"Israeli Intransigence"

[MastanKhan]

Well technically the Israelis are only back the land that has been theres for thousands of years.

Hi,
Thankyou for your post---so when should the aborigines claim their estate back from whites in australia----and please don't take it as an insulting reply---just a simple question---or how about the american indians---when do they reclaim their property.

 

[xdrive]

Hi,
Thankyou for your post---so when should the aborigines claim their estate back from whites in australia----and please don't take it as an insulting reply---just a simple question---or how about the american indians---when do they reclaim their property.

The aborigines have every right to, since it's there land. But the simple fact is they have no power to do it. If they somehow boomed there population to say 5 million and then picked up arms and fought our army etc and defeated the army then they could take Australia back.

But they just simply can't do that because there population is only 500,000 plus, our defence force would beat them easily and just say they do beat our defence force, every other citizen would fight them.

Also just imagine the economic inpact that would have. The work force would go from 15 million to say 3 million. Most aborigines are uneducated and there wouldn't be enough educated ones to run the country.

It's fascinating how the Israelis took back there country when they were the minority.

 

[RobbieS]

How? Israel has been the land of the jews for thousands of years till the muslims took it in a crusade.

Land of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Xdrive, though Mastan has already alluded to the point I was making, let me expound on it further.

I resist the idea that a Holy Book (the Old testament in this case) and ancient history in general should be used to decide political matters. If that was the case then many of the current populations would be expelled from their current residing geographies.

Case in point-The Native Americans were living in the Americas for centuries. Or thousands of years if we believe the Bering Land bridge theory. Their culture, their traditions and their history was embedded in the American geography. Yet what's their status now? Where's their culture now? Forced to live in reserves and give up their culture. By your logic, shouldn't they be handed over the control of the entire continent, or at least major parts of it?

There are countless other populations and communities that would fit the bill here. The Aboriginals of your country and the Maori of NZ are another example.

I am not a racist. I understand that history has been unfair to many people. But international double standards and tactics that simply amount to might is right is what I take exception to.

 

[xdrive]

Muslims did not lead any crusade and certainly did not rob the Jews of their property or their land.
Your statement is inaccurate.

At the advent of Islam, the Land of Palestine was part of the Roman empire (no friend of the Jews who persecuted them most violently) and when the Muslims and the Roman empire went to war, Jerusalem was eventually abandoned by the Roman garrison and there was a peaceful takeover of the city without any persecution (like the ones in Crusades) whatsoever.
Jews were allowed back into the city as part of this takeover and Christian places of worship were also granted due security by the Caliph.
The Caliph was invited to offer his prayers in the Church by the Christian Patriarch Sophronius, however this offer was declined by the Caliph who feared that this may give reason for Muslims to build a mosque in this place in coming generations. He therefore offered his prayers outside the church.
Such was the takeover which was very different to what Romans did to Jews and what the Persians did to the Christians when the Sassanid empire briefly captured Jerusalem before Islam.

The crusaders were bred on anti Muslim propaganda and despite the holy places being intact there was deliberate propaganda to paint a totally opposite picture to the common Christians that their holy sites were being desecrated by Muslims.
The bloody manner in which the Crusaders captured Jerusalem and the merciful manner in which Salahuddin retook Jerusalem are in stark contrast to each other despite the fact that Salahuddin had a reason to be vengeful, his nobility is what in fact heralds him as one of the most Just and honorable Kings the world has ever known.

Up till the 20th century there was no issue between the Muslims and the Jews as people, they coexisted and cooperated very well.

Who did the Romans take the land from? THE JEWS. Please read the full history on wikipedia.

 

[xdrive]

Xdrive, though Mastan has already alluded to the point I was making, let me expound on it further.

I resist the idea that a Holy Book (the Old testament in this case) and ancient history in general should be used to decide political matters. If that was the case then many of the current populations would be expelled from their current residing geographies.

Case in point-The Native Americans were living in the Americas for centuries. Or thousands of years if we believe the Bering Land bridge theory. Their culture, their traditions and their history was embedded in the American geography. Yet what's their status now? Where's their culture now? Forced to live in reserves and give up their culture. By your logic, shouldn't they be handed over the control of the entire continent, or at least major parts of it?

There are countless other populations and communities that would fit the bill here. The Aboriginals of your country and the Maori of NZ are another example.

I am not a racist. I understand that history has been unfair to many people. But international double standards and tactics that simply amount to might is right is what I take exception to.

Someone said the same thing and i already answered it, please read above your post.


If the original people of the land can rise up and take it back, they have every right to, Because it's there land.

So in America, if the Indians rose up and took the land, it's in there right to do that. But they can't of course because they are a minority these days.

The Israelis were a minority, but they still rose up and took back there land, which is there right to do.

 

[RobbieS]

The aborigines have every right to, since it's there land. But the simple fact is they have no power to do it. If they somehow boomed there population to say 5 million and then picked up arms and fought our army etc and defeated the army then they could take Australia back.

But they just simply can't do that because there population is only 500,000 plus, our defence force would beat them easily and just say they do beat our defence force, every other citizen would fight them.

So its not just about owning the land for thousands of years, is it? It is about having the military, diplomatic and economic power.

Also just imagine the economic inpact that would have. The work force would go from 15 million to say 3 million. Most aborigines are uneducated and there wouldn't be enough educated ones to run the country.

Was the economic impact taken into consideration when the Jews, most of them refugees, infiltrated to Palestine in large number after 45? There was a cap on the number of Jewish migrations in the Mandate. Still they were smuggled in to build a strong case for themselves and to fight if thought necessary.

It's fascinating how the Israelis took back there country when they were the minority.

Yes it was spectacular. But for the Palestinians it was nothing more than plain land grab I'd say.

 

[no_name]

Aside from religion differences, ethnically i don't think Israelis and Palestinians differs that much.

 

[RobbieS]

Someone said the same thing and i already answered it, please read above your post.


If the original people of the land can rise up and take it back, they have every right to, Because it's there land.

So in America, if the Indians rose up and took the land, it's in there right to do that. But they can't of course because they are a minority these days.

The Israelis were a minority, but they still rose up and took back there land, which is there right to do.

So let me get it straight. The key points that you are trying to make are-

a) If you have historical rights to your lands you can come back or claim it anytime.

b) And you should always fight for it tooth and nail if somebody opposes it.

c) In case you dont have the might to fight, then point a doesn't hold. Be prepared to be assimilated. Roll over and play dead as the international community will be on the side of the mightier party.

Is that what you are tying to say? Not very fair, I must say.

 

[xdrive]

So let me get it straight. The key points that you are trying to make are-

a) If you have historical rights to your lands you can come back or claim it anytime.

b) And you should always fight for it tooth and nail if somebody opposes it.

b) In case you dont have the might to fight, then point a doesn't hold. Be prepared to be assimilated. Roll over and play dead as the international community will be on the side of the mightier party.

Is that what you are tying to say? Not very fair, I must say.

All 3 points are correct. And with "b" that's correct, they have no choice. Of course it's not fair, it's the way it goes though.

Their is no way that my government would hand over control to the aboriginals who are the minority. Unless they can stand up and fight for there country back (which isn't possible) They will just have to accept that there country is now someone elses.

It's the same with what happened in israel, the arab muslims took it, the jews rose up and took it back. If they tried to take it back, but couldn't then they would just have to accept there land will continue to be palistine like it has been for the past couple oh hundreds of years.

The same thing is happening in Western Countries. Mass immigration of people from the middle east and asia etc will one day make re create what happened in israel. The middle easterners or the asians will out number everyone else, so they will rise up and take the country. Then the white people will need to rise up and take it back. Which ever race of people is the majority, that's who runs the country.

 

[RobbieS]

All 3 points are correct. And with "b" that's correct, they have no choice. Of course it's not fair, it's the way it goes though.

Their is no way that my government would hand over control to the aboriginals who are the minority. Unless they can stand up and fight for there country back (which isn't possible) They will just have to accept that there country is now someone elses.

It's the same with what happened in israel, the arab muslims took it, the jews rose up and took it back. If they tried to take it back, but couldn't then they would just have to accept there land will continue to be palistine like it has been for the past couple oh hundreds of years.

The same thing is happening in Western Countries. Mass immigration of people from the middle east and asia etc will one day make re create what happened in israel. The middle easterners or the asians will out number everyone else, so they will rise up and take the country. Then the white people will need to rise up and take it back. Which ever race of people is the majority, that's who runs the country.

And who lived there before Moses led the Jews into Israel across the Sinai (if we go by the Bible)? Surely the area was inhabited. The Jews must have displaced someone. What you are propagating is a never ending cycle of war.

And do you also realize that you are justifying colonialism and imperialism by your points above?

And there's a marked difference between what the West did to the Asia and what the Asians have been doing to the West. Its called violence.

You cant seriously be comparing the Asian immigration into West with Western imperialism in Asia and Africa. The West conquered races and people. It never just mixed with the local population like the Asians do. The New World, Aus, NZ are prime examples. While the Asians entered as immigrants. Even as indentured laborers in some cases. The West's was a co-ordinated state led focus on conquering the land and its resources.

 

[All-Green]

Who did the Romans take the land from? THE JEWS. Please read the full history on wikipedia.

I am not that much ignorant so as to say that this land was never inhabited by Jews and never had a Jewish kingdom, i have not implied this at all.
However if you go down this route then there would have been others before Jews as well and so on and so forth...till Adam and Eve.

You need to see what gross oversimplification you made and why i felt i had to correct you.

You were directly implying as if there was a hostile Muslim takeover of a Jewish land which is an empty claim as it was a Roman and Muslim war and Jews were not ruling the land nor were they targeted by Muslims.
If you read diverse sources you will come to the conclusion that under the Romans, the Jews were horribly persecuted and the advent of Muslim rulers enabled the Jews to return to the Holy city as was their due right.

Viewing things now when due to the Israeli Palestinian conflict there is a lot of mistrust between the two communities, i feel the explicit need to clarify that the Jews were treated well by Muslim Rulers and Kings and in turn were good citizens and appointed in many financial and administrative roles.
Read about Muslim Spain and same thing was evident there as well and when the Muslims were expelled the Jews were once again persecuted by the Church for their beliefs.
Same thing can be seen in the Ottoman era whereby Jews were treated well by the Muslim Rulers.

The only major issue has come in the shape of Israeli Palestinian conflict.

 

[FireFighter]

Just to add more to All-Green's post:


Jews lived for centuries alongside muslims throughout the Islamic history.

In fact they flourished under muslims rule. When Muslims conquered Spain and establish the Andulasia Empire, Jews were in top positions and at the forefront of running state affairs from doctors, judges, and served in the military alongside Muslims.

Whilst the Christian's slaughtered them, Ottoman's gave them shelter. They were spread around the entire middle east from Turkey, Iraq, Saudia, Kuwait, and Iran where you plenty still live there. Jews-Muslims relations went down the drain as the started illegally occupying Palestinian lands.

It was the British who once again decided to get rid of most of the jews from Europe and dumped them in Palestine.

 

[FireFighter]

Hmmmmmmmm.....Troll Alert!!!

 

[fhassan]

This Xdrive child is a clown that belongs in the circus, best to ignore his twaddle.

 

[xdrive]

This Xdrive child is a clown that belongs in the circus, best to ignore his twaddle.

I'm a clown because i'm posting factual history?

It's obvious to me that you don't like the truth.