PDA

View Full Version : Gaza



richcrassus
07-14-2002, 04:06 PM
Why are their jewish settlements in the Gaza strip?
Gaza Strip or as it was called in ancient times (Phillistia)
was NEVER EVER jewish, it always belonged to the people called the Phillistines, (where the modern term Palestine comes from)
I believe their shouldnt be any jewish or Hindu or christian or whatever settlements in the Gaza strip.
So why are their?

Mediocrates
07-14-2002, 04:52 PM
The weekend trolls are out in force.

You heart may belong to Allah but we're gonna kick your ass.

richcrassus
07-14-2002, 06:02 PM
I just made a simple point. Being jewish dosent mean letting jews do whatever they bloody want.
Why dont you explain your argument as to why jews should build settlements in the gaza strip. Please dont say oh because in 1948 they attacked us and we can do what we want now.
Ok can you do that, tell us another logical argument as to why there should be jewish settlements in the gaza strip, keeping in mind my previous post.
Ok , have a nice week. bye.

Mediocrates
07-14-2002, 06:30 PM
Doesn't matter, you still sound like a troll.

Gilgamesh
07-19-2002, 10:47 AM
1. Historicly, The Phillisitans went in the way of every anciant nation such as the Egyptions, and Greeks, the Romans, the Assurians, the Babylonians and many others ( Jews and Persians alone survived the centuries), only the Phillisitans done so sooner. By the end of the 7th century BC they were gone and we Jews took their place and residented Gaza city.

The Jewish population of Gaza was slaughtared compaltly by the Arabs in 1929, while the Brits stood idle and turned a blined eye. Just the same as they did, in 1920, 1936 and 1939. Many Jews were barbaricly murdered then, in arab riots, pogrom and terrorist attacks.

At the same time, the Arabs annihilated all the Jewish population of Hebron. For the first time in 3,000 years there were no Jews in Hebron untill 1967.

2. In the Gaza strip there huge portions of lands that are not owne by any body, not even Arabs. simple chunks of desert on the sea shore, which no one cared for before, until we Jews returned there in 1967, and made the desert bloom.

3. There are many arabs who live in our town and cities. I you demand to remove Jews from their homes in favor of the Arabs, will you support similar action in the other diraction? removing Arabs from Jewish teritories?

4. Some people belive the Arabs want peace with us Jews. Funny, but the very same people also demand to drive thousands of Jews, and Jews alone, from neighboring Arab towns. How can that be? "I want to be friend with you as long as you keep the hell out of my sight" ... thats stupid!!!

Had the Arabs Really wanted peace with us, the settlements should've been their last problem on earth.

cerulean
07-19-2002, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Had the Arabs Really wanted peace with us, the settlements should've been their last problem on earth.

Particularly as the settlements have frequently brought employment and opportunities for Arabs living in the area.

sharonbn
07-20-2002, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Gilgamesh
1. Historicly, The Phillisitans went in the way of every anciant nation such as the Egyptions, and Greeks, the Romans, the Assurians, the Babylonians and many others ( Jews and Persians alone survived the centuries), only the Phillisitans done so sooner. By the end of the 7th century BC they were gone and we Jews took their place and residented Gaza city.
Funny, I thought Egyptians, Greek, Romans (Italians) and Assyrians (Syrians) do still exist...


Originally posted by Gilgamesh
The Jewish population of Gaza was slaughtared compaltly by the Arabs in 1929, while the Brits stood idle and turned a blined eye. Just the same as they did, in 1920, 1936 and 1939. Many Jews were barbaricly murdered then, in arab riots, pogrom and terrorist attacks.

At the same time, the Arabs annihilated all the Jewish population of Hebron. For the first time in 3,000 years there were no Jews in Hebron untill 1967.
You cannot correct a past injustice by creating a new one. If you do so, you drop your moral foundations and the justification for your actions. What I mean is if an Arab man killed, or better said, slaughtered a Jewish family, this past injustice gives you no right to come and evict his grandson and his family, that now live in the house. There is a saying in Hebrew that goes “The father ate bitter grapes, and the son gets a toothache” meaning, the father committed the crime, and his son pays the price. For his grandson, this is his home. The fact that you come “in the name of justice for the Jewish people” or something like that – that does not diminish one bit from the fact that you are creating a new historical injustice.
Moreover, I stated several times in this forum, that I regard the Jewish people to be morally superior to their Arab neighbors. Meaning, I expect more from the Jews in term of moral sensitivity, then I do from Arabs. If this notion is to remain true and evident for the rest of the world, we cannot transfer Palestinians who were born and lived in their home – West Bank and Gaza strip.

Some people say that considerations like moral foundation and conscience are luxuries in wartime. I disagree. Its not “all’s fair at love and war”. War, even war against terrorism, has rules. Physical existence is not enough. If you commit war crimes in the name of defending your country the lives of your fellow countrymen – they are still war crimes. I personally regard mass transfer of Palestinian population – a war crime.


Originally posted by Gilgamesh
2. In the Gaza strip there huge portions of lands that are not owne by any body, not even Arabs. simple chunks of desert on the sea shore, which no one cared for before, until we Jews returned there in 1967, and made the desert bloom.
To this I say, we need to take a realistic, pragmatic, pov to the issue. I am not sure all Jewish settlements were established on vacant land, but even if some or most of them indeed fall into this case:
First of all, I believe we can to agree that Jews and Palestinians cannot live together, not in this generation, anyway. So, a separation is needed between Israelis and Palestinians. This is the foundation for the plan to eventually establish two independent states. Now, in theory, there is no reason why Jewish settlements cannot exist safely and happily in the Palestinian state. However, in reality I do not trust Palestinian police to keep the Jews safe in the Palestinian state – like I said, I do not expect the same from Jews and Palestinians. So, if we say we agree on two independent states, and I think we can agree the Jews cannot live in peace in Palestine, than its more realistic to dislocate a few dozens of thousands of Jews than a few Millions of Palestinians.


Originally posted by Gilgamesh
3. There are many arabs who live in our town and cities. I you demand to remove Jews from their homes in favor of the Arabs, will you support similar action in the other diraction? removing Arabs from Jewish teritories?
you forget we, Jews, already did that in 1948 and 1967. For example, in 1948, the majority of Arab population of Haifa fled or was "encouraged" to flee. The deserted houses were conveniently used to house new Jewish Immigrants.


Originally posted by Gilgamesh
4. Some people belive the Arabs want peace with us Jews. Funny, but the very same people also demand to drive thousands of Jews, and Jews alone, from neighboring Arab towns. How can that be? "I want to be friend with you as long as you keep the hell out of my sight" ... thats stupid!!!
This is a propaganda manipulation and historical distortion.
The Jewish settlers have the same justification as the Chinese settlers of Tibet. In reality they are strangers in a foreign land. The fact that Jews used to sit in some of the places and that Israel conquered the area gives no justification for this imperialistic act.

Mediocrates
07-20-2002, 01:41 PM
But you can't deny that a 'free' Palistan is a 'purified' Palistan. We can talk about fairness but it's more important to talk about results.

Gilgamesh
07-20-2002, 01:42 PM
Because our rights: natural, historical cultural and religious and in accoradance with the book of books the eternal bible...

(that is a loos translation from hebrew)
îúå÷ó æëåúéðå äèáòéú, äéñèåøéú, äúøáåúéú åäãúéú åáùà ñôø äñôøéà äðöçé ùì òà éùøÃì, äåà ñôø äúð"ê... )

If you denay, in speech or deed, the historical rights of us Jews for Hebron, east Jerusalem and Gaze, then you lose any right for Tel Aviv or Haifa. Nothing else matters.

éùøÃìéà åéäåãéà ãåáøé òáøéú áëìì, îåæîðéà ìôåøåà www.fresh.co.il

Gilgamesh
07-20-2002, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by sharonbn

Funny, I thought Egyptians, Greek, Romans (Italians) and Assyrians (Syrians) do still exist...


They are not the same people. The Egyptions are Arabs and a blend of other races that asimulated into them. The Syrians are arabs, and include several opressed athnic minorities. The modern Greeks got nothing to do with the anciant Greeks, they all came from elsewhere, following the collapse of the Roman empire in the fifth century AD. The Italian are a the infamuse Vandals (and other Germanics and differant other athinc tribs that asimulated into them).

Other then names, there is not connection betwean most the nations of the world and the names of their counties, who are twice as old as the races them selves who occupay them.

Mediocrates
07-20-2002, 02:14 PM
The point is, they stopped being civilizations. A big problem with Middle Eastern ancient history and archeology is that all those cultures are known by other nouns and names and place names. Their 'existence' dissolved into whomever conquered them next.

The Romans peaked in 180AD, The Greeks in 320BCE, The Assyrians about 800BCE (you forgot the Babylonians and the Persian Empire), The Egyptians in about 1100BCE. It was all downhill for them after that.

Also the Hyskos, Minoans, Canaanites, Trojans, Etruscans, Sumerians, Eblaites and so on. We read about them in books but the Jews are still here.

sharonbn
07-20-2002, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Because our rights: natural, historical cultural and religious and in accoradance with the book of books the eternal bible...

(that is a loos translation from hebrew)
îúå÷ó æëåúéðå äèáòéú, äéñèåøéú, äúøáåúéú åäãúéú åáùà ñôø äñôøéà äðöçé ùì òà éùøÃì, äåà ñôø äúð"ê... )

If you denay, in speech or deed, the historical rights of us Jews for Hebron, east Jerusalem and Gaze, then you lose any right for Tel Aviv or Haifa. Nothing else matters.

éùøÃìéà åéäåãéà ãåáøé òáøéú áëìì, îåæîðéà ìôåøåà www.fresh.co.il

Maybe I was misunderstood before:
I do not deny the right of the Jewish people to build their homeland in Israel. I am an Israeli Jewish Zionist myself.
I do believe this does not give us the right to evict other ethnic groups or violet their human rights in any way for the purpose of "living space" (do you know who coined this term?)
The two above declarations: The Jewish right to the land and keeping human right of all occupants of the land do not conflict. It is possible for the Jewish people to build and maintain their national home while observing human rights of others.
Tel Aviv was founded in 1908 on a land purchased from the Ottoman rulers of the country. Kiryat Arba was founded and populated without the consent of the owners of the land.

sharonbn
07-20-2002, 03:49 PM
Just out of curiosity, Gilgamesh, why did you choose the name of a Babylonian king for a nickname?

cerulean
07-20-2002, 04:07 PM
Is there any longterm plan in effect for Gaza? I can't see how the situation is building to anything but a nightmare. The birthrate is about 7.5 children per woman (I've seen estimates ranging from just over 7 to 7.9). It is already very crowded.

Never mind the Israeli plan for Gaza. What is the Palestinian plan to avert the inevitable human misery there currently is and inevitably will be in Gaza, just based on demographics?

Israeli presence in Gaza has resulted in improvements for the residents, including electricity, health care, drops in infant mortality rates, sewage treatment, and improved drinking water:

1994 article:
http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/oncamera/ocmindlessingaza.html

alexbmn
07-20-2002, 06:16 PM
But SharonB how can the Palestininans be treated otherwise then they are now if they havent accepted Israel's existence.They are the enemy,one cannot treat the enemy the same as his peacefull neighbor.And it is no question in war certain human rights are suspended. Unites States was always a beacon of democracy yet it had no qualms about dropping an Atomic bomb on Japan knowing that hundreds of thousands of noncombatants would die. But it new that the alertnative would be a death of hundreds of thousands of its own soldiers, and so the choice was clear. And lets not forget Dresden where Britain and the US unleashed a firestorm that burned alive tenths of thousands of noncombatantsAnd in that point in the war everybody knew city busting will not lower civilian morale but will only strengthen the enemy's resolve.But Britain wanted revenge and that was perfectly understandable.If Israel sees that its cause is right it has to take this conflict seriously,and not send its soldiers into booby trapped camps in order "to minimise casualties among supporters of suicide bombing". Instead of "attempting to relieve the Pals conditions" Istrael must apply quite a bit more pressure.It must show them that their action will bring them nothing but suffering.In a total war such as this one,the only thing matters is one's existence.

Gilgamesh
07-21-2002, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by sharonbn
Just out of curiosity, Gilgamesh, why did you choose the name of a Babylonian king for a nickname?

The reasons I chose the nick Gilgamesh:
1. My first name is Gil, which means "joy" in hebrew. (all hebrew names have a meaning)
2. I love the mythology of Gilgamesh. Some sub-stories within that epos resamble myth mentioned in the bible (which I read alot and with great pleasure, although I am not religious I am a beliver). I highly recomand you the book: "King Gilgamesh" adaptation by Robert Silverberg.
3. The origion of the Jewish nation is in the city-state of Ur, at her time, Ur was the chief city of Shumer. As far as I know, the city was abandoned some time in the theird millennium BC, which coinsided with the first scripted mentions of a new nation called Habbiru or Abbiru. We Jews use the term Hebrews. Jews are the direct surviving descendants of the mighty Sumerians, world first civilization. The epos of king Gilgamesh is, in a way, a cultural heritage.

Mediocrates
07-21-2002, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by cerulean
Is there any longterm plan in effect for Gaza? I can't see how the situation is building to anything but a nightmare. The birthrate is about 7.5 children per woman (I've seen estimates ranging from just over 7 to 7.9). It is already very crowded.


If you look it up online you'll find that Gaza, while crowded is only about the 30th most crowded place on earth. So those problems of shear number are solvable. The average mother in Gaza has 7 live births in her lifetime and 6 surviving children to their childbearing age. The real problem though is more pressing than mere numbers. The problem is that >50% of the population is under the age of 15. How do you run something like that well?

Vic
07-21-2002, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by Mediocrates
The real problem though is more pressing than mere numbers. The problem is that >50% of the population is under the age of 15. How do you run something like that well? Under other conditions: enhance the pre-school and the educational systems in order to keep the children under better control and prevent the young grown-ups from rearing so many children themselves, promote educational and professional opportunities for women of child bearing age etc.

Is there any serious explanation for this birthrate (social pressure, religious views etc.)? What distinguishes Gaza from Egypt in this respect, for example?

sharonbn
07-21-2002, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by alexbmn
But SharonB how can the Palestininans be treated otherwise then they are now if they havent accepted Israel's existence.They are the enemy,one cannot treat the enemy the same as his peacefull neighbor.And it is no question in war certain human rights are suspended.
Well, Alex, if there is such a thing as “rules of war”, they target the enemy you’re fighting against. While it is true that human rights are violated during war, Rules of war (e.g. the Geneva convention) aim to minimize the violations and dictate that certain actions are not acceptable as legitimate military actions. For instance, community punishment (burning down a Viet-Kong village were several residents are Viet-Kong members) is considered a war-crime.


Originally posted by alexbmn
Unites States was always a beacon of democracy yet it had no qualms about dropping an Atomic bomb on Japan knowing that hundreds of thousands of noncombatants would die. But it new that the alertnative would be a death of hundreds of thousands of its own soldiers, and so the choice was clear. And lets not forget Dresden where Britain and the US unleashed a firestorm that burned alive tenths of thousands of noncombatants
You gave two excellent examples of actions that fall under the category of war crimes. That is even true for the time these actions were committed. Today, it is forbidden under international law, to bomb civilian targets.

In the case of the atomic bomb, sparing the lives of American soldiers ws not the sole reason for the bomb. The bomb was also a demonstration of power to Russia and a signal to keep out of the far east. To do this at the expense of millions of lives show utter disrespect for value of human life. I have to say that in my personal pov, this is one of the greatest war crimes ever committed in the modern era. There is absolutely no excuse for mass murder of civilian population, including the on-going suffering caused for additional millions due to nuclear exposure.

WWII is full of war crimes committed by both sides. I think it is historically a shame that only the Germans were trailed for war crimes, while Russians, British and American were not made to pay for their actions and decisions.


Originally posted by alexbmn
Britain wanted revenge and that was perfectly understandable.
You must be joking here, right?


Originally posted by alexbmn
In a total war such as this one,the only thing matters is one's existence.
I totally disagree with you. If you lose all human values, become a brutal vengeful mass murderer that is no different than suicidal bomber – you lose value of your life and deserve to be trailed as a war criminal. I, for one, will not allow my country and my people to stoop to the moral standards of the Palestinians. not for any price.

sharonbn
07-21-2002, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by Vic
Is there any serious explanation for this birthrate (social pressure, religious views etc.)? What distinguishes Gaza from Egypt in this respect, for example?

Judaism, Islam and Christianity forbid birth control and the use of contraceptives. In Judaism, bringing lots of children is even a Mitzvah. So, ultra orthodox communities of all religions (orthodox Jwes, Roman Catholics, Islam fundementalists) all have high brith rate.

I guess in Egypt the number is lower since there is a secular majority there.

Mediocrates
07-21-2002, 05:00 AM
You gave two excellent examples of actions that fall under the category of war crimes. That is even true for the time these actions were committed. Today, it is forbidden under international law, to bomb civilian targets.

That's nonsense. It's untrue and it is not forbidden today. We choose not to do it generally for other reasons such as public opinion. There is nothing inherently evil about Hiroshima that couldn't be achieved by any other means. And there is nothing inherently illegal about Dresden that wouldn't apply to the Russian advance on Berlin as well.

In the US Civil War, Shermans march on Georgia was actually seen as a humane act because he destroyed property and crushed the will of the people. As opposed to Grant's war of attrition which ground up thousands of lives.

The simple fact is that wars haven't been fought on the plains of battle between uniformed armies since Waterloo. All wars are fought in, among or by civilian populations now.

ibrodsky
07-21-2002, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by sharonbn

In the case of the atomic bomb, sparing the lives of American soldiers ws not the sole reason for the bomb. The bomb was also a demonstration of power to Russia and a signal to keep out of the far east. To do this at the expense of millions of lives show utter disrespect for value of human life. I have to say that in my personal pov, this is one of the greatest war crimes ever committed in the modern era. There is absolutely no excuse for mass murder of civilian population, including the on-going suffering caused for additional millions due to nuclear exposure.

WWII is full of war crimes committed by both sides. I think it is historically a shame that only the Germans were trailed for war crimes, while Russians, British and American were not made to pay for their actions and decisions.


Total nonsense. Japan started the war and was clearly bent on conquering and subjugating nation after nation without the slightest regard for human lives. The blame for all of the deaths -- Japanese and otherwise -- lies with Japan.

The U.S. does not owe Japan a reason for using atomic bombs. Thousands of Americans perished fighting Japan in a war the U.S. did not start or want.

You are ignoring an important fact: Japan created a warrior culture based on the idea that surrender is not an option. They believed it is better to die killing as many opponents as possible than live. Remember the kamikaze pilots?

To accuse those fighting Nazi Germany of "war crimes" is shameless and infantile. Again, you act as if it is unclear who started the war, who was bent on conquest and enslavement, and who (if anyone) was morally justified.

I don't think I need to review Nazi culture which was built upon the most savage behavior imaginable.

No one would have died from bombing Dresden had Nazi Germany not set out to enslave all of Europe and completely annihilate the Jewish people. One would think that as a Jew you would be semi-aware of this.

Your claim that British and American forces were also gulty of "war crimes" is just left-wing bilge. To suggest all sides were guilty is an insult to the six million Jews who perished.

sharonbn
07-21-2002, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by Mediocrates
That's nonsense. It's untrue and it is not forbidden today. We choose not to do it generally for other reasons such as public opinion. There is nothing inherently evil about Hiroshima that couldn't be achieved by any other means. And there is nothing inherently illegal about Dresden that wouldn't apply to the Russian advance on Berlin as well.

Excerpts from the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm) :

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities [...] shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

cerulean
07-21-2002, 07:28 AM
CIA Factbook:

Saudi Arabia has a total fertility rate of 6.25 children per woman http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.htm

Gaza has a total fertility rate of 6.42 children per woman
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gz.html

====
The Population Resource Center says Gaza had the highest birth rate in the world in 2001, with an average 7.4 children per woman. http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/middleeast/middleeast.html

Possibly the religious explanation of no birth control is why Gaza has such a high birth rate, but other Islamic states that also appear to have a high degree of devotion manage to have significantly lower birth rates.

This 2000 article indicates that birth rates are so high because no matter what, UNWRA is there to support the families.
http://www.popcouncil.org/mediacenter/newsreleases/pdr900.html

Although the culture is, of course, much different Iran has significantly reduced its birth rate in the last decade or two by making contraception of all sorts easily available. The Ayatollah Khomeini had encouraged as high a birth rate as possible, in part to help fight the war with Iraq, but this policy was clearly leading to disaster. So there was a change in policy to discourage high birth rates, and this new policy began having an impact almost immediately. (Note that justification for the new policy was found by rereading the Koran.)
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update4ss.htm
http://www.foreignwire.com/condom.html

Mediocrates
07-21-2002, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by sharonbn


Excerpts from the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm) :

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities [...] shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


And? says nothing about bombing Dresden, etc.

Vic
07-21-2002, 08:31 AM
What I love about this forum are the constantly shifting "alliances" :) :) :)

Mediocrates
07-21-2002, 10:10 AM
The only thing ever wrong with the Manhattan Project is that it started 6 months too late so we used the results on the wrong country.

Gilgamesh
07-21-2002, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Mediocrates
The only thing ever wrong with the Manhattan Project is that it started 6 months too late so we used the results on the wrong country.

I totally agree!

Ricemann
07-21-2002, 10:41 AM
:) The reason that there are Jews in Gaza is the same as there are Muslims in Israel proper. There is no reason why one group of peoples should not be allowed to live where they desire, unless of course you happen to want to live in Saudia Arabia

cerulean
07-21-2002, 10:54 AM
The only thing ever wrong with the Manhattan Project is that it started 6 months too late so we used the results on the wrong country.

Realistically, though, would the United States ever have agreed to bomb Germany? Consider how close it was to allied countries. There's also the matter of how many Americans are of German descent.

victot
07-21-2002, 05:26 PM
Why are their jewish settlements in the Gaza strip?
Gaza Strip or as it was called in ancient times (Phillistia)
was NEVER EVER jewish, it always belonged to the people called the Phillistines, (where the modern term Palestine comes from)
I believe their shouldnt be any jewish or Hindu or christian or whatever settlements in the Gaza strip.
So why are their?

from www.askmoses.com

The Torah tells us of the limits of the Holy Land. As promised to Abraham, it is described as "…from the river of Egypt until the great river, the River Euphrates" (Gen. 15:18). (For details of the actual borders told to Moses, see Numbers 34:2-15).

The borders of the Holy Land extend beyond the current borders of the State of Israel. Two of Jacob’s children, Dan and Naphtali, are buried in the Lebanese city of Sidon, and the remains of the oldest Jewish synagogue—dating back 2500 years—were uncovered in the Golan Heights. The ancient city of Jericho, which Joshua conquered (see Joshua 6:20), hosts the very famous Shalom Al Israel synagogue, dating to the First Century. Some parts of the Kingdom of Jordan were settled by two-and-a-half of the Twelve Tribes, and Gaza (which has its own ancient synagogue) is ALL part of our Holy land of Israel. Our people actually lived and flourished in these sites for hundreds and thousands of years. Our right to the land did not expire because we were FORCED to leave.

However, some parts of the MODERN State of Israel are not holy since they are NOT part of our ancestors’ land, such as the Negev Desert and the city of Eilat.

alexbmn
07-21-2002, 06:44 PM
What can I say Sharon your perspective is completely wrong.Germany and Japan unleashed the most unimaginable evil on the world.The Luftwaffe bombed England without mercy and conducted a war of annhilation in Russia.The Japanese conducted a holoucast of their own in China.I see nothign wrong with the offended party wanting revenge.WW2 was a total war and the concept of "nation at arms" was in effect. .The whole population was part of the war effort.No means of attack could be held back.The Western Civilization was at stake.

Vic
07-22-2002, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by sharonbn
Judaism, Islam and Christianity forbid birth control and the use of contraceptives. In Judaism, bringing lots of children is even a Mitzvah. So, ultra orthodox communities of all religions (orthodox Jwes, Roman Catholics, Islam fundementalists) all have high brith rate.

I guess in Egypt the number is lower since there is a secular majority there. Maybe it's off-topic, but I find it difficult to make a connection between the Palestinians one gets to see in the West and the people you describe. The Palestinians here are very Westernized, you would hardly see as much as a headscarf on a woman's head in a typical "Palestine solidarity" meeting. Few Europeans think "traditional Islam" when they hear "Palestinians".

I wonder whether it is a specific ploy, a sort of costume party to get more sympathy (the "exotic" traditional Muslims would have no chance), or whether it is a specific segment of the Palestinian society that gets a chance to come to the West (a majority comes here as students, some were accepted as refugees from Lebanon, others are let in as "humanitarian" cases - it can vary greatly from country to country).

Any ideas?

danholo
07-22-2002, 01:01 PM
victot,

The Negev is not "holy" as you said, since while wandering in the desert, the Israelites crossed the Negev.
Still, it's pretty vital for Israel to have Eilat and a presence in the Red Sea.

Some maps of ancient Israel (probably estimates):

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/monarchy.html

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Kingdoms1.html

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/Hasmonean.html

The last links shows a map where Gaza is a part of Israel or "The Hasmonean Dynasty."

This map shows the "promised" land (estimate I think, since I don't see a river near Egypt):

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/tribemap.html