Biblical Israel Reaches Out to Pres. Bush

[humus_sapiens]

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/NOFYBUSH/petition.html
...
Israel is being asked to ignore 3,300 years of history because of 19 years - 1948 to 1967 - in which Judea and Samaria were occupied by Jordan.

During those 19 years thousands of Jews who lived here were killed or expelled by Jordan's army. Judea and Samaria were renamed "the West Bank" and annexed by Jordan.

That occupation, that annexation, was never recognized by the United Nations or the United States or any country except England and Pakistan.

Can 19 years of illegal Jordanian occupation negate 3,300 years of Jewish history? Can Jews, who are allowed to live anywhere in the world, be denied the right to live in the heartland of their national home?

Mr. President: Should a catastrophe befall America, and your country or any part of it be conquered by enemy forces, would you stop considering it your homeland? Would you relinquish your right to return to its shores? Would you ever consider yourselves as foreigners in it?

Mr. President: Surely you don't expect us to allow ethnic cleansing against our own people, who after millennia of murder and persecution have returned to our ancient homeland, and who stand in the frontlines in the war against terror?

Surely your Administration will not order Israeli governments to order Jews out of Judea and Samaria, the heartland of Joseph and his brothers?

[sharonbn]

There are a few things I don't understand...

1. Before 1948, Judea and Samaria were not "Jewish" so why do you separate these 19 years from the 30 years of British and 400 years Turkish rule over the same area?

In fact, the biblical state of Israel ceased to exist more than 2,000 years ago. Why does this ancient state give the Jews ANY precedence over the Palestinians?? Jews can settle freely in the state of Israel. Judea and Samaria are not considered part of this state, not even in the eyes of the state of Israel itself. From where exactly do you draw the justification to settle in a place that's not legaly your state?

2. Who are the Jews you refer to as were killed "by the thousands" by the Jordanian army? There was not a single Jew living in Judea and Samaria at the said time period.

If you refer to the 1948 and 1967 wars, then its war time, and Arab casualties also occured at that time.

If you refer to the terror attacks from Jordan, they were not carried out by the Jordanian army, but by the Palestinians. There is a distinction there, just like the distinction we all make between Baruch Goldstein and IDF soldiers.

3. If Jordan had a "no Jews" policy in its land, that does not speak about the future Palestinian state. The Palestinians stated several times in the past that Jewish settlements may exist under Palestinian rule.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by sharonbn
There are a few things I don't understand...

I suggest you read the whole petition and sign it if you find it worth of your support or don't if you don't.

1. Before 1948, Judea and Samaria were not "Jewish" so why do you separate these 19 years from the 30 years of British and 400 years Turkish rule over the same area?

Hello! "Judea", "Jewish". Jewish roots. Works for me.

In fact, the biblical state of Israel ceased to exist more than 2,000 years ago. Why does this ancient state give the Jews ANY precedence over the Palestinians?

Maybe because the Jews lived there for 2 millenia before the Arab settlers came and built al-Aqsa in al-Quds? Jews never left the land willingly, they were forced out. State or no state, the Jews never ceased their presence there. I only support peoples living side by side in peace. But if the guests abuse the hosts or even try kill them, time to show them the door.

Jews can settle freely in the state of Israel. Judea and Samaria are not considered part of this state, not even in the eyes of the state of Israel itself.

So, are they considered Palestinian Arab territories? Since then?! Where are the borders of these Arab territories? The armistice line of 1967? LOL.

2. Who are the Jews you refer to as were killed "by the thousands" by the Jordanian army? There was not a single Jew living in Judea and Samaria at the said time period.

If you refer to the 1948 and 1967 wars, then its war time, and Arab casualties also occured at that time.

If you refer to the terror attacks from Jordan, they were not carried out by the Jordanian army, but by the Palestinians. There is a distinction there, just like the distinction we all make between Baruch Goldstein and IDF soldiers.

Agree. Curiously, the Arabs fight together against Israel. However, when they lose, the poor Palestinians conveniently "forget" participating in and supporting the agression.

3. If Jordan had a "no Jews" policy in its land,

What do you mean "if"? They always had. They still do. Check out the fate of ancient Jewish communities in the ME: www.jimena-justice.org

that does not speak about the future Palestinian state. The Palestinians stated several times in the past that Jewish settlements may exist under Palestinian rule.

Ha! I can only imagine. Can you?

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
I suggest you read the whole petition and sign it if you find it worth of your support or don't if you don't.

nice way to develop a discussion, humus.

This petition presents a unique historical point of view of Israel in general and the occupied territories in particular. All I wanted was to question this pov by presenting another one, and see if they may be bridged or otherwise discussed.
Unlike you, I consider myself a skeptical person. I question any cause brought before me, try to look at it from more than ONE angle.

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
Hello! "Judea", "Jewish". Jewish roots. Works for me.

What is this?? now you employ semantics?? you'll have to do better than that.
Remember, by this line of thinking, Samaria belongs to the Samaritons. (they do exist)

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
Maybe because the Jews lived there for 2 millenia before the Arab settlers came and built al-Aqsa in al-Quds?

So what??? I don't try to be provocative. I really don't understand.
I don't say Jews don't have a natural right over the land. I am a Zionist by choice. I'm saying I don't understand why this takes precedence over the Palestinian claim for the land. In my eyes the Palestinian claim for the land is valid because they are living on it for the last 1,500 years. The fact that Jews have some presence in the land that is longer - that does not invalidate the Palestinain claim. In any case, the final solution will be based on practical issues, sucj as land ownership, security, etc. rather than historical/ideological/theological emotions.

I want to sharpen some points here:

1. According to the bible, the Jews themselves conquered the land from the Hiti, Yevusi, Cananite and other people who lived there. To say the God promised the land to the Jews is a pure Jewish claim, that may be invalid in the eyes of others.

2. The Arabs did not conquer the land from the Jews, they took it from the Romans (a.k.a Byzantines). In fact, the Jews did live in peace and prospered undr the Khalifa rule. Until the 20th cent. Jewish persecution occured almost exclusively in Christian Europe.

The Arabs also did not destroy the temple. Al Aqsa mosque was not built on the temple, it was built on the RUINS of the temple. again, the work of the Romans.

3. The Zionist movement and the founding of the state of Israel were driven by two equally essenatial factors: The hidtorical link of the Jewish people to Israel and Erupean persecutions, that intensified in the 19th and 20th cent. Without EITHER factors, I seriously doubt that the state of Israel would be established.

Now, you cannot seriously blame the Arabs for the misfortune of the Jews in the diaspora.

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
So, are they considered Palestinian Arab territories? Since then?! Where are the borders of these Arab territories? The armistice line of 1967? LOL.

The Palestinian ideology states that all of Israel is historical Palestine (this is something I believe that is incorrect.) However, they understand that this claim is both unrealistic and morally problematic, since it was them who refused the UN partition plan. They claim that since Israel initiated the 67 war (another problematic statement) it should withdraw to the situation before the war.
I say, even if the 67 war was provoked by Egypt and the Arab states, that does not give ANY moral or legal validation what-so-ever to Israeli occupation of GS and WB. Germany initiated WWII without a doubt, and yet, no one claims Germany should be annexed to Britain.

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
Agree. Curiously, the Arabs fight together against Israel. However, when they lose, the poor Palestinians conveniently "forget" participating in and supporting the agression.

It is always the civilian population who pays the most in wars.

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
Ha! I can only imagine. Can you?

You're right. Given the fanatic, racist, violent nature of the settlers, it would never work. hell, WE can't handle these hooligans....

[richcrassus]

WHat is Yesha??

[richcrassus]

WHat is Yesha??

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by richcrassus
WHat is Yesha??

A Hebrew acronim of "the territories" (Yehuda, Shomron, Aza).

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by sharonbn
nice way to develop a discussion, humus.

All I meant was different people listen to different drummers. I liked the most of the petition and have signed it.

What is this?? now you employ semantics?? you'll have to do better than that.
Remember, by this line of thinking, Samaria belongs to the Samaritons. (they do exist)

Would you argue that Judea is the heart of Biblical Jewish land?
That anywhere you dig, you find Jewish artifacts? Maybe some don't care, but I do.

In any case, the final solution will be based on practical issues, sucj as land ownership, security, etc. rather than historical/ideological/theological emotions.

Was it based on in N. America? It is all (not so long ago) occupied land, you know.

Now, you cannot seriously blame the Arabs for the misfortune of the Jews in the diaspora.

I don't. IMHO, the Jews demonstrated more than enough tolerance and good will towards living together. OTOH, the Arabs "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity" to peaceful coexistence. Don't you think it's about enough burying our children, while quetly choking on our tears? Do you seriously think all they want is the state of Falastin side-by-side of Israel and the 120-year old terror campaign against the Jews will stop? And 50 year-old attempts to annihilate Israel will stop also?

I say, even if the 67 war was provoked by Egypt and the Arab states, that does not give ANY moral or legal validation what-so-ever to Israeli occupation of GS and WB. Germany initiated WWII without a doubt, and yet, no one claims Germany should be annexed to Britain.

As a matter of fact, you should learn what happened after WWII to the Sudetes. It was annexed by Czechoslovakia, and 10 million of ethnic Germans who lived there for millenia were transferred to Germany. Many were massacred, unfortunately.

You're right. Given the fanatic, racist, violent nature of the settlers, it would never work. hell, WE can't handle these hooligans....

Are you blaming the Israeli setllers or the Arab settlers?

[I am David]

The Hebrews/Jews were forced off their land by the Romans 2000 years ago. This was unrightous, and obviously did not make Israel morally not the home of the Jews. It was still the homeland of the Jews, no matter how few Jews were on the land after the Roman ethnic cleansing. Thus, the Arabs, who evenually became known as the Palestinians, who moved on the land when the Jews were gone, were not actually morally entitled to that land. Neither sadly, are Palestinian descendants who live there now. Yes, they have nothing to do with the actions of their ancestors, but you have to own up to the mistakes of the past and correct them where necesary, sorry but that's just the way life is.

That is why the Jews have a right to the land of the West Bank and Gaza, that is why they have a right to settle there.

I'm not saying the Palestinians should be kicked off, or that individuals should have their land confiscated, no not at all. I'm saying that the land is not their "nation", not something that is morally theirs for the taking for making into their own nation. That right of the land belongs to the Jews.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by I am David
The Hebrews/Jews were forced off their land by the Romans 2000 years ago. This was unrightous, and obviously did not make Israel morally not the home of the Jews. It was still the homeland of the Jews, no matter how few Jews were on the land after the Roman ethnic cleansing. Thus, the Arabs, who evenually became known as the Palestinians, who moved on the land when the Jews were gone, were not actually morally entitled to that land. Neither sadly, are Palestinian descendants who live there now. Yes, they have nothing to do with the actions of their ancestors, but you have to own up to the mistakes of the past and correct them where necesary, sorry but that's just the way life is.

1. You're forgetting that the Jews themselves conquered the land from the Hiti and Yevusi people and others that were here prior to the Israeli invasion from Egypt.

2. I will say this again: The Arabs did not conquer Israel from the Jews. The Arabs took the land from the Byzantines. They did not see the little sign by the side of the road "This land belongs to the Jewish people". Seriously, What were they supposed to do? call the Jews back? They took it from the Romans and settled in the land. It is rightfully theirs from that point of time.

did you hear the Hebrew phrase "to steal from a thief is not stealing"?

Also, when they built Al Aqsa mosque, they didn't destroy the Jewish temple, it was already destroyed.

Originally posted by I am David
That is why the Jews have a right to the land of the West Bank and Gaza, that is why they have a right to settle there.

Sorry, I still don't get it. The land is legally not part of modern state of Israel. archeological escavations ther found remains of past Jewish settlemtns, but also remains of Roman and Arab settlements. In Jericho, remains of urban settlement were found that predates the Jewish period.
btw, prehistoric remains were found in caves in the Carmal mountain - so what???

[I am David]

1. No, the Hebrews conquered the land from the caananites, who no longer exist, thus, they are not part of the picture and are not to be considered of whos land it is.

2. No one asked the Arabs to "call for the Jews to come back". But the fact of the matter is, they are back now, and just because the Arab's ancestors settled on land that was not theirs does not mean that just because they use it it is theirs for the taking (no I am not talking about individual property ownership). Just because something was stolen from someone, and that property passed through many people, even to those who obtained it innocently, and used it well, does not mean it still does not belong to the original owner.

3. The Jews have a right to settle on the West Bank and Gaza, because it is morally theirs, wether or not the land is part of Israel. The time when the land was stolen from the Jews is real and tangible, a momorable crime, not some prehistoric event that no one can put their finger on or be reasonably sure that it even happened, or who it happened to. That's why its just like a modern day theft, except on a larger scale. The land WAS stolen and its rightfull owners ARE back that is why it is the Jews'.

To steal from a theif is to steal, you know why? Because if you know it is a theif, and do not return it to the original owner(or try to), then it is just as if you had stolen it originally.

Originally posted by sharonbn
1. You're forgetting that the Jews themselves conquered the land from the Hiti and Yevusi people and others that were here prior to the Israeli invasion from Egypt.

2. I will say this again: The Arabs did not conquer Israel from the Jews. The Arabs took the land from the Byzantines. They did not see the little sign by the side of the road "This land belongs to the Jewish people". Seriously, What were they supposed to do? call the Jews back? They took it from the Romans and settled in the land. It is rightfully theirs from that point of time.

did you hear the Hebrew phrase "to steal from a thief is not stealing"?

Also, when they built Al Aqsa mosque, they didn't destroy the Jewish temple, it was already destroyed.


Sorry, I still don't get it. The land is legally not part of modern state of Israel. archeological escavations ther found remains of past Jewish settlemtns, but also remains of Roman and Arab settlements. In Jericho, remains of urban settlement were found that predates the Jewish period.
btw, prehistoric remains were found in caves in the Carmal mountain - so what???

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by I am David
1. No, the Hebrews conquered the land from the caananites, who no longer exist, thus, they are not part of the picture and are not to be considered of whos land it is.

I have two things to say about this
1 You're arguing that if a nation conquers a land and totally annihilates the previous owner – it can declare itself the new owner? That sounds reasonable to you? You really think this is the moral grounds on which the Jews can claim Israel?
I guess you don’t really think so.
The Jews came to Israel because they claim that their God gave them this land. The Jews have to accept that other people don’t have the same conviction. In their eyes, the Jews are just one of a string of nations that conquered the land by force and settled in. In this respect, the Jews are no different than whoever came after them.

2 One of the claims that were made against the Zionists is that they are not the direct descendents of the Biblical Hebrew people. For instance, the Arabs claim that the European Jewry is the remains of the Khazar empire, whose people converted to Judaism sometime in the 7th cent. You may of course believe that today’s Jews are actually direct descendants of the Biblical nation, but you have to accept that this claim may be disputed.

Originally posted by I am David
2. No one asked the Arabs to "call for the Jews to come back". But the fact of the matter is, they are back now, and just because the Arab's ancestors settled on land that was not theirs does not mean that just because they use it it is theirs for the taking (no I am not talking about individual property ownership). Just because something was stolen from someone, and that property passed through many people, even to those who obtained it innocently, and used it well, does not mean it still does not belong to the original owner.

you mean to tell me you seriously believe a Jew can come to an Arab whose family lived in Israel for more than 1,000 years and tell him that this land does not belong to him? And you’re not joking??

”just because the Arab's ancestors settled on land” ???
As I said above, the Jews cannot conveniently ignore 2,000 years of history, 1,500 years of continuous Arab presence in Israel and say that Israel belongs to them and to them only. They just can’t say that and expect this claim to be taken seriously and with good faith by the Arabs.

Originally posted by I am David
3. The Jews have a right to settle on the West Bank and Gaza, because it is morally theirs, wether or not the land is part of Israel. The time when the land was stolen from the Jews is real and tangible, a momorable crime, not some prehistoric event that no one can put their finger on or be reasonably sure that it even happened, or who it happened to. That's why its just like a modern day theft, except on a larger scale. The land WAS stolen and its rightfull owners ARE back that is why it is the Jews'.

Morality is THE most subjective term in the human terminology. What’s moral to one person is immoral to another. I will say this again: The Jews have to accept that their conviction regarding the promise of their God is their own conviction and is not shared by other nations. If you’re basing your “morality” on historical reasons, then again, you can’t claim something because you owned it 2,000 years ago, ignoring all that has happened since.

You're also making injustice comparing a biblical event to "modern day theft". You need to assess a historical event in the cultural context of the time. The rule of ancient times was that a loser cannot claim what he lost. The winner gets all the spiols. The historical fact remains that the Jews lost Israel to the Assyrians some 2000 years ago. When they lost it – they lost it.
btw, the Jews lost Israel because of internal division, so its entirely their fault.

Originally posted by I am David
To steal from a theif is to steal, you know why? Because if you know it is a theif, and do not return it to the original owner(or try to), then it is just as if you had stolen it originally. [/B]

I don’t how’s your Hebrew but I will say this
äâåðá îâðá ôèåø
Every Israeli kid knows this....

[I am David]

1 You're arguing that if a nation conquers a land and totally annihilates the previous owner – it can declare itself the new owner? That sounds reasonable to you? You really think this is the moral grounds on which the Jews can claim Israel?
I guess you don’t really think so.

This is not an issue of what's "reasonable", it is an issue of what is morally relevant to the issue. Simply put, the caananites slowly died away after the Hebrews conquered the land, at which point the Hebrew people continued to live on the land where their descendent's direct responsibility for the conquest of the land disapeared. At this point you couldn't have said to them "You stole the Caanites land", because they obviously didn't, and it would be pointless to kick an entire people off the land just to make up for a moral injustice when it would benifit no one.

2 One of the claims that were made against the Zionists is that they are not the direct descendents of the Biblical Hebrew people. For instance, the Arabs claim that the European Jewry is the remains of the Khazar empire, whose people converted to Judaism sometime in the 7th cent. You may of course believe that today’s Jews are actually direct descendants of the Biblical nation, but you have to accept that this claim may be disputed.

Sure the Jews may not be the direct descendants of the Hebrews, and the Modern day English may not be the direct descendants of Anglos and Saxons but in fact a a mixture Chinese and extraterestrial aliens. We can all believe what we want, sure, but we must realize when it dwelves into the realms of ridiculous

you mean to tell me you seriously believe a Jew can come to an Arab whose family lived in Israel for more than 1,000 years and tell him that this land does not belong to him? And you’re not joking??

I thought I had mentioned twice already, that I was not talking about individual land ownership. Mabye you didn't see it.

”just because the Arab's ancestors settled on land” ???
As I said above, the Jews cannot conveniently ignore 2,000 years of history, 1,500 years of continuous Arab presence in Israel and say that Israel belongs to them and to them only. They just can’t say that and expect this claim to be taken seriously and with good faith by the Arabs.

What would they be ignoring? Yes the Arabs have lived there a while, I'll grant them that. But that's it, they've lived there a while. If they want their own nation, then they can move to the 10 other or so Arab/Muslim nations. If they want to keep living where they are, then they can. End of story.

Morality is THE most subjective term in the human terminology. What’s moral to one person is immoral to another. I will say this again: The Jews have to accept that their conviction regarding the promise of their God is their own conviction and is not shared by other nations. If you’re basing your “morality” on historical reasons, then again, you can’t claim something because you owned it 2,000 years ago, ignoring all that has happened since.

Oh sure, morality is subjective, I'll grant you that. Just like some say that killing an innocent intentionally is wrong, some say it is right. And this is just applicable to theft. Some say stealing from others is wrong, some say it's right. What can ya do?

You're also making injustice comparing a biblical event to "modern day theft". You need to assess a historical event in the cultural context of the time. The rule of ancient times was that a loser cannot claim what he lost. The winner gets all the spiols. The historical fact remains that the Jews lost Israel to the Assyrians some 2000 years ago. When they lost it – they lost it.
btw, the Jews lost Israel because of internal division, so its entirely their fault.

You are confusing issues. Yes stealing land was more acceptable back then, but it was no less immorall. The only difference back then from now is that such an act was not punished, but now is. The moral injustice of the event/act does not change just because it was a while ago. That immorall injustice lives on today no matter how "acceptable" the act was then. Since you are so keen on Israel not belonging to the Jews or Arabs ("When they lost it, they lost it", or "It really belongs to the Caanites!"), why don't you move out of the country?

btw, the Jews lost soveirgn control of the country because of internal division, but it they were still living on it, but the Romans expelling them is what really made them lose the land.

I have two things to say about this
I don’t how’s your Hebrew but I will say this
äâåðá îâðá ôèåø
Every Israeli kid knows this....

I repeat, stealing from a known theif is no better from stealing from the original owner, because what is the difference between taking something from its rightfull owner, and taking it from a theif who was the first one to take it from the rightfull owner? Because either way the rightfull owner isn't getting his property! You can argue about sayings all you like, it doesn't make it logical.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by I am David
[B]This is not an issue of what's "reasonable", it is an issue of what is morally relevant to the issue. Simply put, the Canaanites slowly died away after the Hebrews conquered the land, at which point the Hebrew people continued to live on the land where their descendent's direct responsibility for the conquest of the land disapeared. At this point you couldn't have said to them "You stole the Caanites land", because they obviously didn't, and it would be pointless to kick an entire people off the land just to make up for a moral injustice when it would benifit no one

To me, something that is unreasonable to the common sense is also immoral.
Also, I don’t understand this picture you draw of the Canaanites “slowly dying away”, which distances the Hebrews from taking a responsibility for that people’s fate. People don’t “slowly die” by themselves as long as they’re prolific. You have to be proactive for this scenario to occur. The Jews themselves are a testimony to that fact.

If you judge the Arab conquest of the land of Israel as immoral, you have to explain why the Jewish conquest of Israel is moral. Practical resons (i.e. it would benefit no one) does not give moral justification.

What you say is that had the Arabs annihilate every single Jew that lived in Israel when they conquered Israel – that would make their takeover moral? The fact is that the Arabs respected the Jews who lived under their rule (something that cnnot be said for the Christians). The Jewish “Golden Age” in Spain occurred under Arab rule.

I cannot see your logic for excusing Jewish conquest of Israel while at the same time condemning Arab one, just because the Jews were more “successful” in annihilating the previous owner of the land.

Originally posted by I am David
Sure the Jews may not be the direct descendants of the Hebrews, and the Modern day English may not be the direct descendants of Anglos and Saxons but in fact a a mixture Chinese and extraterestrial aliens. We can all believe what we want, sure, but we must realize when it dwelves into the realms of ridiculous

Oh I see, and claiming that modern Jewish people are direct descendants of a people who lived in Israel 2,000 years ago is not ridiculous?
The historical fact is that the Khazar people, who were a European empire in the middle ages, did indeed convert to Judaism. The empire collapsed sometime in the 13th or 14th cent. What happened to all these people? It is still an unaccounted question.
No one can prove the Jewish claim of a link to the biblical nation. So its left (once more) to the eye of the beholder.

Originally posted by I am David
I thought I had mentioned twice already, that I was not talking about individual land ownership. Mabye you didn't see it.

But you justify Jewish settlement in the occupied territories based on “national” reason. This settlement often contradicts land ownership by Arabs.

Originally posted by I am David
What would they be ignoring? Yes the Arabs have lived there a while, I'll grant them that. But that's it, they've lived there a while. If they want their own nation, then they can move to the 10 other or so Arab/Muslim nations. If they want to keep living where they are, then they can. End of story.

One's gotta love your semantic manipulation. 1,500 years are “a while”? That period does not grant any moral ownership of the land?
The homeland of the Palestinian people is Israel. It is not the other Arab/Muslim nations, just like the homeland of the Egyptians is Egypt, not Saudi-Arabia. You cannot regard the Arab countries as a vast parking lot, where people can swap places at will. The Palestinians are descendants of the Arabs who came here 1,500 years ago and this place is their homeland.

Originally posted by I am David
Oh sure, morality is subjective, I'll grant you that. Just like some say that killing an innocent intentionally is wrong, some say it is right. And this is just applicable to theft. Some say stealing from others is wrong, some say it's right. What can ya do?

What I’m saying is that if we agree that morality is subjective, then the Jews must accept that their justification for settling in the occupied territories is something that may be disputed by the Arabs and that the Arab argument may be valid in their eyes.
Its left to the fact that Jews settle in the territories because they conquered that land by force. No other reason. This land is not part of the state of Israel and legally belongs to the Palestinian people because it was them who lived in it before the Jewish settlement began in the 70s.
Claiming ownership of the land “by historical reasons” is unacceptable because Jews did not live in these places for hundreds of years.

Originally posted by I am David
You are confusing issues. Yes stealing land was more acceptable back then, but it was no less immorall. The only difference back then from now is that such an act was not punished, but now is. The moral injustice of the event/act does not change just because it was a while ago. That immorall injustice lives on today no matter how "acceptable" the act was then. Since you are so keen on Israel not belonging to the Jews or Arabs ("When they lost it, they lost it", or "It really belongs to the Caanites!"), why don't you move out of the country?

I will say this again: You differentiate Arab conquest from Israeli one just because the Israelites annihilated the previous owner. Just because the previous owner is not around does not change the MORALITY of the occupation. If any, it makes it less moral.

I myself do not live in disputed land. I am third generation of Israelis and Israel is my homeland. I live in the state of Israel that was recognized by the world nations in 1947, and by the Palestinians themselves in 1998. I don’t go settle in the occupied territories despite governmental incentives in the form of tax exempt and lower cost of living. I don’t go there for ideological reasons.

I believe the state of Israel has a sound moral basis for its foundation and existence.
I don’t believe Israelis have any right whatsoever to settle in any land that was occupied after the 1948 war.

[I am David]

To me, something that is unreasonable to the common sense is also immoral.
Also, I don’t understand this picture you draw of the Canaanites “slowly dying away”, which distances the Hebrews from taking a responsibility for that people’s fate. People don’t “slowly die” by themselves as long as they’re prolific. You have to be proactive for this scenario to occur. The Jews themselves are a testimony to that fact.

If you judge the Arab conquest of the land of Israel as immoral, you have to explain why the Jewish conquest of Israel is moral. Practical resons (i.e. it would benefit no one) does not give moral justification.

Where on earth did I say it made it moral? I will explain this very simply once more. Although the Hebrews conquered Canaan from the canaanites, this act is immoral, however the immoralcy simply doesnt effect the issue, between the Jews and the Arabs. Now if the exact same hebrews that conquered the land were still around, I would say take that land away. Unfortunatly that time slipped away years even before the Kingdom of Israel apeared. So you are going to take the land away from the next to most rightfull owners, the innocent Jews, just because their ancient ancestors did some immorall thing(take the land)? No, the modern Jews inherited the land from their ancestors, and since they are still around, they are there to claim their property. The story would obviously be different if the Canaanites were still around, but of course they are not.

What you say is that had the Arabs annihilate every single Jew that lived in Israel when they conquered Israel – that would make their takeover moral? The fact is that the Arabs respected the Jews who lived under their rule (something that cnnot be said for the Christians). The Jewish “Golden Age” in Spain occurred under Arab rule.

I cannot see your logic for excusing Jewish conquest of Israel while at the same time condemning Arab one, just because the Jews were more “successful” in annihilating the previous owner of the land.

Explained above. There isn't the smallest hint of excusing any of the Jewish actions that were wrong. This nonesense about me claiming that act of conquering Canaan is ok because the Jews were succesfull is entirely your own fabrication.

Oh I see, and claiming that modern Jewish people are direct descendants of a people who lived in Israel 2,000 years ago is not ridiculous?

That question is asked as if it points out something ridiculous in my own argument, kindly point out what that is. No, there is nothing ridiculous about claiming that Jews are descended from *gasp* the Jews! Though also known as Hebrews, they Hebrews were Jewish.

The historical fact is that the Khazar people, who were a European empire in the middle ages, did indeed convert to Judaism. The empire collapsed sometime in the 13th or 14th cent. What happened to all these people? It is still an unaccounted question.
No one can prove the Jewish claim of a link to the biblical nation. So its left (once more) to the eye of the beholder.

If you can't say what happened to those people, it doesn't sound like it lends itself to much credibility. I have not heard one ligitamite(nonbaised) source even allude to this possibility.

But you justify Jewish settlement in the occupied territories based on “national” reason. This settlement often contradicts land ownership by Arabs.

It doesn't have to. This is a problem that is of no serious consiquence.

You gotta love your semantic manipulation. 1,500 years are “a while”? That period does not grant any moral ownership of the land?
The homeland of the Palestinian people is Israel. It is not the other Arab/Muslim nations, just like the homeland of the Egyptians is Egypt, not Saudi-Arabia. You cannot regard the Arab countries as a vast parking lot, where people can swap places at will. The Palestinians are descendants of the Arabs who came here 1,500 years ago and this place is their homeland.

Fine and dandy. Unfortunatly they jumped on the badwagon all too quickly, possibly not have knowing that the only other real existent owner was pushed off the land. This land didn't belong to them. Sorry, but just because you claim something as your own when it isn't and get away with it doesn't really make it your own. Sure, some made it their home, but that's like making your home in a house that was left vacant when its rightfull owner kidnapped from it and never came home. Sure you can live on it, but when the owner comes back, it just isn't yours. (not trying to say Jews can push Palestinians out of their houses at will)

What I’m saying is that if we agree that morality is subjective, then the Jews must accept that their justification for settling in the occupied territories is something that may be disputed by the Arabs and that the Arab argument may be valid in their eyes.
Its left to the fact that Jews settle in the territories because they conquered that land by force. No other reason. This land is not part of the state of Israel and legally belongs to the Palestinian people because it was them who lived in it before the Jewish settlement began in the 70s.
Claiming ownership of the land “by historical reasons” is unacceptable because Jews did not live in these places for hundreds of years.

"if we agree that morality is subjective". We never agreed on that. The only thing we agreed on is that morality is subjective IF you want to be a loony bin and be unfair and unjust (aka "killing innocent people is GOOD! Morality is subjective wah! WAH!"). Frankly if other people don't think that the Jewish claim to the land is justified (aka it was stolen from theirs, thus it is theirs by right because they did not willingly part with it), then it really isn't relevant. Sure the Arabs can disagree, and claim "you take land by force, you have no good reason, blah blah blah!" all they want. The fact remains, what actually happened is, it was stolen from them, it's still theirs.

I will say this again: You differentiate Arab conquest from Israeli one just because the Israelites annihilated the previous owner. Just because the previous owner is not around does not change the MORALITY of the occupation. If any, it makes it less moral.

I myself do not live in disputed land. I am third generation of Israelis and Israel is my homeland. I live in the state of Israel that was recognized by the world nations in 1947, and by the Palestinians themselves in 1998. I don’t go settle in the occupied territories despite governmental incentives in the form of tax exempt and lower cost of living. I don’t go there for ideological reasons.

Oh hoho!!! So you differentiate yourself from the settlers because the peice of land you live on just happened to be internationally accepted as Israel, and because you were succesfull (your family) in living on the land for 3 generations. It's funny how the argument just falls apart when it's turned around on yourself

I believe the state of Israel has a sound moral basis for its foundation and existence.
I don’t believe Israelis have any right whatsoever to settle in any land that was occupied after the 1948 war.

Yeah but, morality is subjective isn't it? You're going to have to accept the fact that, the Arabs may not think your land is that of Israel's, just because the IDF managed to take more land in the 1948 war, JUST BECAUSE THE LAND WAS TAKEN BY FORCE! Blah blah blah....