---

by Cat
My view is that the land belongs to the jews. it's biblical country and was populated by jews before the arabs came and threw them out.

---

These areas of land have been warred over for many thousands of years. The promised land the jews were led to everyone else wants.

I can understand the apathy of people about this situation we are constantly being told we have to care about everything that we are being told by the media going off in the world (funny how they miss out other wars and human rights abuses going off) and if we did we would have the world on our shoulders.

People caring about what happens in this country seems to be very unfashionable at the moment. Sorry for going off topic on this last bit.

---

by JtB
Sorry for going off topic on this last bit.

---

We didn't call it 'Tangent21' for nothing

---

by Whistler
(quotes)
I'd disagree with you on that one. I think a lot of people would like our Health System to be sorted first and foremost. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I'm sure a parent, husband, wife, brother or sister could care less about the Middle East as their loved one is taxied all over the country in searh of a hospital that can perform a life saving operation or find a much needed bed.

---

I know the vast majority of members here are from the UK at the moment, but then I also notice that the address in the URL bar of my browser is tangent21.com, which to me indicates a certain internationalism. I could be wrong, of course.

We in the UK have a National Health Service, and for that I am grateful. No, it's not the best possible health service by any means, and yes, it could do with improvement and I sincerely hope it gets it.

However I think a state of near all-out war in Israel is a much more important issue. They're not British subjects? I don't know them personally? People are still dying in large numbers, and I want it to stop, and I think it should be given priority over whatever relatively minor problems we suffer here.

However, the really strange thing about the 'but there's more important things to sort out here' view is that foreign and domestic affairs are to a large extent unrelated. The NHS isn't going to get sorted out any quicker or slower depending on whether we support the Israelis or not, the amount of money devoted to the health service (unless we get involved in a major war...) isn't gonna change. You have nothing to lose by taking an interest in what's happening beyond our own shores...

(Edited by In a State of Dan 14/03/2002 00:59)

---

by Red
(quotes)

We didn't call it 'Tangent21' for nothing

---

And even if you did, that's what post deletions/thread closures are for

Exactly. And if necessary, we use 'em

---

by In a State of Dan
(quotes)

You have nothing to lose by taking an interest in what's happening beyond our own shores...
)

---

I agree with you. But the point I was making is, when people have more pressing *personal* matters on their mind, things like the Israeli/Palestine issue, or any other world matter, is low on their list of priorities.

---

by Cat
My view is that the land belongs to the jews. it's biblical country and was populated by jews before the arabs came and threw them out.

My understand comes mainly from reading various books (some fiction, some fact) but my facts may wrong. dont quite me or flame me, it's just my opinion.

---

I'm not going to have a go at you, but your facts are wrong!The thing that you have to realise that, in the time you talk about, there were no "states" "countries" or "governments". There was simply land, much of it desert, which was inhabited by various tribes. These tribes did not consider themselves as geographically specific, but were essentially nomadic, and included both Jewish and Arab tribes. Therefore there can be no resolution of this conflict by a discussion of who was there first.

You also cannot settle it by saying that the land is "biblical country" so belongs to the Jews. The area around Jerusalem is of significance in 3 major religions, Judaism of course and Christianity, but Jerusalem is also the third holiest city of Islam (behind Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia).

---

by Avenger
(quotes)

I'm not going to have a go at you, but your facts are wrong!The thing that you have to realise that, in the time you talk about, there were no "states" "countries" or "governments".

---

I believe you'll find there were. Perhaps not in the modern sense of goverment and country but there were places and leaders of those places. (religious and govermental leaders)

---

you cannot settle it by saying that the land is "biblical country" so belongs to the Jews. The area around Jerusalem is of significance in 3 major religions, Judaism of course and Christianity, but Jerusalem is also the third holiest city of Islam (behind Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia).

---

I wasnt saying because it was biblical it belonged to the jews because by that logic it would belong to christians and islamics too. I mearly wanted to point out that if you read the bible, the area is inahbited by Jews.

And this whole post is pointless since i said
1) this is just an opinion
2) it may be wrong
3) dont quote me. then what do you go and do? Quote me!

---

by Cat
it's biblical country and was populated by jews before the arabs came and threw them out.

---

And before the Jew/Hebrews invaded, it was occupied by the Canaanites (Exodus and a number of other books in the Bible if you want to read up on it), and probably someone else had it before then. The Romans threw the Jews out in the first century as a punishment for continual uprisings, and the Palestinians occupied it for nearly two millennia since then. The UN created Israel in 1948 as a kind of apology for over a millennium of anti-semitic hatred - especially the Holocaust.

Who does get precedence in that kind of situation? It makes Northern Ireland look simple to me.

(Oh and sorry for quoting you, but it's the easiest way to introduce my post )


(Edited by Astronut 14/03/2002 12:13)

Um...I think perhaps the lesson is that if you don't want to have people refer to your post, or disagree with your opinion, don't post.

I've never understood this "If you disagree, it's just my opinion, so there" thing. of *course* it's your bleeding opinion, that's why you've expressed it. Nobody was *expecting* it to be holy writ...

Besides, the Holy Land belongs to the Nephilim, obviously. Which is kind of coool, since they have been at a bit of a loose end since Carl McCoy left.

(Sorry, Goth Rabbinical gag)

Cat, not sure I'm supposed to disagree with what you wrote without refering to it, I quoted it verbatim so that other people reading would know what I was refering to.

It is true that the Bible refers to early Jews inhabiting the area now known as Palestine. It doesn't say that no-one else lived in the area. Bear in mind when refering to the Bible that

(1) It was substantially written by Jews, and is a record of the development of the Jewish faith and later, of the Christian faith. It wasn't intended as a record of history.
(2) The Old Testament was written by Jews, the New Testament by early Christians, so there is a bias in the information.
(3) The Bible as a whole covers an time period of many hundreds, probably thousands of years.

In Old Testament times there was no recognised geographical entity of Palestine. In New Testament times, the text refers to many different races living within what is now the borders of Israel. Most of these would now be lumped together under the label of "Palestinians".

Again, this is a complex (IMO unresolvable) issue, so it's only inevitable that it will provoke many different opinions. This is supposed to be a forum for debate, as long as no-one is personally attacking anyone else thats a good thing.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

it's just my opinion. Nothing more. Probably isnt correct and is really not worth debating.

Please pick holes in someone's post who can be bothered to check this stuff out. all my info comes from books i cant be bothered to look up again. it's JUST AN OPINION.

(and no, you wont change my mind)

---

by Avenger
Again, this is a complex (IMO unresolvable) issue, so it's only inevitable that it will provoke many different opinions. This is supposed to be a forum for debate, as long as no-one is personally attacking anyone else thats a good thing.

---

exactly

On that note I know nothinggggggggggggg

---

by Sunnydale High Newspaper
(quotes)
Apathy on the rise - No One Cares

---

---

by Maffrew
(quotes)

---

LMAO!!

Cat
The view you expressed is not held only by yourself, but probably is the most widely held opinion in the UK and the west in general. You’re just the only one to have openly said it in this thread, which is why people who disagree with you are quoting you and presenting their reasons for disagreeing. It's not so much that people want to debate it with you in person, but that they wish to present the reasons for the inaccuracy of this view to everyone who reads this thread.

As others have said this already I'll keep it short, but there is no evidence that the Jews were the first to live on that patch of land. Jewish texts talk of god giving it to them and helping them in battle against the then occupiers of that land. They eventually left the region due to Roman persecution, not Arab.
But I have to agree with those who have said that 'I was here first' is not an acceptable way to resolve the problem. Whatever the rights and wrongs, both Palestinians and Jews now occupy that territory. The resolution will come when both sides accept they both have a right to exist and start co-operating. I also have to say that, in my less than humble opinion, it is the Israeli's who are the biggest hindrance to this, with Sheron as the worst example. If Sheron was European and doing to Jews what he is doing to Palestinians then he would be compared to Hitler and the press would be stoking up support for war against him - as happened in Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Because he is Jewish he is immune to such accusations.

Whistler
I understand your point, but then I am also a resident of the UK, with people I love and care about, and have seen family die unnecessarily in hospital wards. I do care about these things. But however bad the NHS may or may not be we all have it pretty good over here. We're not living in shantytowns. We are a rich and prosperous country, and the poorest in this country have a higher standard of living and longer life expectancy than millions who were unlucky enough to have been born in other countries. Reading that someone had to wait eight hours before being seen in the local A&E doesn't upset me as much as reading about the death and destruction in Palestine, or the poverty that the majority of the rest of the world has to live with. I am a human first and a Brit last.

Finally, on the idea that Israel was helped into existence as recompense for two millennia of Christian persecution and the Holocaust, well I’m not convinced. The movement for the establishment of Israel not only pre-dates the holocaust, but also the twentieth century, as does British support for the movement. Further, the USSR was just as active as the USA and UK in helping in the murder and forced evacuation of Palestinians so that Israel could be established. It is widely accepted that the reason that this anti-semitic and atheistic government did this was so that it would encourage Jewish citizens of the USSR to leave for Palestine, a form of ethnic cleansing without killing your intended victims (but by killing third parties instead). I suspect western governmental support wasn’t that different in its reasons, in many cases.

---

by Jayjay
But I have to agree with those who have said that 'I was here first' is not an acceptable way to resolve the problem. Whatever the rights and wrongs, both Palestinians and Jews now occupy that territory.

---

Hear, hear. Historical ownership or occupation of land as a justification for claiming doesn't seem like such a hot idea. Didn't anyone notice all the fuss that was caused when Hitler claimed the Sudetenland as historically German?

On the other hand "God says we get it" seems to be a perennial favorite reason for imperialism. I don't know how seriously the Israeli government and army take this argument. But I know that in America, which as Sandia notes, sponsors the Israelis to the tune of $5 billion, this is taken seriously as a reason to continue to give them money. Many conservatives and members of the religious right seriously think that by God, (no pun intended) the return of the Israeli homeland is a sign of the second coming and supporting God's chosen people is a righteous endeavor.

Man, it's just occurred to me how stupid some of the people in my country are. I'm going to go retreat in embarrassment and think that one over for a bit.

A significant part of the friction between the Arabs and the Jews stems from their respective interpretation of their god's words.

The land of Israel was promised to Abram/Abraham's 'seed', but because his wife Sarai/Sarah had not been able to produce a child, she urged Abram to 'go unto' her maid, Hagar, an Egyptian, to provide an heir Ishmael was the issue and, for the Arabs, he's been the issue ever since.

Because, just to make things more interesting, the lord told Abram in his ninety ninth year that he would bear a son by Sarai after all, and call the child Isaac, and the promises made by the lord to this child, according to the bible, were a lot more specific, indeed they were a covenant. Consequently, hilarity ensued.

Not a very good basis for nearly 4,000 years of bloodshed, you might think, depending on your point of view, but then, that's it in a nutshell - irreconcilably differing viewpoints about a God's 4,000 year old promise. I'd like to see Judge Judy sort this one out.

Shalom!

Not wishing to be awkward, but statements like "this is my opinion, I do not know why and am not interested in checking my sources, but you will not change my mind" is one reason why we find ourselves in situations like this...

---

by Jayjay
I also have to say that, in my less than humble opinion, it is the Israeli's who are the biggest hindrance to this, with Sheron as the worst example. If Sheron was European and doing to Jews what he is doing to Palestinians then he would be compared to Hitler and the press would be stoking up support for war against him - as happened in Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Because he is Jewish he is immune to such accusations.

---

I agree with you wholeheartedly, especially about Sheron, but it has been pointed out to me on occasion that the targets of the Israeli air raids are usually police stations. This is because the Palestinian police are mostly made up of still active Hamas terrorists - and Palestinian suicide bombers continually hit civilian targets. Overkill I think, but it points up that the worst thing about all this (in the same way as in Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, Kashmir) is that each side is as bad as the other.

---

by Jayjay
Finally, on the idea that Israel was helped into existence as recompense for two millennia of Christian persecution and the Holocaust, well I'm not convinced. The movement for the establishment of Israel not only pre-dates the holocaust, but also the twentieth century, as does British support for the movement. Further, the USSR was just as active as the USA and UK in helping in the murder and forced evacuation of Palestinians so that Israel could be established. It is widely accepted that the reason that this anti-semitic and atheistic government did this was so that it would encourage Jewish citizens of the USSR to leave for Palestine, a form of ethnic cleansing without killing your intended victims (but by killing third parties instead). I suspect western governmental support wasn't that different in its reasons, in many cases.

---

We could go into a lot of detail here, but it is pretty much the stated reason for Israel's foundation. Until the late thirties (when the first ideas about moving Germany's Jews to Madagascar began to appear - and the UK was seriously involved in negotiations ), Zionism was just a Jewish movement. Nobody outside the faith cared, and nobody wanted trouble with the Arabs when oil was becoming an essential resource. After the War, public opinion ensured that the creation of Israel became a major issue for the democratic nations, and as you say, Russia found it convenient.


(Edited by Astronut 15/03/2002 14:08)