So David what is it?

Is It This reasonable attitude?

"No well informed Christian to my knowledge uses 'specific historical events' from the Old Testament context as '2006 commandments' or.. examples to follow."

OR this fundamentalist rubbish

"Believe it or not, even the 'Bible which has so obviously been 'manipulated to favor Jews' SAYS that...

Genesis 10:18
"Later the Canaanite clans scattered and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha."

So.....'why' would those pesky Jews and those biased biblical scholars allow such a section to remain ? Why would they not remove it, or change it ?

Deuteronomy 9:5

It is NOT because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the WICKEDNESS of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Exodus 23
31 "I will establish your borders from the Red Sea [a] to the Sea of the Philistines, [b] and from the desert to the River(Euphrates) I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you.

Israel is the only 'nation' which has specific borders given by God."

Your own words betray you David. You scorn the old Testament but then turn and quote it to support your view of an ethnic cleansing.

That sure beats any reasonable argument. You win. I resign.

sorry stan,

but it appears that you have missed the point. Israel did not steal the land that it is on, firstly, the land was granted to teh new state by its owners - England. Secondly, unless I have been badly misled, the UN provided the support necessary for the state to exist. The remainder of the problem is derived from the willingness of the surrounding nations to begin wars that they cannot finish.

Quite frankly, as to bullying, does likud have as its foundational promise to destroy the Palestinian territories? No it does not, unlike HAMAS. Quite frankly this smacks of the hamas argument of collective punishment - if you choose, to support a leader who wishes to commit warlike acts against your bigger & better equipped neighbour, best be ready for the consequences.

You know, teh same way that very few germans in 1946 admitted to thinking that invading russia was a good plan, or even to having supported hitler? As a democratically elected government, HAMAS has a mandate to declare war on Israel, which it has effectively done. Israel, as a democratic state has the right to obliterate any country that attacks it, however, and heres the key point, Israel has teh weapons with which to do so.

inshallah
2 bob

Kang: "Jerusalem is Israel's capital?"

Yes.

Kang: "Actually this city was created and built by the indigenous Canaanites."

That's nice. According to Wikipedia, Canberra was home to the Ngunnawal and Walgalu tribes, and there is evidence of "human habitation... for at least 21,000 years." Modern Canberra was created and built by Scottish and English settlers. But today it is not a Ngunnawal or Walgalu or Scottish or English city.

Kang: "The occupying Israelites... never possessed it for very long."

Jerusalem was the capital of the first Israelite and Jewish kingdoms from 1000 BCE to 586 BCE; capital of independent or semi-independent Jewish kingdoms from 538 BCE to 70 CE; again capital of a Jewish state from 132-135, and has been the capital of Israel since 1948. That's 1083 of the last 3000 years. How long have Palestinian Arabs ruled Jerusalem? 0 years.

Kang: "In 1949 the Zionist lobby was delighted to be granted half of Palestine by the 'generous' United Nations..."

The Jewish community in Palestine (not "the Zionist lobby", whatever that means) was "delighted" by the partition plan, which by the way is from 1947, not 1949, because it was so desperately needed and because it could have avoided a bloody war. But Jewish acceptance was a moot point because the Arabs rejected the plan and went to war in the hopes of taking all of Palestine for themselves.

Kang: "Now Israel wants it all. Well the Crusaders also invaded and occupied this city and claimed it as their own. They lasted a few hundred years."

Crusader rule was from 1099 to 1187 -- only 88 years.

Kang: "I doubt if modern Israel will last even that long. Palestinians with their home made rockets may seem like a joke now but blind Freddy can see that the Arab/Muslim world is not going to be a pushover for much longer."

Sounds like you're threathening ethnic cleansing. Or worse. But if you think Israel will go the way of the Crusaders, think again. We're not going anywhere.

BOAZ_David, you misquoted me. Please don't.

Strewth,

-Israeli wingnutter and PLO-member Uri Davis's book is full of fabrications. The "Apartheid" comparison is outrageous, and a cousin to the "Nazi" comparison.

-The Palestinian government made selling land to a Jew a capital offense, and people were summarily executed on suspician of committing this "crime". What do you say about Palestinian Apartheid?

-I didn't say Barak's offer was generous; I said it amounted to 97% of the WB&G. In each territory the land was contiguous, not as you described.

-With the Oslo accords, the Palestinians supposedly "conceded 78% of Palestine" -- Israel within the Green Line. It isn't their land to concede, but never mind. Now the Hamas-led government says it doesn't recognize the Oslo accords, doesn't recognize Israel, will never make peace, and will continue jihad until it destroys Israel.

-In the Oslo accords, both sides agreed that Jerusalem's final status is negotiable. That doesn't mean they have conceded any claims, and is not inconsistent with keeping Jerusalem united.

-Some Israeli settlers are native to the West Bank, but that's not what I said. I said that like most Palestinians in Israel and the territories, most are native to this land, i.e., to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza -- "Greater Palestine" or "Greater Israel". Most didn't come "from the US and Europe, from Russia and all parts of the world" as Marilyn claimed.

-"You'd have denounced Nazi proposals to ethnically cleanse Germany of its Jewish citizens in the 30's, no?... What, in the name of morality and consistency, are you waiting for?"

There's that appalling Nazi comparison again. I already said I don't support ethnic cleansing.

-"In America's West Bank, Indians killed European settlers who encroached on their lands. Tell me they were war crimes committed by terrorists."

The world didn't have the same laws of war then, but terrorism was used by both the Europeans and the Indians.

Do you really wish to defend Palestinian terrorism, war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined by international law and denounced by groups like Human Rights Watch (see http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/11/isrl-pa1101.htm )?

sganot:
1) Avoid ad hominem attacks and demonstrate, not merely assert, the alleged "fabrications".
2) What has shooting collaborators got to do with apartheid?
3) Re Barak's "offer", you're recycling a myth. Would you be prepared to accept the verdict of Barak's Foreign Minister on said "offer"?
4) Now we're talking! "Palestine isn't theirs to concede"? I think it's clear where you're coming from, but correct me if I'm wrong: Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan belongs exclusively to Israel and any Palestinians still there do not belong and have no rights? Re Hamas, the pot is calling the kettle black: Israel's torn up the Oslo accords, doesn't recognise Palestine, has no interest in peace & has been conducting a REAL jihad against the Palestinians from 1948-2006.
5)Re Jerusalem: admit you're a lawyer!
6)Re Israeli settlers: a) How does "like most Palestinians...are native to this land" tally with Palestine "isn't their land to concede"? b) If you believe in a Greater Israel, come out and say so clearly. I'll put this one to you: if Israelis have the right to colonise the occupied territories, how about ALL Palestinians be given Israeli citizenship AND be allowed to settle west of the Green Line? Fair enough?
7) You don't support ethnic cleansing? How do you think Israel achieved its Jewish majority in 48?
8) Do you defend the infinitely greater number of crimes against humanity/war crimes perpetrated by Israel as defined by international law, the UDHR and condemned by the UN and groups such as AI, HRW & Btselem?

SCOUT

“Yes”

KEITH...

thanks for pulling me up on what must have seemed quite contradictory positions taken by me, on the ‘and as an example’ part of the applicability of the Old Testament.

Let me try to clarify.

My mention of the divinely appointed borders of Israel is in fact a statement which does (in my opinion) apply to today but admittedly, that is a theological position which depends on faith.
It could never justify a Christian country seeking to establish such borders militarily, but it would justify Israel itself doing so.

The Judgement of the Canaanites had consequences we can learn from, but was time, place and reason specific.
The point I was trying to make, is that we cannot use the judgment of the Canaanites to justify ‘genocide’ today.

Regarding the ‘examples’ aspect. The events I was referring to, i.e. the Babylonian exile and the Persian restoration are in fact secular history as well as Biblical.

We don’t need to use the Old Testament to know of the impact of these well attested actual events, but they happen to be recorded there anyway. I was not making ‘Christian’ points there, I was making ‘historical’.

I see the removal, dispersion and resettlement of Palestinians as an abundantly merciful act, given that the Israelis will never, ever....ever....ever.... allow them to return.

Consider this. The government decides to put a freeway through your land, and used ‘compulsory acquisition’ to take it. No matter how you feel about it, you and I both know its a no win situation. But they will give you a reasonable (in their eyes) compensation package. Its reality for us, no less for Palestinians.

Don’t giveup :)

MARILYN Re you being Atheist. Refer the Gospels. Meet the real Jesus, not the one throwing stones.

SGANOT. Did not mean to misquote you, sorry. You said "Israel suggested" re 97% of the territories, not 'What Afarat was asking for'. But unless I'm mistaken, they are the same thing.

ETHNIC CLEANSING should apply to Muslims only. Note this. The corporal kidnapped is being treated 'Well, in accordance with....ISLAM' <-What_utter_rot !