would guess you support affirmative action in the US. I would suggest to you that Israel's law of return is affirmative action for Jews. We are a minority everywhere, except in Israel. This is our protection. You may wish otherwise, but you can't really expect us to willingly self-destruct.

Thought y'all would get a kick out of this... Most of you will likely brush it off. Curious to see the reaction:

"Jordan covered 78 percent of Palestine as designated by the League of Nations in 1922. Turning a blind eye to article 15 of the League of Nations Mandate, Great Britain decided in 1922 that no Jews would be authorized either to reside or buy land in what was now the Emirate of Transjordan. This decision was ratified by the kingdom of Jordan in its law No. 6, sect. 3, of April 3, 1954 (reactivated in law no. 7, sect. 2, of April 1, 1963), which states that any person may become a citizen of Jordan if he is not a Jew. Even when Jordan made peace with Israel in 1994, this Judenrein legislation remained."

http://www.israel-wat.com/jewishrefugees_eng.htm#a2

zak,

What does that have to do with anything? If China decides one day to just occupy Florida, force all current Floridians to flee to Georgia by force, and then doesn't allow any of those people to return to their homes in Florida, is that OK? Would we then have a bunch of smug Chinese assholes on the Internet blathering about how the US was graciously allowed to keep some 90%+ of its territory?

To be honest, there's nothing particularly repugnant that's inherent to the idea of Jewish nationalism. For the most part, states have the right to decide for themselves who is allowed to come in, and who is not. If Israel wants to just formally annex all of the West Bank as part of its national territory, then as long as they allow dispossessed Palestinian refugees to return to their former homes, and stop bulldozing Arab homes to make way for Jew-only settlements, then that's not that big a deal. If what Jewish nationalism really means, however, is taking whatever you want from any Arabs you happen to come across (that's Arab people, not Arab states), then yes, Jewish nationalism really is worse than other forms of nationalism. The other nationalist movements you mention by and large don't do that, and defending these practices is on a level with defending the worst atrocities ever committed by George Custer.

Norm,

Here's something I thought you might find interesting:

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/czionism.html

To add on to a point that zak made . . . Even if you argue that Zionism is anti-Palestinian, is there currently a nation in the world today that wants Palestinians? Has any country offered to take in Palestinian refugees? That is not something unique to Zionism. America probably would not accept immigrants related with the bin Ladens, so is America racist because it is against families of suicide bombers?

Zak, I believe that it was you who brought this up on a previous discussion, and you do bring up a good point that I was not previously aware of - that being that it is not only the Israelis who are getting in the way of the Palestinians having a homeland, but also the Arabs. But again, that is the Tu Quoque, Two Wrongs Make a Right kinda thing to say... You know, of course you do, that the Arabs doing it doesn't make it a good thing for the Israelis to do. Is what is in the best interest of the Israelis, the same type of thing that is in the interest of the citizens of the U.S.? Jews and Palestinians, and Americans and Mexicans are just going to have to learn how to get along.

B dog, The Israeli Zionists are to blame if there is no a nation in the world who offered to take in Palestinian refugees.

After all, 80% of the Israeli Jews who demanded their right to form a state in the Middle East were European immigrants who ancestors never lived in the Middle East and who arrived largely by illegal immigration?

The Jews have to bear a large part of the responsibility because of this.

Zad, you claim that my argument makes no sense but you don't or can't back it up.

My arguments here make sense, especially when I used UN's records, Jewish, secular articles as well as information from the foreign ministry of UK and Israel to support my statements.

On the other hand, your arguments make no sense such as your claim that Israel's right to return is not racist.

That's BS as the claim extends to all Jews, even those whose ancestors never lived in Israel, while forbidding from returning those Arab Palestinians who ancestors have lived in the region of Israel and Palestine for almost 1400 years.

Norm is correct to say that Israel's right to return is racist.

No countries have enacted such a right to return based on Israel's premises, which is based on claims in religious texts.

Such religious claims do not have the support of modern historians and archaeologists who have found no proof for Israel's racist and land claims based on religious text.

Zad, you claim that my argument makes no sense but you don't or can't back it up.

My arguments here make sense, especially when I used UN's records, Jewish, secular articles as well as information from the foreign ministry of UK and Israel to support my statements.

On the other hand, your arguments make no sense such as your claim that Israel's right to return is not racist.

That's BS as the claim extends to all Jews, even those whose ancestors never lived in Israel, while forbidding from returning those Arab Palestinians who ancestors have lived in the region of Israel and Palestine for almost 1400 years.

Norm is correct to say that Israel's right to return is racist.

No countries have enacted such a right to return based on Israel's premises, which is based on claims in religious texts.

Such religious claims do not have the support of modern historians and archaeologists who have found no proof for Israel's racist and land claims based on religious text.

bdog, you are the one making fales claims for Israel and in terms of what I have said here.

Contrary to what you say, I've read your evidence on a Christian pro-bible website, which you quoted and found that the claims made on that website is not valid. The Merneptah Stelethere was the first evidence quoted there:

www.allaboutarchaeology.org/biblical-archaeology.htm

I only cross-referenced your pro-Bible source and its Israel claims with wikipedia to find that your source was inaccurate:

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

If I did not, you will never acknowledge that your evidence was not definitive.

Second, The Israeli Jews base their land claims to Palestine that the ancient Jewish Kingdoms of David and Solomon were there. They are the one who can’t prove their claim. Don't blame me, blame them as they are the one who used religios texts, not historical evidence to prove their case.

Third, the term “Israel” can refer to a people or a confederation of tribes, not a country. Refer to the source I gave.

Archaeologists have not proof of a PURELY Jewish kingdom. They only found proof that:

“The biblical literature and cognate archaeological materials provide the earliest information about the history of Judaism. Earliest Israel was not monotheistic, but henotheistic: Worshiping only one God themselves, the Israelites did not deny the existence of other gods for other nations. [This means that they do not just worship Jerhovah, the God of the Jews as they worship other gods as well.]

www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/juda.html

Fourth, while 80% of the Jews in Israel were immigrants from Europe whose ancestors had never lived in the Palestinian lands, the Arab Palestinians had their ancestors and ancestry traced back to the time of the land of Canaan, which was around before the Exodus. By far, Arab Palestinian have the strongest claim to the region of Palestine as they and their ancestors have lived there for at least 1400 years

The Arab Palestineans who were living in the region of Palestine before the Jewish immigration of the 1940s were people who have been living there for almost 1400 years. This is a historical fact.

Kindly get your facts straight before posting them here, rather than paint others here as making false claims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1704895,00.html

Ed, although I agree Israel has made a mistake in building settlements in the West Bank (I oppose them) you obviously dont know your history if you think that Israel took over the West Bank for expansionist reasons. It took over the West Bank because it was attacked by Jordan in 1967 and won that land, which Jordan, incidently, had occupied (from the Palestinians) since 1948. From 48 to 67, no country condemned the Jordanians for occupying that land. And you know why? Because no country saw any difference between 'Jordanian' and 'Palestinian'. They meant one and the same thing. They still do.

As for your (excuse me, but) stupid China invading Florida example, China has no historical claim to Florida. In the early 1900s Zionists were offered lots of different places to set up a country for Jews, including Newfoundland and Kenya. They said no to all, because they had no historical claim to these lands. They only had a claim to one, where Israel is now.

I think your example would be more meaningful if you had said, Indians native to Florida asked the US government to give them back the land that was stolen from them by the Spanish 400 years ago. Would the US return Florida to the Indians? NEVER, of course. But do the Indians have a claim to that land? You bet they do.

Now, I would argue that the Palestinians have as much of a claim to Israel, the West Bank and Jordan as the Jews do. All I'm saying is, the Arabs already control 2/3 of this land and they will control another 15% when Israel withdraws from the West Bank. In the end, Arabs will control 80% of historic Palestine, the Jews will control 20%. I think that's a pretty damn good deal for the Arabs. They could have taken that deal in 1948. Instead, they chose to be go for broke and ended up losing. Who's fault was that?

you really think thats an analogous situation? when did the palestinians steal that land from isrealis? as long as we're using america as an example, i'd say a better example would be:

a group of puritans colonized an area of the east coast that belonged to a native population (with the blessing of europe). after doing this, the puritans said anyone anywhere in the world who is a puritan has a right to live here. the natives got upset and attacked, and got defeated by a large margin, causing the puritan colony to enlarge by a bit.

the big difference is that in american history, after the europeans came about 90% of the native population died out, much from small pox. also there were more than one competing colonizing forces, and after we became america we had "manifest destiny". still even besides all that the situations arent fully comparable. my point is that in the example you put forth of israelis=native americans and palestinians=the US government, you have the roles reversed.

Norm, never heard back from you on why Israel is racist when it has a similar law of return to other countries. Somehow I wont assume I've convinced you.

I noticed in the 'Israel's friend's" post, you added this quote:

"Americans are gradually being indoctrinated to believe Islamists are today's Nazis"

You know, walk into a madrassa in any Muslim country and see what they teach students about Jews. And then walk into an Israeli school and see what they teach about Muslims and Arabs. See who sounds like a Nazi and who doesnt. Discuss.

Norm, another thing you wrote yesterday has been bothering me. You posted:

"Lets see if you can answer the question without using the worn out argument that others have done bad things."

Do you not find any relevance in the fact that others have done bad things? I never use those examples to suggest that Israel is innocent. I simply use them to point out that there's blood on everyone's hands, and very probably more blood on hands other than Israel's. I believe that Israel is wrong to continue occupying the West Bank, not because it doesnt have a right to occupy it (it took that land from a country that attacked it in 1968), but because occupying it has resulted in it being an occupying power and doing ugly things. That Israel has done ugly things as an occupying power, I freely admit. But to condemn Israel for these actions and to overlook the ugly things suicide bombers do, or to overlook how Arab countries treat their minority communities or occupied peoples is irresponsible and reckless.

That, say, 700,000 Palestinians lost their homes in 1948 is tragic. But to say that it's not equally relevant that at least as many Jews in Arab countries lost their homes and property can't be viewed as anything other than bigotry. Because you cant reasonably call one a crime and not the other.

The point is, bad things have happened to both groups and by both groups. To single out Jews/Israel as a greater evil and to expect a standard of Israel that no one expects of any Arab country is simply wrong, unfair and hypocritical.

In reference to "others have done bad things" It is old and warn out because it doesn't support your argument. It is evidence of hypocrisy if others claim they are somehow better, but it is not relevant as a justification for Israel's bad behavior. I expect the same behavior of Israel as other 'civilized' countries and measure them against those not the non-democratic arab countries. That is the status they claim, unless they are saying they are no better when it comes to democracy than their neighbors, compare us by that standard. A sort of we're the best of the worst mentality. The question is do they want to be compared with other western democracies or others. They do poorly in my estimation when compared with the former. I find discrimination on the basis of religion particularly obnoxious, and don't think the affirmative action analogy is very good. Jews aren't discriminated against inside their own country, and the goal of the discrimination is not equality for all humans but maintaining a favored status for one people inside a country by excluding others. I understand the argument you make about maintaining the character of the country, but if that is the goal then I think you have to admit to religious/ethnic discrimination.

On Israel's occupation of the west bank. If they were to continue to occupy the west bank they would have to deal with a palestinian population that would exceed their own and then one would expect that all of those occupied would have a voice in government and that would change the character of Israel in a way it finds intolerable. I think that is the real motivation for the withdrawal. Why else do they continue to discriminate on the basis of religion. They are in my opinion attempting to maintain an ethnic/religious purity.

I believe the quote "Americans are gradually being indoctrinated to believe Islamists are today's Nazis" You're right the muslim schools are horrific, but once again you making the mistake of making the argument others are bad too. It's simply not a justification for such behavior. It's like saying smoking is not bad for your health because your brother smokes more than you do.

Finally I'm not comparing Jews/Israel with their neighbors they are on average much better. I am comparing them with others western democracies and on that count I don't believe they fare well.

Kes-

This really does not seem like a conversation because you have yet to read what I post and directly address what I ask you. First to comment on your points:

1) You are right, the Merneptah Stele does not prove the existence of an Ancient Israel Kingdom. Why? Because it is dated over 200 years before the supposed Kingdom of David. If anything the Stele is about the people of Israel in Egypt as slaves, not about the kingdom in Israel since it did not exist when it was made.

Additionally, I did not bring up the Merneptah Stele to support an existence of an Ancient Israeli Kingdom, but you argued this point because you looked at the page without directly going to my quotation that I cited. As I said before, if you are going to continue this conversation, please address the points that I make and not random pieces of evidence.

However, the finds that I did bring up, the Moabite Stone and the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser, directly relate to Kings of Israel. Please drop talking about the Merneptah Stele because it is not relevant to a discussion about the time period of the Kingdom of Israel and please talk about these pieces of evidence that directly relate to the time period that is in question.

To help you out, here is evidence from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moabite_Stone

"The identifications of the biblical Mesha, king of Moab, and of the biblical Omri, king of the northern kingdom of Israel, in the Mesha stele are generally accepted by the scholarly community, especially because what is said about them in the narrative of the Mesha stele agrees well with the narrative in the biblical books of Kings and Chronicles."

and http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/goto?id=OBJ1503

"The second register from the top includes the earliest surviving picture of an Israelite: the Biblical Jehu, king of Israel, brought or sent his tribute in around 841 BC. Ahab, son of Omri, king of Israel, had lost his life in battle a few years previously, fighting against the king of Damascus at Ramoth-Gilead (I Kings xxii. 29-36)."

2) I concede once again that there is limited historical evidence for the existence of a person known as King David and a person King Solomon. Still, it is currently a controversy between minimalists and maximalists within the archeological community.

However, even though you have focused on these two people, I have focused on the Kingdom of Israel. To clarify the history, the unified kingdom lasted during the reign of King David and King Solomon, but there after the united monarchy fell apart around 926 BCE, there was a northern Kingdom (Israel) and a southern Kingdom (Judah) that still is part of the Ancient Kingdom in Israel. The northern Kingdom fell in 722 BCE by the Assyrians and the southern Kingdom fell in 586 BCE. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historyofancient_Israel)

These are Ancient Israel Kingdoms in the land of Israel that are confirmed historically, not through the bible. While archeologists debate about the existence of David and Solomon and their United Kingdom, there is not controversy about the existence of an Ancient Israeli Kingdom after their deaths. As I stated before in a previous post: "the first fixed date in archeology that relates in the area of ancient Israel is 853 BCE during the reign of King Ahab of Israel." Please find me a source that rejects this statement.

If you want to make claims about what "The Israeli Jew" believes, please show me an article by Zionists that lay claim to the land of King David and King Solomon but NOT any other King of Israel. All of the Kings of Ancient Israel are referred to as the Kingdoms of David and Solomon because those were the people that supposedly built the kingdom. It still existed after they died and were replaced by other Kings in the northern and southern Kingdoms. Please address this issue because it is crucial to my point.

3) Yes the term "Israel" can refer to many different things, but it all about when. The Merneptah Stele, as I already mentioned, was dated 200 years before the existence of the Israeli Kingdom in 1000 BCE. So yes, the Merneptah Stele is referring to a confederation of tribes. However, your own source says:

"The next extra-Biblical source about Israel, detailing a campaign against Moab by Omri, appears some 300 years later in the Mesha Stele, and Biblically-speaking, the 200 years between the stele and the foundation of the Kingdom of Israel by Saul in c.1000 BC are treated in a rather cursory manner, leaving much in the air over how Israel became a kingdom." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele)

Simply put, "Israel" was a confederation of tribes when the Merneptah Stele was created, but after at least 300 years, "Israel" became a Kingdom according to the Mesha Stele. Yes archeologists do not have evidence for the creation of the Kingdom, but archeologists do not doubt the existence of the Israeli Kingdom.

Additionally, your source (www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/juda.html) did not have the quotation you posted about early Jews being Monotheistic. Please confirm your source because I believe that it is referring to Jews prior to the establishment of the Israeli Kingdom (during the patriarchy period perhaps as that is the earliest existence of Jews). Regardless, your citation contradicts itself claiming that early Israelites worshiped only one God themselves, but also worshipped other gods as well. Please give me this source because it does not make sense.

4) If you want to make the claim that Palestians have a right to the land because of ancient Canaanite inhabitants, I hate to tell you that Moslems and Jews both link their histories back to Abraham (who lived in ancient Canaan). While the Jews broke away from the Canaanites when they started to practice circumcision during the patriarchal period (2000 BCE), the Canaanites did not form into Arabs until around the 7th century CE according to your source: “[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin.”

Any Palestinian link to Canaanites civilization before the Common Era is inherently linked to the Jewish civilization as well.

Furthermore Your claim “Jews in Israel were immigrants from Europe whose ancestors had never lived in the Palestinian lands” is completely false. Archeologists have not only confirmed the existence of ancient Jews dwelling in contemporary Israel long ago, but also (as I have argued) the existence of an Ancient Israeli Kingdom (although they have not confirmed the creation of the Kingdom by David and Solomon). Although they were later exiled, Jews lived there before the Arabs or Moslems existed on the land.

As I said before, I am not claiming that an Ancient Israel Kingdom solely gives the right for the establishment of the state of Israel, however I implore you to face the fact that the Ancient Israel Kingdom existed and stop promoting blatantly false propaganda. Finally, your reply seemed to be missing answers to questions I directly asked you if you wanted to continue this conversation, so please reread my previous entries and answer those questions and ones in this entry if you continue to doubt that Ancient Israel Kingdom existed.

I’m sorry for this long entry, but I do not enjoy being accused of making false claims of historical facts.

Norm:

If you only want to compare Israel to Western democracies, can you please give me an example of another Western democracy that has been attacked & threatened by their neighbors even close to the way that Israel has been enduring since her establishment?

Personally, I think that under those circumstances Israel has surpassed most Western democracies to show restraint and diplomacy in light of constant terrorism and threats of annihilation.

The arguement of "others do bad things" is to try to solve the real problems at hand. With your smoking example, I would not say that your smoking is OK, but I would be more likely to criticize your brothers actions because he smokes more. Why are you so willing to criticize Israel, but not criticize actions of countries far worse than Israel's actions.

Why are you setting such high standards for Israel to follow, but condone practices of neighing countries that threaten Israel's existence? Israel does not make policies to live next to other democracies, but is forced to make policies in light of the fact that they are surrounded by non-democratic countries.

Thanks for your response Norm. You make fair points.

I'm glad you clarified that you're comparing Israel's actions to that of other Western democracies, vs. the totalitarian regimes that surround it. The only thing I'd point out here is, if you're going to compare Israel to Western countries, based on Israel's actions, than to be fair, you should also be taking into account the challenges Israel faces vs those by other Western countries. For example, it didnt take the US, beacon of democracy, very long before it began curtailing the rights of its citizens in the name of security after one terrorist attack. ONE. now imagine a country that's 1/6 the population with 1/2 a billion people on its doorstep calling for its destruction, being attacked numerous invasions, bombings, etc. Again, I'm not condoning some of Israel's actions. But it's like calling a woman who kills her husband after years of assault and threats a murderer. Well, technically she may be, but context is important.

It's the reason I support the wall that was built. I think the wall is horrible and, yes, legal. But it has drastically reduced the suicide bombs and by extension, reduced the number of retaliations by Israel on Palestinians. The wall sucks, yes, but compared to what? Context matters. Comparisons matter.

sorry, meant to say the wall was 'illegal'....

zak,

Would you prefer the analogy to be Russia hypothetically annexing Washington state and forcibly expelling the inhabitants? Russia has as strong a historical claim to the right to do this as Zionists did to expel the Palestinians, or maybe even stronger.

In any case, of course the Arab expulsion of Jews was a downright criminal act. I'll be glad if you can recognize both this, and the Zionist expulsion of the Palestinians as crimes against humanity, for which enormous reparations are in order.

I've seen some claims on this thread that Jews lived in Palestine long before there were any Arabs or Muslims there. While obviously true, this claim is of dubious relevance. People referred to as "Arabs" today are not biological descendants of Ishmael (whose existence I imagine cannot even be verified by historical means) or descendants of the tribe of Quraysh, or any such thing. No one seriously claims that about the population of Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. Arabs are just people who speak Arabic. The descendant of someone who was called Jewish 3000 years ago could very well be called Arab today. And if you look at people who are called Arab Muslims today, and trace back their lineage 1600 years or so, so that no one was called Muslim at all and no one outside the Arabian Peninsula ever bothered to learn Arabic, you'd find that their ancestors were something else, like Christian, Jewish, pagan, Byzantine, etc.

Ed, what you smokin?

The Russian example is equally inane. Whether you like it or not, Jews have a claim to the land that comprises Palestine, Jordan, Israel and West Bank. You might not like it, but it's been verified archeologically and historically. This does not negate the Palestinians' claim to the land. Sadly both have a claim. But if your argument is that Arabs have been there for 1500 years so their claim is better, then I'm sure you'll have no problem giving all of the Americas back to the aboriginal peoples who controled the land until about 500 years ago.

Again, the Arabs control 2/3 of historical Palestine. The Jews control 1/3. The Arabs have never learned to cut their losses or go away and fight another day. Maybe it's time. Because they're not getting back Israel anytime soon.

As for the expulsion of Jews and Arabs from their homes, both are criminal. Though i find it curious that Israel was able to absorb its 750,000 refugees in a matter of a generation thanks to Israeli will and assistance from Jews around the world. Why I wonder, were Arabs unable or unwilling to do the same for their refugees from Palestine?

As far as biology, I read a study online a while back (you can google it if you like) that analyzed the genetics of Jews vs other groups. It was fascinating. Apparently Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews share more in common with each other than with the non-Jewish groups that surrounded them in Poland, Germany, Morocco, etc. The other two groups that shared the closest genetics with Jews were surprisingly (or not) Palestinian Arabs and the Kurds. This would confirm that Jews do, for the most part, come from the same area and the same stock as present day Palestinians. And the Kurdish connection? Well the ancient Hebrews supposedly came from what is today Iraq. This would seem to confirm it.

Bottom line, this really is a family fight among cousins.

B dog, you really must get over making patently false statements. How are we to have a disscussion if you insist on spouting falsehoods. What is it I'm talking about you ask. " Why are you setting such high standards for Israel to follow, but condone practices of neighing countries that threaten Israel's existence?" Where is it exactly that I said I condone the practices of neighing [sic] countries. I find it extremely offensive that you would misrepresent my views in such a blatantly dishonest way. I compare Israel with other western democracies because they claim that distinction for themselves. They say they are different from their non-democratic neighbors. I'm certainly sympathetic to the problem of how to deal with the very real threats they live under on a daily basis. They have unique problems to deal with, but that doesn't excuse bulldozers and one ton bombs.

Zak,

I really do appreciate the difficulty of the situation and context is important. Once again though I must take exception to the analogy you use, the abused wife. Israel is a country not an individual, decisions to drop one ton bombs and bulldoze homes of families who have a member that is claimed to be a terrorist are not the actions of one acting on the passion of the moment, but of a reasoned calculated national policy. The United States is guilty of similar atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan. They value individual American lives over those of innocent Iraqis. There would be more U.S. casualties if they worked harder at minimizing 'collateral damage' but the overall number of innocent deaths would be less, and that would be a good thing. Likewise Israel adopts policies that protect individual Israelis at the cost of increased loss of innocent Palestinian life.

From http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0081803.html

"condone:

This means to overlook or forgive bad behaviour, or to treat it as unimportant; a woman is said to condone her husband's adultery if she continues to live with him as his wife although she knows what is going on"

While 'condone' may have been a strong word to use, I do stand by my statement because by dismissing, overlooking, and treating the actions of Arab countries as unimportant as a factor in the Arab-Israeli conflict ("In reference to 'others have done bad things' It is old and warn out"), it appeared to me that you are overlooking the actions of the Arab countries even though you know that it is going on.

It all boils down to a questions you did not answer: "Why are you so willing to criticize Israel, but not criticize actions of countries far worse than Israel's actions?"

If I were to criticize a light smoker when I knew that there was a heavy smoker right next to her, one could imply that I was condoning the heavy smoker's actions.

"If I were to criticize a light smoker when I knew that there was a heavy smoker right next to her, one could imply that I was condoning the heavy smoker's actions."

Bullshit, It doesn't imply that at all. Failing to balance each and every criticism of Israel with a condemnation of someone else is not evidence I condone the actions of others. If it were you'd be guilty of condoning bulldozing homes, and dropping one ton bombs on innocent children, or for that matter the Mai Lai Massacre, or Pol Pot's Killing Fields. Perhaps you do. Do you even read what I write? For example when I said, "I'm not comparing Jews/Israel with their neighbors they are on average much better." you don't consider that criticism, or when I said to Zak, "You're right the muslim schools are horrific" that wasn't criticism. The tactic of saying, but you didn't criticize someone else is a dishonest method of arguing.

Zad, you are lying again when you claimed that Jews do, for the most part, come from the same area and the same stock as present day Palestinians.

That's a lie.

In the 1940s, 80% of the Jews in Israel were European immigrants whose ancestors had never lived in the Middle East.

These Jews which are called Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews share much in common with each other because they are all Europeans.

The term "Ashkenaz" became identified primarily with German customs and descendants of German Jews. They are Jews descended from the medieval Jewish communities of the Rhineland.

Their ancestors were Jews living along the Rhine River in northern France and western Germany. The center of Ashkenazi Jews later spread to Poland-Lithuania and now there are Ashkenazi settlements all over the world.

Many later migrated, largely eastward, forming communities in Germany, Poland, Russia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere between the 10th and 19th centuries. From medieval times until the mid-20th century, the lingua franca among Ashkenazi Jews was Yiddish or Slavic languages such as the (now extinct) Knaanic, and they developed a distinct culture and liturgy influenced by interaction with surrounding nations. Read more here:

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

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Ashkenazim.html

A Sephardi is a Jew originating in the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal: ספרד, Standard

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

They have no genetic ancestry to any of the original inhabitants of the Arab region of Palestine.

Zad, you are misquoting figures again. Under the UN Mandate of 1949, the Arab region of Palestine was to be divided into an Arab State, a Jewish state with the internationalisation of Jerusalem. Without waiting for the Arabs to reply on this Mandate, the Israeli declared a state of Israel, although they only legally own 6% of the lands in the Palestinian region and constituted just 14% of the population. BY 1950, the Israelis controlled 77% of the Arab Palestinian lands, along with illegally occupying the Gaza Strip from Syria, the Golan Heights from Egypt and Southern part of Lebanon, which they had to retreat because of the armed resistance of the Hizbollah group.

Contrary to what you say, the Israeli Jews are the one dreaming if they think that their immigrant population have the right to displace the local Arab majority living in the lands of the Arab Palestinian region.

Their dreams will be quickly shattered in 10 years time when the Arab population in Israel become the majority in Israel in 10 years’ time. And democracy is rule by the majority, not tyranny by the minority which is the hallmark of Israel’s sovereignty.

Norm:

To continue your quotation: "You're right the muslim schools are horrific, but once again you making the mistake of making the argument others are bad too" This does not sound like criticism, but rather mentioning a fault, but then treating it as unimportant in the larger context (treating as unimportant is condoning). Do you ever recommend that muslim countries revise their school systems or stop policies? You are willing to admit that Israel is better than it's neighbors, but you insist on criticizing Israel's policies. Yes Israel may prefer to admit Jews into the country than other groups, but that is not even close to genocide that is conducted in other countries. I'm not asking for balancing "each and every criticism of Israel with a condemnation of someone else." Instead I'm asking to take a step back and see what are the larger issues at hand. Should Israel be criticized for not accepting Palestinian refugees instead of larger Arab countries that do not have to worry about drasticly changing the dynamics and demographics of the entire country?

Personally, I do not condone any action that has no regard for human life. So yes, I do not condone Israel's policies that kill innocent civilians. However, I would argue that Israeli policy does not go out of its way to kill innocent civilians or make killing innocent civilians a primary goal for any policy. However (now be warned this is a they did something bad too arguement), I would argue that suicide bombers try to maximize civilian casualties. When Israel Bulldozes homes and bombs, yes it is terrible, but Israel does not do these in random places or try to murder as many civilians as possible in the process. Regardless of whether the suicide bombing was in retaliation of the bulldozing or vice versa, I think you have to look objectively and have more criticism for the action that has the least respect human life, even if both actions should not be condoned.

Ed, there were Jews living in the region of Palestine but there is no evidence of a Jewish kingdom on the Arab lands of Palestine. And you were correct in the rest of the post as the Arabs living in the land of Palestine were people in that region whose ancestors converted to Islam 1400 years ago in the same region. And their ancestors were in turn descended from the Cannaites who lived in the land of Cannaan, which included the region of Palestine way before the Exodus.

These are based on secular archaeologists and historical facts, contrary to what people like bdog claims.

Kes:

Your understanding of the Sephardic Jew is not complete. 'Sephardic' has come to mean all non-Ashkenazic Jews including so-called Arab Jews. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardi_Jews)

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewishethnicdivisions

"Although the Jewish population was severely reduced after the Arab invasions of the 7th century, Jews were always present in Palestine. Over the centuries following the Crusades, Jews from around the world began returning in small numbers. Upon arrival, these Jews adopted the customs of the Mizraḥi and Sephardi communities into which they moved . . . Following the declaration of the State, a flood of Jewish refugees entered Israel from the Arab world, most of whom were Sephardim and so-called "Arab-Jews" from the Maghreb, Yemenite Jews, Bukhorim, Persian Jews, Iraqi Jews, Kurdish Jews, and smaller communities, principally from Libya, Egypt and Turkey."

Also can you please cite your sources for the percentages of land during the estbalishment of Israel?

Kes:

"These are based on secular archaeologists and historical facts, contrary to what people like bdog claims."

Did you see my post with clear citations, direct responses and clarifications to each of your points, and questions that you have still yet to answer?

THERE WAS A KINGDOM OF ANCIENT ISRAEL

I'm sorry for the cap case but Kes, you have yet to cite one archeologist or historian who makes this claim (not about David or a find, but about the Kingdom of Ancient Israel which I clarified).

Please stop making this claim or using your previous arguments unless you address my previous posts.

I am preparing my post right now on showing how your sources proved that you are the one lying about your historical claims based on your sources.

You clearly did not read even your stuff.

B dog

" I do not condone Israel's policies that kill innocent civilians. However, I would argue that Israeli policy does not go out of its way to kill innocent civilians or make killing innocent civilians a primary goal for any policy. "

This does not sound like criticism, but rather mentioning a fault, but then treating it as unimportant in the larger context (treating as unimportant is condoning)

To clarify, I did not say or imply that Israel's policies are unimportant in the Arab Israeli conflict. They are and should be changed to respect life just like other countries which are worse than Israel. My point was to use an example where two things are wrong and shoul not be condoned, but one deserves more criticism. I am not asking you to not criticize Israel, but why is Israel criticized more than other countries which you admit are worse?

you should "have more criticism for the action that has the least respect human life, even if both actions should not be condoned."

b dog Israel is not being censured for what it had done i.e. illegal and clandestine development of nuclear weapons, armed occupation of foreign lands, destruction of Arab Palestinian lands for over 50 years, state-sponsored terrorism etc.

Iran, Iraq, Syria and even Lebanon are labelled rogue states by US-led UN iniatives.

Your question should be why Israel is getting scot free.

bdog, kindly note that you were the one who accuse me of making false historical claims, when it is clear from your evidence that you were the one doing it.

Contrary to what you say, I do read your postings and your sources and I only pointed out the problems of what I read of them.

Your first quoted source was this Christian website that supports the Biblical account of history:

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/biblical-archaeology.htm

Its first pro-Israel claim is that "Biblical archaeology then turns to the evidence for the early Israelites. The Merneptah Stele (also known as the Israel Stele) is an upright stone slab measuring over seven feet tall that contains carved hieroglyphic text dating to approximately 1230 BC."

According to the secular source on the Merneptah Stele, this is a false historical claim in that "Many Egyptologists refer to it as the "Israel stele" because of this, though the title is an erroneous one, as the stela is clearly not about Israel at all. In fact, there is only one line about Israel – "Israel is wasted, bare of seed" – and very little about the region of Palestine as a whole,"

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

Kindly note that the second evidence that you quoted on the Moabite Stone is controversial and does not provide clear cut support for your argument:

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

1] Your own source says, "This inscription can be interpreted as supplementing and corroborating the history of King Mesha recorded in 2 Kings 3:4-27... However there are significant differences. In the Bible it is Ahab, Omri's son, who conquers Moab, and the rebellion is against Ahab's son Jehoram. Further, in the Bible, it is not Chemosh who gives victory to Mesha but the Jewish GOD of Jahweh or Yahweh who gives victory to Jehoram. Israel withdraws, according to the Book of Kings, only because they are disconcerted when they see Mesha sacrifice his son.

2] The stele includes a description of how Moab was conquered by Omri, King of Israel, who ironically was not a devout follower of Yahweh, the Jewish God. He is a person of much historical controversy as well:

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

The historical controversy of Omri affects the validity of the third source quoted by b dong:

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/goto?id=OBJ1503

His source claims that the Biblical Jehu, king of Israel, brought or sent his tribute in around 841 BC. This claim is unfounded because of two things.

First, Jehu appears solely in Assyrian documents, notably in the Black Obelisk where he is depicted as kissing the ground in front of Shalmaneneser III. In the Assyrian documents he is simply referred to as "Jehu son of Omri" and not "Jehu of the House of Omri" as he should have been if he was king. Thus, the Assyrian records state that Jehu, while the legitimate ruler of Israel, was not the king of Israel.

Even if you use the premise that a purely Jewish kingdom existed then, chronology alone renders any claims of Jehu fraudulent. William F. Albright has dated his reign to 842 BC-815 BC, while E. R. Thiele offers the dates 841 BC-814 BC. However the rule of Jehu’s father Omri to is dated to 876 BC-869 BC, after which he passed his kingdom to Ahab, who passed it to Ahaziah:

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

You can thus disregard b dog’s third evidence as well because it does not fit with the Zionist chronology of kings.

B dog’s evidence also does not support his claim that the Israelis have a historical claim to the lands of the Arab region of Palestine.

These are my historical claims based on the secular, historical Jewish, international, government and UN documents and books that I have provided here.

1] First, the term “Israel” can refer to a people or a confederation of tribes, not a country. The Merneptah Stele does point out that Israel, at this stage, refers to a people since a hieroglyphic determinative for "country" is absent regarding Israel (whereas the other areas had the determinative for "country" applied to them). Refer to the earliest known mention of Israel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele

2] Second, there is no definitive secular evidence on the existence of the Jewish kingdom of Solomon and David, which is the basis of the Zionists claims to the Arab lands of Palestine. This is a claim that is raised by the Israeli and is without archaeological support.

3] The Israeli immigrants, which formed the majority of Jewish people in Israel in 1940s had no prior land claim to Arab Palestinian lands. Because Israel was never just a homeland to the Jews as the Jews lived with non-Jewish people who had been living there before the Jews did.

There were non-Jewish people living in the region of Palestine before Moses and the Exodus such as the Canaanites in the land of Canaan. Archaeologists and historians have shown that the Arabs living in the region of Palestine was directly descended from the Canaanite people who progeny had converted to Islam nearly 1400 years ago. Since then their descendants had lived in the Arab region of Palestine.

This supports the point that I made earlier in that “Archaeologists have NO PROOF OF A PURELY Jewish KINGDOM OF ISRAEL.” They only found proof that: “The biblical literature and cognate archaeological materials provide the earliest information about the history of Judaism. Earliest Israel was not monotheistic, but henotheistic: Worshiping only one God themselves, the Israelites did not deny the existence of other gods for other nations. [This means that they do not just worship Jehovah, the God of the Jews as they worship other gods as well.] www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/juda.html

Nearly 1000 years before, there were non-Jewish kingdoms in the region of Palestine.

"Recent archaeological digs have provided evidence that Jerusalem was a big and fortified city already in 1800 BCE...Findings show that the sophisticated water system heretofore attributed to the conquering Israelites pre-dated them by eight centuries and was even more sophisticated than imagined...Dr. Ronny Reich, who directed the excavation along with Eli Shuikrun, said the entire system was built as a single complex by Canaanites in the Middle Bronze Period, around 1800 BCE." The Jewish Bulletin, July 31st, 1998.

"Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land."

"But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

Hi b dog, I suggest we take our argument to e-mails. My generic e-mail is: tshtsh@hotmail.com

I can pass you my historical sources via a zip file to you that way.

These are my historical claims based on the secular, historical Jewish, international, government and UN documents and books that I have provided here.

1] First, the term “Israel” can refer to a people or a confederation of tribes, not a country. The Merneptah Stele does point out that Israel, at this stage, refers to a people since a hieroglyphic determinative for "country" is absent regarding Israel (whereas the other areas had the determinative for "country" applied to them). Refer to the earliest known mention of Israel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele

2] Second, there is no definitive secular evidence on the existence of the Jewish kingdom of Solomon and David, which is the basis of the Zionists claims to the Arab lands of Palestine. This is a claim that is raised by the Israeli and is without archaeological support.

3] The Israeli immigrants, which formed the majority of Jewish people in Israel in 1940s had no prior land claim to Arab Palestinian lands. Because Israel was never just a homeland to the Jews as the Jews lived with non-Jewish people who had been living there before the Jews did.

There were non-Jewish people living in the region of Palestine before Moses and the Exodus such as the Canaanites in the land of Canaan. Archaeologists and historians have shown that the Arabs living in the region of Palestine was directly descended from the Canaanite people who progeny had converted to Islam nearly 1400 years ago. Since then their descendants had lived in the Arab region of Palestine.

This supports the point that I made earlier in that “Archaeologists have NO PROOF OF A PURELY Jewish KINGDOM OF ISRAEL.” They only found proof that: “The biblical literature and cognate archaeological materials provide the earliest information about the history of Judaism. Earliest Israel was not monotheistic, but henotheistic: Worshiping only one God themselves, the Israelites did not deny the existence of other gods for other nations. [This means that they do not just worship Jehovah, the God of the Jews as they worship other gods as well.] www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/juda.html

Nearly 1000 years before, there were non-Jewish kingdoms in the region of Palestine.

"Recent archaeological digs have provided evidence that Jerusalem was a big and fortified city already in 1800 BCE...Findings show that the sophisticated water system heretofore attributed to the conquering Israelites pre-dated them by eight centuries and was even more sophisticated than imagined...Dr. Ronny Reich, who directed the excavation along with Eli Shuikrun, said the entire system was built as a single complex by Canaanites in the Middle Bronze Period, around 1800 BCE." The Jewish Bulletin, July 31st, 1998.

"Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land."

"But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

Hi b dog, I suggest we take our argument to e-mails. My generic e-mail is: tshtsh@hotmail.com

I can pass you my historical sources via a zip file to you that way.

zak- "But if your argument is that Arabs have been there for 1500 years so their claim is better, then I'm sure you'll have no problem giving all of the Americas back to the aboriginal peoples who controled the land until about 500 years ago."

i would say this is closer to reality. of course, your argument is disingenous when you say "you'll have no problem giving all of the americas back to aboriginal peoples...". who here is calling for the destruction of israel? i havent seen anyone make a claim anywhere close to that. that is quite different from saying the zionist colonization should never have taken place. i can say the genocide/massive theft committed towards the native americans should never have happened, without calling for the destruction of the usa. again, it is interesting you would draw a parallel between the actions of early zionists, and early european colonists of america, and yet, you would presumably only condemn one group's actions. note that im not saying the situations are the same, i believe the american genocide of the natives was far worse, but that is besides the point.

Kes,

You write: They have no genetic ancestry to any of the original inhabitants of the Arab region of Palestine.

Look it up, Kes. Genetic studies have been conducted. You can disagree with the studies, but they have been conducted and they run counter to your sweeping ignorant statement that Jews "have no genetic ancestry" to the original inhabitants of Palestine. Clearly, from a variety of studies, they do.

And what's with this Merneptah_Stele bs? So there's one bit of "proof" that supports your ridiculous claim and that discounts all the other historical proof that Israel existed and that Jews lived in that land? The Bible doesnt count? Josephus doesnt count? The Dead Sea Scrolls dont count? So silly.

Kes: (Most of these are things I already posted which is just terrible for everyone)

1) the Merneptah Stele was created over 200 years before an ancient Kingdom of Israel, stop talking about it because of course it won’t talk about Israel as a Kingdom.

2) The Moabite Stone is not controversial as it relates to the existence of an Israeli Kingdom, however your sources says that it does not perfectly match up with the Bible (which I never argued that it did) and that Omri the person was controversial, not that he never existed

3) The Moabite Stone directly states “Omri was the king of Israel”

4) Give me a source that says that EVERY king in Assyrian texts are referred to as “House of” (Which historian claims this anyway?) Additionally, Omri was so influencial in the region that even after his death, the Assyrians “referred to Israel as the ‘land of Omri’” (Harris & Platzner The Old Testament, 2003)

5) The line of Kings goes Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, Jeoram and then Jehu. Where is the discrepancy?

6) “You can thus disregard b dog’s third evidence as well because it does not fit with the Zionist chronology of kings.” What is this referring to? What chronology?

7) (your 1] in 2nd post) I already addressed your point about what “Israel” can refer to. the Merneptah Stele refers to a people before a Kingdom was established (do you disagree with this?) so it is not relevant at all STOP USING THIS AS EV!

8) (your 2) Even if there is no definitive evidence for David and Solomon existing (although there is evidence that is not 100% agreed upon), you still are not realizing that the Kingdom of Israel endures after Solomon which the archeology community agrees that a divided Israeli Kingdom existed in Israel (specifically in Jerusalem until it’s destruction in 586 BCE). I explained the history very clearly, read it!

9) (your 3 for the next points) You never addressed the issues that just as Canaanites were the ancestors of Palestinians, they also were the ancestors of Jews as well! Additionally there was a Jewish presence in Israel before immigration from Europe began (I posted this link before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewishethnicdivisions)

10) Once again you cite www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/juda.html, but your quotation does NOT APPEAR ON THIS SOURCE!!!! I pointed this out and you still cited it again! Please take the time to listen to what I say if you want to have a conversation. Once again, the quotation contradicts itself about who Israel worshipped (only one God or other gods as well)

11) Judaism emerged from the Canaanite Kingdoms 1000 years before the united Kingdom of Israel

12) Just to lay it all out, you have yet to address the existence of the divided Kingdom of Israel after Solomon, the references to Israeli Kings in archeological finds DURING the period, a scholar who rejects the first fixed date in the region during the reign of King Ahab or the existence of the divided Kingdom of Israel, a ‘Zionist’ source who only links history for David and Solomon but not other Kings, the fact that Israel may not be considered a Kingdom or ‘pure’ in it’s EARLIEST forms before the David (or cited accurate sources), and the fact that both Jews and Moslems were descendants from Canaanite. I addressed each of your points, so please address my arguments by number and if you do not agree with my assessments (like that the Merneptah Stele was 200 years before the Kingdom existed) ADDRESS those points!!

Kes:

Few more things . . . I have been trying to find your source Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan." Did you read this book? It seems like you simply copied and pasted the exact same quotations as many other anti-Zionist bloggers and I finally found out that it was a book published in the 1950's! Can't you use current research that takes recent archeological finds into account instead of segmentedand disected quotations from anti-Zionist groups? DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH Who was Illene Beatty? A scholar? Archeologist? Do you even know?

Speaking of authors, did you know that Joseph Albright and Marcia Kunstel are not scholars or archeologists but journalists?

Why can't you cite any scholars or archeologists? Because none of them would disagree with the existence of an Ancient Israeli Kingdom (even if every detail does not match up with the Biblical account):

"It is generally assumed that the Biblical account of the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, as presented in the Books of Kings, is historic, even if not unbiased. Archeological evidence and chronologies of neighboring countries have corroborated the general picture presented in the Bible, although not every detail. For example, Ahab's participation in the Battle of Karkar is clearly documented in Assyrian chronology. King Omri of Israel is mentioned in the Mesha Stele. Many later kings who paid tribute to Assyria are mentioned in Assyrian records."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheBibleandhistory#Laterkings

Zad, you are the one who need to do research and show your sources, which you have not done in this thread.

I have looked it up and the genetic and historical records are much stronger when it comes to the rights of the Arabs living in the lands of Palestine where their Canaaite ancestors had lived before Exodus and that these Canaiite progeney after converting tio Islam

Can't you accept the fact that European Jewish immigrants whose ancestors never lived in the Arab region of Palestine have no legal land claim to the Arab region of Palestine.

Kindly note that in the 1940s, the Jewish people in the region of Palestine constituted only 16% of the total poluation and owned 6 percent of the lands. Teh Arab people formed 84% and owned more than 50% of the land.

B dog, my claims are all legitimate and I raised valid points in qualifying your own sources, which you acknowledge in your post? So why are you saying my points are irrelevant?

The case is that the sources you raise are either irrelevant to this discussion and to your own claims. And I was the one who took the time to examine them to raise this to you. But as the one who quoted these sources, establishing their relevance and factuality should be your job, if you even bothered to research your sources.

1] Your first evidence was a link to a Christian website, whose first pro-Israel claim states that the Merneptah Stele “establishes extra-biblical evidence that the Israelites were already living as a people in ancient Canaan by 1230 BC.” Based on my own research, I found that it does not make any mention of any such dating or even an Israeli kingdom in the Arab region of Palestine.

Why did you even bring up this Christian website, whose first claim was false and inaccurate if “you say of course it won’t talk about Israel as a Kingdom.”? Why do you quote evidence that is not relevant to our discussion? Did you even read your source before you quoted it in this thread?

2) Your second quoted source on the Moabite Stone is controversial, contrary to what you claim. Where does it relate to the existence of an Israeli kingdom?

The stele describes (b dog’s source): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moabite_Stone How Moab was conquered by Omri, King of Israel, as the result of the anger of the god Chemosh. Mesha's victories over Omri's son (not mentioned by name), over the men of Gad at Ataroth, and at Nebo and Jehaz; His public buildings, restoring the fortifications of his strong places and building a palace and reservoirs for water; and His wars against the Horonaim. First, Omri is controversial how can he be a Jewish King of Israel if he was not a devout follower of Yahweh, the Jewish God? The stele states that he conquered Moab for Chemosh, a pagan god. Second, historians have stated that the word Israel can refer to a people or a collection of tribes, not a kingdom.

So seeing the word, “Israel”, on this Stele does not mean that there was a Jewish kingdom of Israel? And where was it stated to be?

You deliberately did not comment on my point on your third source:

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/goto?id=OBJ1503

Your source on the Black Obelisk claims that the Biblical Jehu, king of Israel, brought or sent his tribute in around 841 BC. This claim is FALSE with regard to the points made in Assyrian documents, notably in the Black Obelisk where he is depicted as kissing the ground in front of Shalmaneneser III.

In the Assyrian documents he is simply referred to as "Jehu son of Omri" and not "Jehu of the House of Omri" as he should have been if he was king. Thus, the Assyrian records state that Jehu, while the legitimate ruler of Israel, was not the king of Israel.

So far your sources have not proven that there was an ancient Jewish kingdom of Israel. You are the one being irrelevant and misleading on your historical claims.

You have not proved that the European Jewish immigrants, who make up the majority of the Jews in Israel, have a stronger claim to the Arab region of Palestine, compared to the Arabs whose ancestors had lived there for almost 1400 years.

You need to prove that this so-called Jewish kingdom of Israel existed before the ancestors of the Arab inhabitants in Palestine. Archaeologists have already proved that prior to the Exodus, the Canaanites were there already in the region of Palestine and their direct descendants are the Arab Palestinians.

Second, the Zionists predicate their right to return to the Jewish Kingdom of David and Solomon which has no real historical or archaeological proof. This is the claim. You need to prove it. Why are you deviating from the Zionist defence of their land rights to Israel?

Without this claim, the US Christians will not support Israel as it will no longer mean that the creation of the Modern Israel state is the precursor of the second coming of Christ.

President Truman himself said this in :"I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents."

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0198/9801028.htm

B dog, my claims are all legitimate and I raised valid points in qualifying your own sources, which you acknowledge in your post? So why are you saying my points are irrelevant?

The case is that the sources you raise are either irrelevant to this discussion and to your own claims. And I was the one who took the time to examine them to raise this to you. But as the one who quoted these sources, establishing their relevance and factuality should be your job, if you even bothered to research your sources.

1] Your first evidence was a link to a Christian website, whose first pro-Israel claim states that the Merneptah Stele “establishes extra-biblical evidence that the Israelites were already living as a people in ancient Canaan by 1230 BC.” Based on my own research, I found that it does not make any mention of any such dating or even an Israeli kingdom in the Arab region of Palestine.

Why did you even bring up this Christian website, whose first claim was false and inaccurate if “you say of course it won’t talk about Israel as a Kingdom.”? Why do you quote evidence that is not relevant to our discussion? Did you even read your source before you quoted it in this thread?

2) Your second quoted source on the Moabite Stone is controversial, contrary to what you claim. Where does it relate to the existence of an Israeli kingdom?

The stele describes (b dog’s source): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moabite_Stone How Moab was conquered by Omri, King of Israel, as the result of the anger of the god Chemosh. Mesha's victories over Omri's son (not mentioned by name), over the men of Gad at Ataroth, and at Nebo and Jehaz; His public buildings, restoring the fortifications of his strong places and building a palace and reservoirs for water; and His wars against the Horonaim. First, Omri is controversial how can he be a Jewish King of Israel if he was not a devout follower of Yahweh, the Jewish God? The stele states that he conquered Moab for Chemosh, a pagan god. Second, historians have stated that the word Israel can refer to a people or a collection of tribes, not a kingdom.

So seeing the word, “Israel”, on this Stele does not mean that there was a Jewish kingdom of Israel? And where was it stated to be?

You deliberately did not comment on my point on your third source:

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/goto?id=OBJ1503

Your source on the Black Obelisk claims that the Biblical Jehu, king of Israel, brought or sent his tribute in around 841 BC. This claim is FALSE with regard to the points made in Assyrian documents, notably in the Black Obelisk where he is depicted as kissing the ground in front of Shalmaneneser III.

In the Assyrian documents he is simply referred to as "Jehu son of Omri" and not "Jehu of the House of Omri" as he should have been if he was king. Thus, the Assyrian records state that Jehu, while the legitimate ruler of Israel, was not the king of Israel.

So far your sources have not proven that there was an ancient Jewish kingdom of Israel. You are the one being irrelevant and misleading on your historical claims.

You have not proved that the European Jewish immigrants, who make up the majority of the Jews in Israel, have a stronger claim to the Arab region of Palestine, compared to the Arabs whose ancestors had lived there for almost 1400 years.

You need to prove that this so-called Jewish kingdom of Israel existed before the ancestors of the Arab inhabitants in Palestine. Archaeologists have already proved that prior to the Exodus, the Canaanites were there already in the region of Palestine and their direct descendants are the Arab Palestinians.

Second, the Zionists predicate their right to return to the Jewish Kingdom of David and Solomon which has no real historical or archaeological proof. This is the claim. You need to prove it. Why are you deviating from the Zionist defence of their land rights to Israel?

Without this claim, the US Christians will not support Israel as it will no longer mean that the creation of the Modern Israel state is the precursor of the second coming of Christ.

President Truman himself said this in :"I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents."

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0198/9801028.htm

B dog, I do not just cut and paste from 1 website on a book from the 1950s runs in the face of reality that

I have quoted sources from Time in 2000, as well as official documents from the United Nations, as well as the Ministry of Foreign affairs at Israel and UK in my previous postings. Just read them for yourselves.

You are the one who just do a cut and paste links to evidence, which you claimed supported your view. But they don't once people read them.

When you rejected my claim that that there was no pure Jewish kingdom of Israel in the past, you backed your claims with evidence that included the Merneptah Stele, the Black Obelisk and the Moabite Stone.

Every time, I investigated your sources, I find your evidence doesn’t support your claims at all and they do not establish any historical facts.

You deliberately left out any qualifiers on your so-called evidence.

I really think you should spend less time voicing stands before you have read enough reliable research. Please don’t try to make history fit your views because this is sheer hubris or arrogance.

If you read through what you have quoted as evidence in this thread and examined their veracity, you will not spend so much time defending your sources from me.

And I only did so after I have read through your sources and cross-referenced their authenticity. And found they don’t establish any historical facts at all about the "kingdom" of Israel.

According to scholars, "King of Israel" can only refer to a ruler of a tribe, not a Jewish kingdom on the lands of the Arab region of Palestine, especially if the Black Obelisk, Moabite or Merneptah steles lack a hieroglyphic determinative or words for "country" with regards to the word "Israel".

Contrary to what you think, I had no position on Israel vs Palestinians before I read on this topic. I formed my opinion only after digesting UN documents as well as international reports on this topic.

I'm not averse to change my position if I see valid empirical evidence for such a change as I studied history for at least 10 years.

People liks us tend to cautiously examine the past from widely divergent points of view and as we want to evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent.

To do that, I had even tried making your argument succeed through the sources I can find but I was not successful. More established evidence is needed to establish the veracity of your argument.

To make your argument stick, you should not rely on dating or chronology. Nearly 10 years ago, historians had to backdate the history of human civilisation by 200 years.

You need geographical evidence like a map pin-pointing the location of a Jewish kingdom in the region of modern-day Israel.

And you have to also prove that this kingdom is a jewish kingdom.

For a near perfect example of how academic enquiry should be done, refer to Kenneth Miller's :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

One more thing though and this is the tough one.

You have to prove that a Jewish kingdom existed in the region of Palestine before the ancestors of present day Arab palestinians lived there.

You need this to prove that the Israeli Jewish people have a stronger land claim than the Arabs living there before 1940s.

Kes: If you can answer one point, then I will stop arguing your evidence, but if you can't, please accept that you are the one who is misquoting sources (and QUITE AN ASSHOLE for continuing to use it after I pointed it out TWICE!!):

Is this quotation FROM MULTIPLE POSTS actually from the link you provided?

"The biblical literature and cognate archaeological materials provide the earliest information about the history of Judaism. Earliest Israel was not monotheistic, but henotheistic: Worshiping only one God themselves, the Israelites did not deny the existence of other gods for other nations. [This means that they do not just worship Jehovah, the God of the Jews as they worship other gods as well.] www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/juda.html"

bodog, I'll answer your question.

But I don't really expect you to admit that you are an ASS for not reading my posts and evidences clearly, while wasting everyone's time here to read your sources, which you yourself did not examine for veracity and relevance. The time that the readers can be much better spent covering new grounds.

My stated claim was that there is no definitive proof that a PURELY Jewish Kingdom existed in the lands of Palestine.

The quote from Time, which I provided supports this.

Your second quoted source on the Moabite Stone supports this view as well, when it recorded that Moab was conquered by Omri, King of Israel, as the result of the anger of the god Chemosh, NOT the Jewish God Yabweh or Jehovah. Based on your source, the King of Israel, Omri, was not a devout follower of Yahweh.

The fact remains that early Jewish people may not even be Jewish in their religious beliefs. And that your own sources state clearly that references to Israel refer to Israel as a group of tribes or people, AND NOT AS A JEWISH KINGDOM IN THE REGION OF PALESTINE.

There is no proof of a Jewish homeland in the ancestral lands of the Arab region of Palestine such as the Jewish kingdom under David and Solomon, which Israel used as legal justification for their right to establish a state in the region of Palestine.

Based on this religious claim, they state that they have a right to settle these lands, although the Arabs and their ancestors have lived there for almost 1400 years. And that they have the right to deny the UN’s recognised RIGHT OF RETURN by Arab Palestinians.

This is a claim made by Israeli Zionists.

If you have a problem with this claim, please go after the Israelis for not using your claims that an ancient Israel kingodm existed, which may not be Jewish in nature.

Kindly also aknowledge that you have yet to establish that a PURELY Jewish kingdom had existed in the lands of Palestine.

And secondly for Israeli claims on this basis to take precedence over other land claims, you also need to prove that this kingdom was there in the region of Palestine before the original inhabitants of that region, the Canaaities, whose the Arab Palestinians are directly descended from.

Kes:

Did you notice that you did not answer if the quotation from your source? You are an ASSHOLE for using quotation marks and trying to make it seem like the Times actually said it. You have STILL to cite any credible source claiming definitively that there was no Ancient Israeli Kingdom. NONE, why? Try reading this ONE MORE TIME:

"It is generally assumed that the Biblical account of the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, as presented in the Books of Kings, is historic, even if not unbiased. Archeological evidence and chronologies of neighboring countries have corroborated the general picture presented in the Bible, although not every detail. For example, Ahab's participation in the Battle of Karkar is clearly documented in Assyrian chronology. King Omri of Israel is mentioned in the Mesha Stele. Many later kings who paid tribute to Assyria are mentioned in Assyrian records."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheBibleandhistory#Laterkings

I know what your position is, but you jump from century to century. Earliest Israel ussually does not refer to the United or Divided Kingdom era, but to the Patriarchal period. I asked for your source on the supposed Time's quotation because I wanted to know the context of it. Obviously you don't care to look at the context of articles but just take quotations from nonexistant sources out of context.

What do you mean by purely Jewish? Did they not practice the religion or intermarry with other peoples? both? something else?

If you are so adamant about insisting on a purely Jewish Kingdom, why are you so lax on Arab origins? Arabs and Jews were both decendants of Canaanites, but it was not until the 7th century CE that Arabs even came to the land. Jews were in Israel before the Arabs invaded the land even after the First and Second Temples were destroyed:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewishethnicdivisions

"Although the Jewish population was severely reduced after the Arab invasions of the 7th century, Jews were always present in Palestine. Over the centuries following the Crusades, Jews from around the world began returning in small numbers. Upon arrival, these Jews adopted the customs of the Mizraḥi and Sephardi communities into which they moved . . . Following the declaration of the State, a flood of Jewish refugees entered Israel from the Arab world, most of whom were Sephardim and so-called "Arab-Jews" from the Maghreb, Yemenite Jews, Bukhorim, Persian Jews, Iraqi Jews, Kurdish Jews, and smaller communities, principally from Libya, Egypt and Turkey."

FACT: "Biblical account of the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, as presented in the Books of Kings, is historic, even if not unbiased"

FACT: "Jews were always present in Palestine"

If you have archeologists or scholars that disagree with what the rest of the archeologiscal society generally agree with, PLEASE CITE THEM!!!

Also you have yet to address all the questions I posed in #12 of my 12point post.

Finally, STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO ZIONISTS MOUTHS!! You still have yet to cite an Israeli Zionist who says anything like that.

Hi Bdog, I noticed my mistake and I apologise for tnot acknowledging the souce clearly.

However you have not acknowledging that I have provided secular evidence from Times that clearly stated the lack of archeological evidence for a Jewish kingdom.

I have brought up documents from the United nations, Jewwish sources, Foreign Ministry of Britian and Israel to back up my points.

Read my posts. They prove what I say : >

You are lying if you claim otherwise.

I won't stoop to name-calling as I see that as a desperation of someone who has been caught lying on his claims and sources while accusing others of the same.

Kindly note that bdog has not proved that an ancient Israeli kingdom was there in the region of Palestine and whether it was there before the ancestors of the Israelis.

As proof of dishonesty, he has quoted sources to back up his stand that are controversial and does not prove his case at all. His sources even contradicted Biblical account. Please refer to my previous postings on examining his sources.

His attempts to back up his stand by claiming definitive proof by subjective and controversial materials can be seen by him repeating this quote:

"It is generally assumed that the Biblical account of the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, as presented in the Books of Kings, is historic, even if not unbiased. Archaeological evidence and chronologies of neighbouring countries have corroborated the general picture presented in the Bible, although not every detail. For example, Ahab's participation in the Battle of Karkar is clearly documented in Assyrian chronology. King Omri of Israel is mentioned in the Mesha Stele. Many later kings who paid tribute to Assyria are mentioned in Assyrian records." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheBibleandhistory#Laterkings

His quote starts with “generally assumed”, which means no archaeological or historical proof for the existence of a Jewish kingdom of Israel in the region of Palestine. This assumption is based on the religious document of the Book of Kings, which cannot be considered historical. I have pointed out earlier that the Meshe Steele stated clearly that King Omri of Israel was not considered a Jewish king.

There is no Archaeological evidence and chronologies of neighbouring countries have corroborated the general picture presented in the Bible in that the archaeological evidence like the Moabite Stone, Merneptah Stele and the Black Obelisk quoted by Bdog, contradicts biblical account, included a king of Israel that is not in the Book kings and has no reference to Israel as a country or kingdom, as the term was originally used to refer to a collection of Jewish tribes or people.

Please refer to my previous postings.

Bdog, you are the one constantly putting words in the mouth of others. My posts here deal with historical and official sources.

Taking it out on me because they do not support your fiction of an ancient Jewish kingdom in the region of Palestine is not professional and hurts your own credibility. A person winning an argument will not resort to vulgarity like you.

Only 20% of the Jewish population in Israel in the 1940s had lived there. But the majority of the population in the region of Palestine are Arab Palestinians whose ancestors were descendants of the people in the land of Canaan, which existed before the ancient Jews came into the region. There are archaeological and historical facts and evidence to prove this.

And there are not historical or archaeological evidence of a Jewish kingdom in the region of Arab Palestine. This can clearly been seen that despite assertions in RELIGIOS DOCUMENTS, no evidence of the kingdom of David and Solomon was found, on which the Zionists in Israel used to back up their right to return based on prior tenancy in the region of Palestine.

There is also no legal claims that the local majority of 80% of the people in the land of Arab Palestine who owned more than 50% of the land and who ancestors have lived there continuously for almost 1400 years have less claims to land than a Jewish minority population of 16%in Arab Palestine, who came largely from Europe and only 20% of this 16% were native inhabitants in the Arab region of Palestine

These are the real historical facts, contrary to the misleading statement by bdog.

FACT: "Jews were NOT always present in Palestine as bdog claim. Moses led a Jewish into the lands of Palestine, which was occupied by the Canaanites before the Jews came.

B dog, although this is not a historical fact, it is your freedom to believe that an ancient Jewish kingdom was in the region of Arab palestine before the ancestors of the Arabs Palestinians lived there first.

However, you cannot call it a face when you can only refer it to Biblical or religious ducuments, which are not historical or factually accurate.

If they did, you would be using them in the study of world history.

We can continue this via e-mail but I hope you realise the EXTREME LACK OF secular, historical and archeological evidence about the existence of an ancient Jewish Kingdom in the region of Arab Palestine.

You can continue your rant, insults and demeaninmg comments here but you will only end up proving just how subjective and controversial your so-called eveidence and sources are with regards to ancient Israel.

I owe it to my histroy teachers and professors to spend the time and effort to correct. History is not like religion. You really can't take it on faith based on religious documents.

Moses led the Jewish Exodus into the lands of Palestine, which was occupied by the Canaanites before the Jews came.

Fact: Most of the Jew are Israel today were not native inhabitants of the Arab region of Palestine as they were immigrants from Europe and overseas:

"What the political concept of a Jewish State in Palestine needed to give it reality was to transfer people to Palestine. The religious and spiritual solidarity of the Jews in the Diaspora with the Holy Land had survived over the centuries. Despite the anti-Semitism in Europe, only small groups had emigrated to Palestine to settle in Palestine for purely religious sentiments. They numbered perhaps 50,000 at the end of the nineteenth century, and personified, or symbolized, the Jewish link to Palestine which was, in essence, spiritual."

Click on the link for The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

More info on the stand of the United Nations on the inalienable right of Arab Palestinians in the right for self determination in the region of Arab Palestine and the right to return to their lands seized by the Israelis:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/025974039acfb171852560de00548bbe!OpenDocument

Kes-

I called you an asshole (editors note: attack ideas not people) because while I at least provided sources for you to look up, you have yet to cite sources for quotations that you claim are from scholars.

While one of my sources was from a Christian website, all of my sources have talked about the ARCHEOLOGICAL evidence of an Ancient Israeli Kingdom. The quotation that you picked out "generally assumed" clearly states that

"Archaeological evidence and chronologies of neighbouring countries have corroborated the general picture presented in the Bible, although not every detail." (same citation)

Never once did I say that Israel was a Kingdom because of the Bible or that the Biblical story is accurate.

Just so you know, your 'secular' sources do not oppose the divided monarchy but rather the united monarchy which the archeologocial commnity is still debating. NO SCHOLAR OPPOSES that a divided monarchy. Everything else is debatable or up to opinion, but this is not.

Also, Canaanites are not Palestinian! Get that into your head! If you argue that Canaanites are Arab, then Jews can claim that as well.

And Jews lived with Arabs in the land before AND after the Arabs invaded the land! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewishethnicdivisions

Hi Bdog, you did not present any ideas, except for a false claim that the Israel Jews were always there on Jewish lands.

You called me an asso because I pointed out the discrepancies in the sources that quoted, which exposed your attemtps to mislead us in historical terms.

The fact remains that none of the evidence that you quoted prove your claim that there was a purely Jewish kinddom in the Arab region of Palestine.

Your archeolofical sources in terms of the Black Obelish, The Moabite Stone and Merneptah Stele only mention Israel as the name of a collection of tribes or people with no geographic location attached to their homeland. The mentioned references to rulers of Israel that were atodds or not mentioned in the Jewish chronology in the religious documents

The fact that you can't seem to produce any proof besides quoting scattered lines in wikipedia, with not offical documents, secular writings, international sources or historical writings proved my point.

Wikipedia is only good as a reference or background check. It is not meant to be used as archaeological or histoerical fact.

The population census provided by The United Nations and historical writings stated clearly that 80% the Jews in israel int he 1940 are 80% immigrants from Europe whose ancestors converted to the Jewish religion in Europe.

Only 20% of the Jewish population them were either people who immigrated much there earlier or who were since the Jewish exodus into the region in the past.

This clearly showed that the Jewish people were a largely an immigrant minority that formed only 16% of the population in the region of Palestine int he 1940s and who owned just 6% of the land. 80% of this 16% were immigrants from Europe with ancestors who never lived in the Middle East.

That's why I quoted a UN source earlier that state that the relationship between the Jews and the Middle East is largely symbolic

"What the political concept of a Jewish State in Palestine needed to give it reality was to transfer people to Palestine. The religious and spiritual solidarity of the Jews in the Diaspora with the Holy Land had survived over the centuries. Despite the anti-Semitism in Europe, only small groups had emigrated to Palestine to settle in Palestine for purely religious sentiments. They numbered perhaps 50,000 at the end of the nineteenth century, and personified, or symbolized, the Jewish link to Palestine which was, in essence, spiritual."

Click on the link for The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

Compare this to the land claims of the Arab Palestinians who formed 84% of the local population in Arab Palestine, owned 50% of the lands and were direct descendants of the Canaaites who lived before the Jews came to the Middle East and whose ancestors converted to Islam 1400 years earlier.

Bdog’s last source does not support his historical claim that there was a Jewish Kingdom in the Arab region of Palestine.

He’s trying to pull a fast one again.

“As long ago as Biblical times, cultural and linguistic differences between Jewish communities even within the area of Palestine are observed both within the Bible itself as well as from archeological remains.”

Kindly note that Biblical times is based on religious documents and are not proven as history. There is no mention of a Jewish kingdom within the area of Palestine and the archesological remains only mention Israel sparsely as a tribe or a people, not as a kingdom with no geographical references about the Jewish kingdom on Palestinian lands.

On the issue of the so-called Arab invasions, it is just like the Jewish Exodus or biblical migration of the Jews from Egypt to the Middle East.

The only difference here is that the Canaanites who lived in the region of Palestine before the Jews came converted to Islam:

"But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

===

Kindly get the following facts into your head as this is proven by historians and archaeologists.

The Arab Palestinians are direct descendants of the Canaanites, who lived in the land of Canaan before the Jewish Exodus or Hebrew immigrants migrated into the region of Palestine around 1800 BC. "Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land."

Almost 1400 years ago, the Canaanite ancestors of these Arab Palestinians living in the region of Palestine converted to Islam and they and their descendants stayed there since.

That’s why UN recognises the right of Arab Palestinians to self-determination and the return to their ancestral lands in the region of Palestine that has been illegally occupied and settled by the Israeli Jews.

The Jews have no right to establish a state on the ancestral lands of the Arab Palestinians, whose Canaanite ancestors were living in the region of Palestine BEFORE the Jewish people came and who continued to stay there even after converting to Islam almost 1400 years ago to this very day.

Bdog’s last source does not support his historical claim that there was a Jewish Kingdom in the Arab region of Palestine.

He’s trying to pull a fast one again.

“As long ago as Biblical times, cultural and linguistic differences between Jewish communities even within the area of Palestine are observed both within the Bible itself as well as from archeological remains.”

Kindly note that Biblical times is based on religious documents and are not proven as history. There is no mention of a Jewish kingdom within the area of Palestine and the archesological remains only mention Israel sparsely as a tribe or a people, not as a kingdom with no geographical references about the Jewish kingdom on Palestinian lands.

On the issue of the so-called Arab invasions, it is just like the Jewish Exodus or biblical migration of the Jews from Egypt to the Middle East.

The only difference here is that the Canaanites who lived in the region of Palestine before the Jews came converted to Islam:

"But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

===

Kindly get the following facts into your head as this is proven by historians and archaeologists.

The Arab Palestinians are direct descendants of the Canaanites, who lived in the land of Canaan before the Jewish Exodus or Hebrew immigrants migrated into the region of Palestine around 1800 BC. "Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land."

Almost 1400 years ago, the Canaanite ancestors of these Arab Palestinians living in the region of Palestine converted to Islam and they and their descendants stayed there since.

That’s why UN recognises the right of Arab Palestinians to self-determination and the return to their ancestral lands in the region of Palestine that has been illegally occupied and settled by the Israeli Jews.

The Jews have no right to establish a state on the ancestral lands of the Arab Palestinians, whose Canaanite ancestors were living in the region of Palestine BEFORE the Jewish people came and who continued to stay there even after converting to Islam almost 1400 years ago to this very day.

kes-

you did not point anything out. I tried to find your source and you STILL have yet to produce any for your quote. What scholars have you cited to prove that there is no Jewish Kingdom.

My archeological evidence directly translates to Israel Kings and the Bible (while not exact to every detail) is generally accept as history as it relates to the divided kingdom.

NONE OF YOUR SOURCES ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE DIVIDED KINGDOM.

You are mixing and matching evidence from all over and trying to present a picture of Ancient Israel that is anything but the truth (continuing to use evidence about the Merneptah Stele as it relates to other finds, who thinks that Omri was a king of tribe and not a kingdom?). While I disagree with most of what you say, I honestly only wanted to correct only falsehood that you have still yet to address. Did the divided Kingdom of Israel exist?

I said from the start that I think this has no bearing on the current political situation so all of your uncited evidence about populations and percentages is irrelevant to this question.

Hi b dog, you seem to enjoy lying. You are the one who is mixing and matching evidence from all over to present a picture of Ancient Israel based on unworkable ties with religious documents and Biblical history with archeologically evidence that does not support your false historical claims.

Up to now, you have presented no international sources, UN documents or secular historical sources to support your claims.

Since when did your archaeological evidences support Biblical history based on religious documents? I had pointed out the discrepancies and you even acknowledge my point in your post at April 26, 10.26am:

"2) The Moabite Stone is not controversial as it relates to the existence of an Israeli Kingdom, however your sources says that it does not perfectly match up with the Bible (which I never argued that it did) and that Omri the person was controversial, not that he never existed"

Omri worshipped Chemosh, a pagan god, not the Jewish King although the archaeological evidence you quoted i.e. Moabite Stone said he was a King of Israel i.e. King of the people of Israelites, not the Kingdom of Israel:

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

This supports my claims that there was no purely Jewish kingdom on the region of Palestine and it does not relate to the existence of an Israeli kingdom.

The Merneptah Stele in your first quoted source said that mention of the word “Israel” refers to a tribe or a people:

As the stela mentions just one line about Israel it is difficult for scholars to draw a substantial amount of information about what "Israel" means in this stela. The stela does point out that Israel, at this stage, refers to a people since a hieroglyphic determinative for "country" is absent regarding Israel (whereas the other areas had the determinative for "country" applied to them). However, after that there is not much else that can be drawn about Israel at this time. A theory by Donald Redford states that "Israel" was a band of Bedouin-like wanderers known to Egyptians as "Shasu".

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

With regards to your claim:

“NONE OF YOUR SOURCES ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE DIVIDED KINGDOM.”

Did the divided Kingdom of Israel exist?

My claim has never been about the Divided Kingdom. My claim is that the Arabs Palestinians had been living in the region of Palestine for almost 1400 years after their Canaanite ancestors converted to Islam and these Canaanites had lived in the same region before the Israeli migrants first came into the region by the Exodus. If such a kingdom existed, divided or otherwise, you should have no problems finding secular and archaeological proof that it existed, which does not seem to be the case by your efforts.

Lousy attempt to change the topic and the use of caps clearly showed I struck a nerve. And you only touch a nerve by telling a truth.

By the way, based on the secular, Time and United Nations sources, I provided, the Muslims never have invaded the Middle East.

"Jerusalem was central to the spiritual identity of Muslims from the very beginning of their faith. When the Prophet Muhammad first began to preach in Mecca in about 612, according to the earliest biographies, which are our primary source of information about him, he had his converts prostrate themselves in prayer in the direction of Jerusalem. They were symbolically reaching out toward the Jewish and Christian God, whom they were committed to worshipping, and turning their back on the paganism of Arabia. Muhammad never believed that he was founding a new religion that cancelled out the previous faiths. He was convinced that he was simply bringing the old religion of the One God to the Arabs, who had never been sent a prophet before."

http://www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/islam.html

The Canaanites living in the Arab region of Palestine, including some of the local Jews then converted to Islam 1400 years ago. Since then their descendants had lived in that region and they are the Arab Palestinians living in Israel before the Jews drive them out of their ancestral lands in modern day Israel

They were not foreigners like the Jews who came to the Arab region of Palestine via the Exodus based on Jewish documents. This trend of migration of Jews into the region were clearly stated in the UN source I provided, which also stated that the relationship between the Jews and the Middle East is largely symbolic, not based on ancestral ties.

"What the political concept of a Jewish State in Palestine needed to give it reality was to transfer people to Palestine. The religious and spiritual solidarity of the Jews in the Diaspora with the Holy Land had survived over the centuries. Despite the anti-Semitism in Europe, only small groups had immigrated to Palestine to settle in Palestine for purely religious sentiments. They numbered perhaps 50,000 at the end of the nineteenth century, and personified, or symbolized, the Jewish link to Palestine which was, in essence, spiritual." Click on the link for The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

Besides the archaeological evidence you raised, which turned out to be controversial and does not support your claims at all, you have only quoted wikipedia, which is good for background checks as well as religious documents like the Bible and The Books of Kings, which is a part of Judaism's Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible.

Religious documents are not considered historical documents and Biblical times are not regarded as established historical times. So stop looking in a Jewish library because the United Nations does not recognise Jewish claims based on religious documents. If it did, it would not have reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and to return to the lands illegally occupied by the Israelis

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

Kindly also spend more time to find Established historical and archaeological evidence to support your so-called historical claim that an ancient kingdom of Israel was built on the Arab region of Palestine.

This is something that you failed to do. And you will never convince anyone here unless you do this.

Spotted some typos and added 1 more point:

"Omri worshipped Chemosh, a pagan god, not Jehovah or the Jewish God although the archaeological evidence you quoted i.e. Moabite Stone said he was a King of Israel i.e. King of the people of Israelites, not the Kingdom of Israel:

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

Your third quoted source:

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/goto?id=OBJ1503

It claims that the Biblical Jehu, king of Israel, brought or sent his tribute in around 841 BC. This claim is unfounded because of two things.

First, Jehu appears solely in Assyrian documents, notably in the Black Obelisk where he is depicted as kissing the ground in front of Shalmaneneser III. In the Assyrian documents he is simply referred to as "Jehu son of Omri" and not "Jehu of the House of Omri" as he should have been if he was king. Thus, the Assyrian records state that Jehu, while the legitimate ruler of Israel, was not the king of Israel.

Even if you use the premise that a purely Jewish kingdom existed then, chronology alone renders any claims of Jehu as a Jewish king false. The rule of Jehu’s father Omri to is dated to 876 BC-869 BC, after which he passed his kingdom to Ahab, who passed it to Ahaziah:

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

Jehu was not part of the hereditary succession of Jewish Kings, and thus renders controversial the claim that Jehu was a king of Israel based on the Zionist chronology of kings.

Your archeological sources clearly supports my claims that there was no established evicdence of a purely Jewish kingdom in the region of Palestine and your archeological evidence does not relate to the existence of an Israeli kingdom."

Kes:

let me relist these points and clarify each issue:

(Most of these are things I already posted which is just terrible for everyone)

1) the Merneptah Stele was created over 200 years before an ancient Kingdom of Israel, stop talking about it because of course it won’t talk about Israel as a Kingdom. Yes I admit that MY SOURCE talked about this, but it never argued that this was evidence for an ancient Israeli Kingdom about rather about ancient Israel. You are arguing that it relates to something 200 years after it was created!!

2) The Moabite Stone is not controversial as it relates to the existence of an Israeli Kingdom, however your sources says that it does not perfectly match up with the Bible (which I never argued that it did) and that Omri the person was controversial, not that he never existed. While Bush as a person may be controversial, no one doubts that he exists.

3) The Moabite Stone directly states “Omri was the king of Israel”

4) Give me a source that says that EVERY king in Assyrian texts are referred to as “House of” (Which historian claims this anyway?) Additionally, Omri was so influencial in the region that even after his death, the Assyrians “referred to Israel as the ‘land of Omri’” (Harris & Platzner The Old Testament, 2003) Would you look at that, a secular scholar source that directly relates to the issues which you never argued!

5) The line of Kings goes Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, Jeoram and then Jehu. Where is the discrepancy?

6) “You can thus disregard b dog’s third evidence as well because it does not fit with the Zionist chronology of kings.” What is this referring to? What chronology? Direct the chronology to number 5 and there is no discrepency.

7) (your 1] in 2nd post) I already addressed your point about what “Israel” can refer to. the Merneptah Stele refers to a people before a Kingdom was established (do you disagree with this?) so it is not relevant at all STOP USING THIS AS EV!

8) (your 2) Even if there is no definitive evidence for David and Solomon existing (although there is evidence that is not 100% agreed upon), you still are not realizing that the Kingdom of Israel endures after Solomon which the archeology community agrees that a divided Israeli Kingdom existed in Israel (specifically in Jerusalem until it’s destruction in 586 BCE). I explained the history very clearly, read it! Was America purely American when it started? According to your logic it would not have been because everyone wasn't equal. Judaism evolved as a religion like many others and even still, even if a leader may be controversial, who claims that Omri wasn't Jewish?

9) (your 3 for the next points) You never addressed the issues that just as Canaanites were the ancestors of Palestinians, they also were the ancestors of Jews as well! Additionally there was a Jewish presence in Israel before immigration from Europe began (I posted this link before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewishethnicdivisions)

10) Once again you cite www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/juda.html, but your quotation does NOT APPEAR ON THIS SOURCE!!!! I pointed this out and you still cited it again! Please take the time to listen to what I say if you want to have a conversation. Once again, the quotation contradicts itself about who Israel worshipped (only one God or other gods as well)

I still am waiting for this citation . . .

11) Judaism emerged from the Canaanite Kingdoms 1000 years before the united Kingdom of Israel

12) Just to lay it all out, you have yet to address the existence of the divided Kingdom of Israel after Solomon (no direct evidence to dismiss it, but only your slanted interpretation), the references to Israeli Kings in archeological finds DURING the period (that they existed, not that they were 'purely' Jewish or whatever you want to call it), a scholar who rejects the first fixed date in the region during the reign of King Ahab or the existence of the divided Kingdom of Israel, a ‘Zionist’ source who only links history for David and Solomon but not other Kings, the fact that Israel may not be considered a Kingdom or ‘pure’ in it’s EARLIEST forms before the David (or cited accurate sources), and the fact that both Jews and Moslems were descendants from Canaanite.

Although I used this post before to address each of your points, you seem to have barely addressed these points in full. Please address my arguments by number and if you do not agree with my assessments (like that the Merneptah Stele was 200 years before the Kingdom existed) ADDRESS those points!!

Here are just a few secular sources:

Shanks (1999) Ancient Israel. a Short History from Abraham to the Roman Destuction of the Temple. with chapters by Lemaire "The United Monarchy" and Horn-McCarter "The Divided Monarchy"

Isserlin (1999) The Israelites

Gordon & Rendsburg (1997) The Bible and the Ancient Nead East

while these scholars/archeologists debate the details, there is no question that there is archeological evidence for the existence of an Ancient Israeli Kingdom

lol, I wonder if Kes and B dog will ever get this all straightened out. :D I, for one, am getting quite the education, though, and enjoying this exchange.

Kes:

let me relist these points and clarify each issue:

(Most of these are things I already posted which is just terrible for everyone)

1) the Merneptah Stele was created over 200 years before an ancient Kingdom of Israel, stop talking about it because of course it won’t talk about Israel as a Kingdom. Yes I admit that MY SOURCE talked about this, but it never argued that this was evidence for an ancient Israeli Kingdom about rather about ancient Israel. You are arguing that it relates to something 200 years after it was created!!

2) The Moabite Stone is not controversial as it relates to the existence of an Israeli Kingdom, however your sources says that it does not perfectly match up with the Bible (which I never argued that it did) and that Omri the person was controversial, not that he never existed. While Bush as a person may be controversial, no one doubts that he exists.

3) The Moabite Stone directly states “Omri was the king of Israel”

4) Give me a source that says that EVERY king in Assyrian texts are referred to as “House of” (Which historian claims this anyway?) Additionally, Omri was so influencial in the region that even after his death, the Assyrians “referred to Israel as the ‘land of Omri’” (Harris & Platzner The Old Testament, 2003) Would you look at that, a secular scholar source that directly relates to the issues which you never argued!

5) The line of Kings goes Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, Jeoram and then Jehu. Where is the discrepancy?

6) “You can thus disregard b dog’s third evidence as well because it does not fit with the Zionist chronology of kings.” What is this referring to? What chronology? Direct the chronology to number 5 and there is no discrepency.

7) (your 1] in 2nd post) I already addressed your point about what “Israel” can refer to. the Merneptah Stele refers to a people before a Kingdom was established (do you disagree with this?) so it is not relevant at all STOP USING THIS AS EV!

8) (your 2) Even if there is no definitive evidence for David and Solomon existing (although there is evidence that is not 100% agreed upon), you still are not realizing that the Kingdom of Israel endures after Solomon which the archeology community agrees that a divided Israeli Kingdom existed in Israel (specifically in Jerusalem until it’s destruction in 586 BCE). I explained the history very clearly, read it! Was America purely American when it started? According to your logic it would not have been because everyone wasn't equal. Judaism evolved as a religion like many others and even still, even if a leader may be controversial, who claims that Omri wasn't Jewish?

9) (your 3 for the next points) You never addressed the issues that just as Canaanites were the ancestors of Palestinians, they also were the ancestors of Jews as well! Additionally there was a Jewish presence in Israel before immigration from Europe began (I posted this link before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewishethnicdivisions)

10) Once again you cite www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/juda.html, but your quotation does NOT APPEAR ON THIS SOURCE!!!! I pointed this out and you still cited it again! Please take the time to listen to what I say if you want to have a conversation. Once again, the quotation contradicts itself about who Israel worshipped (only one God or other gods as well)

I still am waiting for this citation . . .

11) Judaism emerged from the Canaanite Kingdoms 1000 years before the united Kingdom of Israel

12) Just to lay it all out, you have yet to address the existence of the divided Kingdom of Israel after Solomon (no direct evidence to dismiss it, but only your slanted interpretation), the references to Israeli Kings in archeological finds DURING the period (that they existed, not that they were 'purely' Jewish or whatever you want to call it), a scholar who rejects the first fixed date in the region during the reign of King Ahab or the existence of the divided Kingdom of Israel, a ‘Zionist’ source who only links history for David and Solomon but not other Kings, the fact that Israel may not be considered a Kingdom or ‘pure’ in it’s EARLIEST forms before the David (or cited accurate sources), and the fact that both Jews and Moslems were descendants from Canaanite.

Although I used this post before to address each of your points, you seem to have barely addressed these points in full. Please address my arguments by number and if you do not agree with my assessments (like that the Merneptah Stele was 200 years before the Kingdom existed) ADDRESS those points!!

Here are just a few secular sources:

Shanks (1999) Ancient Israel. a Short History from Abraham to the Roman Destuction of the Temple. with chapters by Lemaire "The United Monarchy" and Horn-McCarter "The Divided Monarchy"

Isserlin (1999) The Israelites

Gordon & Rendsburg (1997) The Bible and the Ancient Nead East

while these scholars/archeologists debate the details, there is no question that there is archeological evidence for the existence of an Ancient Israeli Kingdom

Just throwing out a few secular sources without listing the details of how they support your arguments prove nothing.

And God is in the details.

You still have not told me what exactly is the archaeological evidence for an Ancient Israeli Kingdom in the Arab Region of Palestine.

You have also not clarified why the Jews have a stronger land claim to the Arab region of Palestine where the native Arabs have lived there continuously for almost 1400 years after their Canaanite ancestors' conversion to Islam and their ancestors had lived in the Arab region of Palestine before the Jews immigrated into the region via the Biblical exodus.

Even UN documents state clearly that the Jews ties to the lands are symbolic and maintained by continuous immigration in the last few centuries.

"What the political concept of a Jewish State in Palestine needed to give it reality was to transfer people to Palestine. The religious and spiritual solidarity of the Jews in the Diaspora with the Holy Land had survived over the centuries. Despite the anti-Semitism in Europe, only small groups had immigrated to Palestine to settle in Palestine for purely religious sentiments. They numbered perhaps 50,000 at the end of the nineteenth century, and personified, or symbolized, the Jewish link to Palestine which was, in essence, spiritual."

Click on the link for The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

You are extremely vague in you claims that there are proof for an Israeli Kingdom when the archaeological proof that you provided does not refer to Israel as a kingdom as in the case of the Merneptah Stele that was in your first quoted evidence as since "a hieroglyphic determinative for "country" is absent regarding Israel (whereas the other areas had the determinative for "country" applied to them)".

Since ancient times, Israel has been the name for a group of tribes and people, not a kingdom.

For the term to have a new connotation i.e. to refer to a country, you need the word "Israel" to come with the Egyptian hieroglyphics or Jewish text for the word "country", depending on the language used in the archaeological evidence you quoted.

Simply saying that there was no such kingdom in the case of the Merneptah Stele is nothing more than just a clever dodge.

A good example of research is to make sure that the archaeological sources that you quote i.e. Moabite Stone and the Black Obelisk contains text that refers to Israel as an actual country in the Arab region of Palestine, which is the whole basis of the discussion here.

1] With regards to your point, I have already answered your reasoning on the Merneptah Stele as a clever dodge in that the word “Israel” originally referred to a group of tribes or a people, not a kingdom. To claim that it has the connotation of a country or kingdom in whatever archaeological sources you claimed, you must ensure that the word for country in the relevant language is there. Second, you also need to ensure that your evidences can oppose my claim that there was NO PURELY Jewish kingdom in the Arab region of Palestine, which is my focus in this thread i.e. to show that the Israeli Zionists have no real claim to the Arab ancestral lands in the region of Palestine.

2) I have made it very clear why I consider the Moabite Stone, your second quoted source, is so controversial as it DOES NOT RELATE to the existence of a JEWISH Kingdom in the Arab region of Palestine. Based on your source, the stele describes: “How Moab was conquered by Omri, King of Israel, as the result of the anger of the god Chemosh. Mesha's victories over Omri's son (not mentioned by name), over the men of Gad at Ataroth, and at Nebo and Jehaz;”

First, you can’t consider Omri a Jewish king, when he worshipped Chemosh, a pagan god, not the Jewish God Yahweh or Jehovah. Second, In the Bible it is Ahab, Omri's son, who conquers Moab, and the rebellion is against Ahab's son Jehoram. Further, in the Bible, it is not Chemosh who gives victory to Mesha but Jahweh who gives victory to Jehoram. Israel withdraws, according to the Book of Kings, only because they are disconcerted when they see Mesha sacrifice his son.

Not only Jewish and biblical accounts contradict your second evidence, Omri was never regarded as a Jewish king by the Hebrew book of kings nor the Moabite Stone, which was your so-called evidence against my claim that there are no real archaeological or historical proof of a purely JEWISH Kingdom in the Arab region of Palestine, which is the basis of this discussion.

3) Whether Omri was a king of Israel or not is irrelevant to the discussion on whether there was archaeological proof of a purely Jewish kingdom in the Arab region of Palestine as your Moabite Stone made clear that he was not considered a Jewish king and its statements contradict Hebrew and biblical sources that Omri’s son conquered Moab, not Omri as stated in the Moabite Stone. This information is contained in the link that you gave me on the Moabite Stone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moabite_Stone
Your Moabite stone is obviously too controversial to establish any claim while being irrelevant to the discussion here. Kindly read your own sources before quoting them here. I am not obliged to assess the veracity of your proof that is supposed to counter my claim. Kindly stop “name dropping” proof as the only way you are going to impress anyone here is to make sure that your proof actually proves your claim.

"Do I really need to add the 'DUH' behind this statement?"

Oh yeag, here's a perfect example of bad research by b dog based on his statements like the one below:

"While Bush as a person may be controversial, no one doubts that he exists."

I would have ask are you talking about Bush Sr or Bush Jr, as they are/were US Presidents. Or is a Bush from some other country?

The jewish king Ahab have a pretty common naame as an impious prophet in the time of the Babylonian exile was also called Ahab (Jeremiah 29:21).

Here's a perfect example of B dog's lack of historical research skills by his own statement:

"While Bush as a person may be controversial, no one doubts that he exists."

Which Bush? Bush sr? Or Bush jr? Or someone called Bush from another country.

Kindly note that Ahab is not just the name of a King of Israel based on the Book of Kings, but also refer to an impious prophet in the time of the Babylonian exile (Jeremiah 29:21).

B dog, please don't do this again.

I am going to answer your 4-6 points together based on the discrepancies I noted earlier. Point 7 has been answered by my first 2 points.

Your third source says this:

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/goto?id=OBJ1503

“The second register from the top includes the earliest surviving picture of an Israelite: the Biblical Jehu, king of Israel, brought or sent his tribute in around 841 BC.

The caption above the scene, written in Assyrian cuneiform, can be translated:

"The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri: I received from him silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king [and] spears.”

First controversial discrepancy of the Black Obelisk. Jehu was NOT the son of Omri. Jehu was the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. Jehu was a usurper general who incited a riot and slew Jehoram, the preceding king of Israel. This leads to the second controversial discrepancy in that Jehu appears solely in Assyrian documents, notably in the Black Obelisk where he is depicted as kissing the ground in front of Shalmaneneser III. It is important to note that in the Assyrian documents he is simply referred to as "Jehu son of Omri" and not "Jehu of the House of Omri" as he should have been if he was king. Thus, the Assyrian records state that Jehu, while the legitimate ruler of Israel, was not the king of Israel. The controversy here is chronology and lineage as Jehu was not the son of Omri and should not be referred to as such Third controversial discrepancy of the Black obelisk is that it is just one account of the times and there are other conflicting ones. The author of the Dan Stele (found in 1993 and 1994 during archaeological excavations of the site of Laish) claimed to have slain both Ahaziah, and Jehoram; the most likely author of this monument is Hazael of the Arameans. Although the inscription is a contemporary witness of this period, kings of this period were inclined to boast and make exaggerated claims; it is not clear whether Jehu killed the two kings (as the Bible reports) or Hazael (as the Dan Stele reports).

10} I have earlier acknowledged that I made 1 mistake by quoting a quote not cited in Time. However my last quote from Time is the first paragraph on the page: "Jerusalem was central to the spiritual identity of Muslims from the very beginning of their faith. When the Prophet Muhammad first began to preach in Mecca in about 612, according to the earliest biographies, which are our primary source of information about him, he had his converts prostrate themselves in prayer in the direction of Jerusalem. They were symbolically reaching out toward the Jewish and Christian God, whom they were committed to worshipping, and turning their back on the paganism of Arabia. Muhammad never believed that he was founding a new religion that cancelled out the previous faiths. He was convinced that he was simply bringing the old religion of the One God to the Arabs, who had never been sent a prophet before." http://www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/islam.html

I cited this to refute your claim that the Muslims invaded the Arab region of Palestine. The people there clearly converted to Islam. My citations from Time.com support my claim that there were no evidence of a purely Jewish kingdom in the Arab region of Palestine. Once again, the quotation contradicts itself about who Israel worshipped (only one God or other gods as well)

You have made false claims on what I said about the Israeli Jews. These are the claims that you can hold me to and I will not answer point-to-point to any false claims that you make on my behalf to muddy up the discussion. In all my posts, I have made it clear that: 1] The Jews in the region of Arab Palestine in the 1940s have NO right to demand for a state of Israel in the Arab region of Palestine as 80% of the Jewish population in Arab Palestine at that time are largely immigrants from Europe whose ancestors had never lived in the region of Palestine and the Jews only legally owned 6% of the land in Arab Palestine in 1948. That implicitly makes clear that only 20% of the Jews in the 1940s could be considered natives. And this largely European Jewish minority never came out to be more than 20% of the total population in the Arab region of Palestine: “Despite the steady arrival in Palestine of Jewish colonists after 1882, it is important to realize that not until the few weeks immediately preceding the establishment of Israel in the spring of 1948 was there ever anything other than a huge Arab majority. For example, the Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine." This relentless immigration to the region was duly noted by the United Nations: "What the political concept of a Jewish State in Palestine needed to give it reality was to transfer people to Palestine. The religious and spiritual solidarity of the Jews in the Diaspora with the Holy Land had survived over the centuries. Despite the anti-Semitism in Europe, only small groups had immigrated to Palestine to settle in Palestine for purely religious sentiments. They numbered perhaps 50,000 at the end of the nineteenth century [Palestinians themselves, well over half a million at the turn of the century, lived in Palestine, that it was their home… UN Source], and personified, or symbolized, the Jewish link to Palestine which was, in essence, spiritual." Click on the link for The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

My claim is very clear that a small minority in the Arab region of Palestine, made largely by non-native Jewish immigrants whose ancestors had never lived in Palestine as they were Europeans who converted to Judaism in Europe does not have any right to seek a state in the Arab of Palestine, especially when they only owned 6% of the land in Palestine. THUS these Israeli immigrants do not have a stronger claim to the ancestral lands of the native Arabs who have lived in the Arab region of Palestine since their ancestors converted to Islam nearly 1400 years ago. With more than 50% ownership of the land in Palestine, this vast Arab majority in the Arab region of Palestine with, 80-90% of the total population there are also direct descendants of the Canaanites who lived there before the Jewish exodus or immigration from Egypt. These Israeli Jews have no right to dispossess the local Arabs of their ancestral lands in modern day Israel and rob these Arabs of the right to return to these lands, where they will form the majority there. Thus the Jews after 1948 have no right to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine and the larger part of Jerusalem, while expelling over half the indigenous Palestinian population. In 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and to return. The following year, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The General Assembly conferred on the PLO the status of observer in the Assembly and in other international conferences held under United Nations auspices

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

My second claim is there is no real archaeological or historical evidence for a purely Jewish kingdom in the Arab Region of Palestine.

I have also established that the word “Israel” on Egyptian or Hebrew relics does not mean that there was a Jewish kingdom of Israel. And it most certainly does not suggest any location and it does not provide support that for a purely Jewish kingdom in the Arab Region of Palestine.

Your divided kingdom point does not address the fact that there is no real archaeological or historical evidence for a purely Jewish kingdom in the Arab Region of Palestine. So I’m not going to address that as it’s irrelevant and I did not bring in this point.

The sources at Time.com points out clearly that there is no archaeological or historical proof for Zionists claims that there were Jewish kingdoms of Solomon and David in the Arab region of Palestine, which was supposedly based in Jerusalem. Please refer to THE SECOND AND THIRD paragraphs at this link:

http://www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/juda.html

“To Jews, the most important moment in this reverent progression occurred in about 1000 B.C. That is the date believers assign to the biblical description of King David's unification of the Israelite tribes and his choice of Jerusalem as his capital. The Bible's book of Samuel also recounts David's inducing his God to accept the location for his earthly seat, the Ark of the Covenant. It tells of David's purchase, for 50 shekels of silver, of a "threshing floor" on the mountain. And finally the book of Kings tells of David's son Solomon, who built upon it a splendid temple to the Lord, composed of successive courtyards, each one more holy than the next, with the innermost containing the Ark.

Or did he? Outside of the Bible, there is only the scantest evidence of either King's existence. A mere two commemorative inscriptions have been found referring to a "House of David," both from a later period. Solomon's trail is even colder. His name appears on a cylindrical seal owned by a London collector, but it may not be the same Solomon and the object's provenance is cloudy. “

You have acknowledged this point ONLY after I raised it here.

This is also the international position as well that the Zionists have no claim over Israel as the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) in 1947, which was not a binding treaty as they have yet to seek the consent of the Arab Palestinians.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

Even the pro-Zionists British colonial master made this very clear the British will only support Israel's statehood only if the rights of the local people i.e. Arab Palestinians are respected.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00pp0

Kindly note that I will stick to the claims that I have made here and I will not digress or divert from them or be drawn into any irrelevant debates on the nature of the Israeli kingdom based on religious texts.

The religious debate should only be a minor subset to historical accurateness or veracity.

The key larger issues here are geographical relevance, historical pre-eminency i.e. as the group who first lived in the region of Palestine have a stronger claim, and basic fundamental rules of self-determination, democracy and immigration laws that have been virtually flouted by Israel's actions in the 1940s.