Should Israel Be A Nation

Missileer

Missileer

Active member
This is a Jewish site but the evidence of ancient Israel is archaelogically proven as well as recorded history.

http://www.science.co.il/Israel-history.asp

Brief History of Israel and the Jewish People

Ingathering of the Israelites
Quote from Charles Krauthammer - The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998
"Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store."
​
The people of Israel (also called the "Jewish People") trace their origin to Abraham, who established the belief that there is only one God, the creator of the universe (see Old Testament). Abraham, his son Yitshak (Isaac), and grandson Jacob (Israel), are referred to as the patriarchs of the Israelites. All three patriarchs lived in the Land of Canaan, that later came to be known as the Land of Israel. They and their wives are buried in the Ma'arat HaMachpela, the Tomb of the Patriarchs, in Hebron.
The name Israel derives from the name given to Jacob (see Old Testament). His 12 sons were the kernels of 12 tribes that later developed into the Jewish nation. The name Jew derives from Yehuda (Judah) one of the 12 sons of Jacob. So, the names Israel, Israeli or Jewish refer to people of the same origin.


The people of modern day Israel share the same language and culture shaped by the Jewish heritage and religion passed through generations starting with the founding father Abraham (ca. 1800 BCE). Thus, Jews have had continuous presence in the land of Israel for the past 3,300 years.
 
Missileer said:
This is a Jewish site but the evidence of ancient Israel is archaelogically proven as well as recorded history.

http://www.science.co.il/Israel-history.asp

Brief History of Israel and the Jewish People

Ingathering of the Israelites

Quote from Charles Krauthammer - The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998
"Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store."

​
The people of Israel (also called the "Jewish People") trace their origin to Abraham, who established the belief that there is only one God, the creator of the universe (see Old Testament). Abraham, his son Yitshak (Isaac), and grandson Jacob (Israel), are referred to as the patriarchs of the Israelites. All three patriarchs lived in the Land of Canaan, that later came to be known as the Land of Israel. They and their wives are buried in the Ma'arat HaMachpela, the Tomb of the Patriarchs, in Hebron.
The name Israel derives from the name given to Jacob (see Old Testament). His 12 sons were the kernels of 12 tribes that later developed into the Jewish nation. The name Jew derives from Yehuda (Judah) one of the 12 sons of Jacob. So, the names Israel, Israeli or Jewish refer to people of the same origin.


The people of modern day Israel share the same language and culture shaped by the Jewish heritage and religion passed through generations starting with the founding father Abraham (ca. 1800 BCE). Thus, Jews have had continuous presence in the land of Israel for the past 3,300 years.
Click to expand...



There no doubt was an ancient 'Israel', with a primarily Jewish population. That said, the present day Jews, are a RELIGIOUS group, not a race/ethnic group as such. The populations of White and Black Jews found in Israel and abroad are NOT of the same ethnic stock as the Semetic people of the Bible.

Saying that they deserve the lands of present day Israel is like saying every Muslim in the World has a right to govern Saudi Arabia.

The origins of the Biblical Jews was somewhere in Babylon, which is modern Iraq. Would you say, they deserve a piece of Iraq as well?

Also, the Modern Hebrew language is not a language that naturally developed, but was a language engineered primarily from liturgical Hebrew, to create a common language with Relegious significance for the Zionist movement and the future state of Israel.
This was primarily done through the efforts of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda. Also this language is probably significantly different from when Hebrew was spoken in ancient Israel, which it hasn't been since atleast 500 BCE. In the interim period, 'Hebrew' as a language was not used in the region.
 
fingolfin361 said:
There no doubt was an ancient 'Israel', with a primarily Jewish population. That said, the present day Jews, are a RELIGIOUS group, not a race/ethnic group as such. The populations of White and Black Jews found in Israel and abroad are NOT of the same ethnic stock as the Semetic people of the Bible.

Saying that they deserve the lands of present day Israel is like saying every Muslim in the World has a right to govern Saudi Arabia.

The origins of the Biblical Jews was somewhere in Babylon, which is modern Iraq. Would you say, they deserve a piece of Iraq as well?

Also, the Modern Hebrew language is not a language that naturally developed, but was a language engineered primarily from liturgical Hebrew, to create a common language with Relegious significance for the Zionist movement and the future state of Israel.
This was primarily done through the efforts of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda. Also this language is probably significantly different from when Hebrew was spoken in ancient Israel, which it hasn't been since atleast 500 BCE. In the interim period, 'Hebrew' as a language was not used in the region.
Click to expand...

Just like every other society on Earth, there are many races of Man mixed in the makeup of that society. When the Romans drove the Jews from Israel, they scattered to many countries in the East and West. You can't say there is a pure race anymore but certain unique characteristics are still present in semi-closed societies such as the prevalence of Tay Sachs Syndrome in Jewish people. I don't think that particular disorder has shown up in the non Jewish societies. Just because a person converts to Judaism and moves to Israel to embrace the way of life as well as the religion doesn't mean they are less Israeli than those whose ancestors have lived in the area for 3300 years.

As for the languages spoken by ancient Jews, Aramaic was probably more prevalent. Israel was occupied many times in it's history so there were changes such as the birth of Christianity during Roman occupation. The Jewish society you see in modern Israel is Muslim, Christian, Orthodox Jews, Hasidic Jews, and many different types of races who embrace different forms of the Jewish religion. Modern Israel is more like the American society of today, separate but one.

As for the modern artificial borders, there were so many changes through the years that who can say where their country was 5000 years ago? There are no maps from that era, just archaelogical evidence scattered over the Middle East.

By the way, if we don't stay on the topic, I'll have to move this to a different, more appropriate thread.
 
Last edited:
Missileer said:
Just like every other society on Earth, there are many races of Man mixed in the makeup of that society. When the Romans drove the Jews from Israel, they scattered to many countries in the East and West. You can't say there is a pure race anymore but certain unique characteristics are still present in semi-closed societies such as the prevalence of Tay Sachs Syndrome in Jewish people. I don't think that particular disorder has shown up in the non Jewish societies. Just because a person converts to Judaism and moves to Israel to embrace the way of life as well as the religion doesn't mean they are less Israeli than those whose ancestors have lived in the area for 3300 years.

As for the languages spoken by ancient Jews, Aramaic was probably more prevalent. Israel was occupied many times in it's history so there were changes such as the birth of Christianity during Roman occupation. The Jewish society you see in modern Israel is Muslim, Christian, Orthodox Jews, Hasidic Jews, and many different types of races who embrace different forms of the Jewish religion. Modern Israel is more like the American society of today, separate but one.

As for the modern artificial borders, there were so many changes through the years that who can say where their country was 5000 years ago? There are no maps from that era, just archaelogical evidence scattered over the Middle East.

By the way, if we don't stay on the topic, I'll have to move this to a different, more appropriate thread.
Click to expand...

Yeah, first off move threads if u think its appropriate.

Most of your points i have to agree with, but i feel they are kinda contradictory to the earlier post.
That said, I dont feel they are substantial enough to give a sort of moral right for the creation of Israel. Let me also add that I am basically a neutral, and bring this up for arguments sake- Israel IS a nation, and thats the way it is.

One point i didnt get...what do you mean the JEWISH population is MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN etc... thats a contradiction. Also, im not sure if later in that sentence you meant to imply that the aforementioned muslims, christians etc. were races.....since they are religious denominations, not racial.

Anyway, I generally tend to blame Britain for the mess, they really didnt do a good job in sorting out and dividing the Mandate before they left. Like i said somewhere else, we live with the consequences of similar British colonial rashness and disregard in South Asia even today.
 
fingolfin361 said:
Yeah, first off move threads if u think its appropriate.

Most of your points i have to agree with, but i feel they are kinda contradictory to the earlier post.
That said, I dont feel they are substantial enough to give a sort of moral right for the creation of Israel. Let me also add that I am basically a neutral, and bring this up for arguments sake- Israel IS a nation, and thats the way it is.

One point i didnt get...what do you mean the JEWISH population is MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN etc... thats a contradiction. Also, im not sure if later in that sentence you meant to imply that the aforementioned muslims, christians etc. were races.....since they are religious denominations, not racial.

Anyway, I generally tend to blame Britain for the mess, they really didnt do a good job in sorting out and dividing the Mandate before they left. Like i said somewhere else, we live with the consequences of similar British colonial rashness and disregard in South Asia even today.
Click to expand...

I've moved this to GENERAL CHIT CHAT for the time being.

"The Jewish society you see in modern Israel is Muslim, Christian, Orthodox Jews, Hasidic Jews, and many different types of races who embrace different forms of the Jewish religion."

I should have left out Jewish in that sentence, it makes more sense. And notice I said society because it's a broader term encompassing different religions and races.

"and many different types of races who embrace different forms of the Jewish religion."

I ran this together with all the different religions and people but it should be a different sentence. This was meant to be a response to your statement that Jews are a religion and not a race/ethnicity. I mean that there are Africans, Europeans, Far Easterners, Middle Easteners, and so on who worship under the Hebrew faith and many consider their race to be descendants of one of the twelve tribes of Israel. There is an African sect who contend that they are as much Jewish as the people who trace their lineage to Abraham and his Sons Isaac and Jacob.

I believe that during the time when the twelve tribes of Israel were a closed society, marriage outside the faith was forbidden by the Patriarchs. At that time, there may have been a bloodline traceable to the original tribes due to intermarriage. That doesn't make them a particular race, just a closed society.

As far as a moral right to the land of Israel, Jews believed that they were a people chosen by God to take the area which is now Israel by killing every person in every tribe that were there before them. So there were people there before it became the "promised land" of the Hebrews.
 
Of course :roll:

The Jewish Israeli presence in Israel and Palestine is well documented to at least 3,000 years ago if not much more. However strong or weak that claim is, it is far superior to the current rivals - Arab Muslims - for the same land and capital (Jerusalem), who in religious terms arrived in the 600's AD and whose cultural arrival is too difficult to trace as you would expect for nomads.

When Israeli Jews or Jewish Israeli's were absent from the Holy Lands this was due to exile and displacement by force from foreign powers beit Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Babylon, etc.

Who were the Arab and or Muslim rivals to the same lands of King Saul, David or Solomon? There were plenty of Middle Eastern and northern African enemies. There were plenty of supressors from Europe. But none who claimed original ownership of the territory we now call Israel / Palestine.

For me, I see a strong analogy between Israel and Northern Ireland. The original natives - Jews in Israel and native Irish Catholics in Ulster are in a contest with Arab Muslims and descendents of Scottish / English Protestants repectively. The latter being "Jonny come latelies" to the land they want to take - or have seized - from the original inhabitants.

The ideal is for every human being to live in peace with their neighbour, but when Iran's President says publically he wants to obliterate Israel and Hezbola - backed by Syria - plans and executes rocket launches into Israel from what was the safety of Lebanon, I can't blame Israel for defending herself in the will to survive.

War crimes by Israel notwithstanding - and I think we have two examples in Lebanon so far - I support Israel's right to exist as a nation and to defend her people.

I recognise the longivety of the Israeli's existence in Israel / Palestine and in Jerusalem, as far superior to any other race or religion. They should be left to live in peace in the land that is rightly theirs.
 
Whether the Arabs and Palestinians will accept it or not doesn't matter, fact is that for 58 years the modern day Israel has been in existance, I think this is long enough for Israel to safely be considered a nation equal among it's peers on the world stage. It would be like someone in 1830's England questioning whether the United States had the right to exist. Of course we did, we kicked the Brits out of our country in 1776-83 and we fought them to a stand-still in 1812-15. We had earned our right to exist and the rest of the world was forced to recognize that fact. Israel over the past 58 years has done the same thing yet we sit here today questioning her right to exist? There's a reason Israel attacks when faced with the option of attack or hope they don't get attacked, they can't afford to be wrong because their entire nation could be over-run in a matter of days if they don't constantly keep their enemies on their toes.
 
Padre, here's a bit of missileer's last post.

Missileer said:
As far as a moral right to the land of Israel, Jews believed that they were a people chosen by God to take the area which is now Israel by killing every person in every tribe that were there before them. So there were people there before it became the "promised land" of the Hebrews.
Click to expand...

Btw, how much of Modern Israel correlates to the borders of the Ancient Hebrew kingdoms?
 
Last edited:
Damien435 said:
Whether the Arabs and Palestinians will accept it or not doesn't matter, fact is that for 58 years the modern day Israel has been in existence, I think this is long enough for Israel to safely be considered a nation equal among it's peers on the world stage. It would be like someone in 1830's England questioning whether the United States had the right to exist. Of course we did, we kicked the Brits out of our country in 1776-83 and we fought them to a stand-still in 1812-15. We had earned our right to exist and the rest of the world was forced to recognize that fact. Israel over the past 58 years has done the same thing yet we sit here today questioning her right to exist? There's a reason Israel attacks when faced with the option of attack or hope they don't get attacked, they can't afford to be wrong because their entire nation could be over-run in a matter of days if they don't constantly keep their enemies on their toes.
Click to expand...
Damien - First off, U.S. history was obviously not that simple. Britain's lack of success holding on to her colonies cannot be attributed to the efforts of the rag tag militia of the colonists by themselves. There was a great deal of aid supplied both directly and indirectly to the colonists from Britain's European foes such as France and Spain looking to secure or regain their claims in the New World and looking to expand their own spheres of influence in the world as a whole.
The same players (Britain and France) vied for control of trade in the years subsequent to the War of 1812. In fact, the declaration of war on Britain (Pres. Calhoun, 1812) was made after Britain had revoked the very orders that America feared would lead to its own economic ruin.
More On The War of 1812
Similar situations have existed in modern conflicts such as Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the struggle in the Middle East as it is today. I don't think you'd have to look to deeply to see that the conflict has wider implications and participants by proxy than just Israel and Hezbollah. Each faction has its own supporters in the world at large.
To address the question of this thread, "Should Israel Be A Nation", my opinion is that it is virtually a moot question. Israel is a nation and as such, retains the right of any other nation to defend itself. The Jewish claim to a country is certainly Biblical. The probable source of much on the conflict is found by some in the same texts.
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"In one of the most solemn declarations of all time the Almighty God promised to give to Abraham an entire country. On a mountain top somewhere between Bethel and Ai, in the land of Canaan, God commanded "the Father of the faithful" (Rom. 4:16) to "look from the place where you are, northward, southward, eastward and westward: For the entire land you are looking at I will give to you and to your descendants for ever" (Gen. 13:14, 15). As an additional assurance of God's gift to him, God then instructed Abraham to "arise, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I will give it to you" (v. 17). "[/SIZE][/FONT]
On the other hand, followers of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all look to Abraham as the grandfather of their faith.
"In the book of Genesis, common to both Jews and Christians, is found the story of Abraham. His first son, Ishmael, was illegitimate, born of the maidservant Hagar. His second son, Isaac, born of his wife Sarah, was to be Abraham's heir. God spoke to Abraham and told him that the Promised Land would be given over to his children. This is the major source of religious contention in the Arab/Israeli conflict in the Holy Land today. Jewish Israelis and Muslim Palestinians both claim the same land as given to them by God." Source
Obviously, this conflict has deep roots.​
 
DTop said:
Jewish claim to a country is certainly Biblical....
Click to expand...

Maybe im misunderstanding the way you want to use the word biblical, but you must realise, that the Bible means squat to non- CHristians/Jews.
Arabs are overwhelmingly a majority Muslim society. Muslims aren't Christians/Jews.

Meaning, no disrespect to the Bible, but maybe thats why (me not being Christian/Jewish) I can see the whole issue differently.
 
The Judeo/Christian Bible is quoted throughout the Qur'an. The Prophets and Angels are the same. There were some changes when the existing Bible, or Torah of the Hebrews was interpreted and rewritten by Muhammad.

http://www.allaboutreligion.org/origin-of-islam.htm



Origin of Islam: According to Secular History
The origin of Islam can be traced back to 7th century Saudi Arabia. Islam is thus the youngest of the great world religions. The prophet Muhammad (circa 570-632 A.D.) introduced Islam in 610 A.D. after experiencing what he claimed to be an angelic visitation. Muhammad dictated the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam, which Muslims believe to be the preexistent, perfect words of Allah.

The Origin of Islam: The "Previous Scriptures"
The origin of Islam is controversial. The "previous scriptures" mentioned above are the Hebrew Torah, the Psalms of David, and the Gospels of Jesus Christ (Sura 4:163; 5:44-48). The Qur'an accepts these books as divinely inspired and even encourages us to test its claims by these "previous scriptures." "If you have any doubt regarding what is revealed to you from your Lord, then ask those who read the previous scripture" (Sura 10:94). But this is where we run into a problem. The problem is that the Qur'an thoroughly contradicts the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels. For example, the Qur'an explicitly denies Jesus Christ's crucifixion (Sura 4:157-158) while all four Gospel accounts clearly portray Jesus Christ as crucified and resurrected.

One contradiction in particular has caused a great deal of conflict between Muslims and ethnic Jews and is thought to have been and continues to be the cause of much bloodshed in the Middle East. According to the Hebrew Torah, God made a covenant with a man named Abraham. God promised Abraham a child through whom He would fulfill this covenant ("the child of promise," Genesis 15). Abraham was at that time childless. His wife, Sarah, was barren. This of course made the promise very special to Abraham. But it would require nothing less than a miracle. Sarah, conscious of her condition, decided to help God out. She offered her maidservant Hagar to Abraham with the hope that Hagar might conceive and bare the child of promise. Abraham agreed to take Hagar as his concubine. She conceived and bore Ishmael (Genesis 16). God allowed Ishmael to be born but Ishmael was not the child of promise God had in mind (Genesis 17). God promised a child through Sarah, not Hagar (Genesis 17-18), and in due time God fulfilled His promise. "And the Lord visited Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did for Sarah as He had spoken. For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him-whom Sarah bore to him-isaac." (Genesis 21:1-3) Isaac was the child of promise. Isaac later begot Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes of Israel, and the Messiah, Jesus Christ, eventually came into the world through the nation of Israel, fulfilling the covenant which God had made with Abraham. God also promised to give the land of Canaan (Palestine) to Isaac's descendants, the land which Israel possesses today (Genesis 12:4-7; 13:12-18; 15:1-21; 17:1-22; 21:1-14; 25:19-26; 26:1-6; 35:9-12).

The problem is that the Qur'an teaches that Ishmael was the child of promise (Sura 19:54; compare Sura 37:83-109 with Genesis 22:1-19) and so Muslims believe that God's covenant promises were meant for Ishmael's descendants, not Isaac's. Muhammad descended from Ishmael and so Muslims seek to lay claim to these covenant promises, namely the land of Palestine. Since Israel's U.N.-sanctioned return to Palestine in 1948 there has been unceasing hostility between Israel and her Arab neighbors, with major armed conflicts in 1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1973-74, and 1982. That Israel remains today is a miracle in-and-of itself.
 
Missileer said:
The Judeo/Christian Bible is quoted throughout the Qur'an. The Prophets and Angels are the same. There were some changes when the existing Bible, or Torah of the Hebrews was interpreted and rewritten by Muhammad.
Click to expand...


While the core beliefs of the Abrahamic religions are similar, and that earlier religious beliefs heavily influenced later ones (Islam), i dont think it would be right to say that the Bible is quoted in the Koran, or to call the Koran anindividual interpretation or a re-write of the Bible/Torah. Especially since tradition holds that the Prophet Muahammed was illeterate. Modern research into this, while yielding various conclusions, is not strong enough to support the claim that you have made. If i were a Musalman, I would probably be very offended.

The Angels of Christianity are not the prphets of Islam. Islam has very close parallels to the angels of Christianity ( not exactly the same though), and the Prophets are something else altogether.
Nuslims believe that all societies have at some point recieved a Prophet at some point in time. The named prophets include Muhammed, as well as various Judeao-Christian figures, notably like Jesus and Moses. (the Da Vinci Code was banned in Pakistan on the basis that Christ is a prophet, though prejudiced as I may be, i feel it was the paki govt. pussy-footing around over nothing that would have made a difference anyway, while they really should be trying to stop their terrorists bombing our trains.)

Anyway, that said, all i was tryna say earlier is that, despite all the religious similiarities etc, if you tell a Muslim Arab (maybe even a Christian Arab for that matter) that a nation of people from other parts of the world should be set up on his lands, because the Bible says so, he really won't be convinced.
 
fingolfin361 said:
Maybe im misunderstanding the way you want to use the word biblical, but you must realise, that the Bible means squat to non- CHristians/Jews.
Arabs are overwhelmingly a majority Muslim society. Muslims aren't Christians/Jews.

Meaning, no disrespect to the Bible, but maybe thats why (me not being Christian/Jewish) I can see the whole issue differently.
Click to expand...
Meaning no disrespect to you, it's really quite simple, the word Biblical means that it can be found in the Bible! BTW, the Bible means a great deal to Jews and as Missileer said the Bible is certainly not discounted by Muslims by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Last edited:
no, what i meant was the implication of the word-

biblical implying religious mandate, or biblical implying records from biblical times
:p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a good question - who the h*ll do we think we are to question whether Israel 'should' be a state?

After the holocaust, the Jews of the world said "Never again." ... the result was the creation of a country they could call their own ... and ... whether you are anti-semitic or not, the fact remains that Israel has become the beacon for Jews the world round and all of your discussions and diatribes will not change that. By the way, I am NOT Jewish ... but ... I have to agree with the Jews of the world "Never again". The sum of my life experiences cry out against ANY country or group that has as it's goal, the extinction of a country or group because of any sane (or) irrational reason.
 
fingolfin361 said:
Anyway, that said, all i was tryna say earlier is that, despite all the religious similiarities etc, if you tell a Muslim Arab (maybe even a Christian Arab for that matter) that a nation of people from other parts of the world should be set up on his lands, because the Bible says so, he really won't be convinced.
Click to expand...

Then explain this.
God promised Abraham a child through whom He would fulfill this covenant ("the child of promise," Genesis 15). Abraham was at that time childless. His wife, Sarah, was barren. This of course made the promise very special to Abraham. But it would require nothing less than a miracle. Sarah, conscious of her condition, decided to help God out. She offered her maidservant Hagar to Abraham with the hope that Hagar might conceive and bare the child of promise. Abraham agreed to take Hagar as his concubine. She conceived and bore Ishmael (Genesis 16). God allowed Ishmael to be born but Ishmael was not the child of promise God had in mind (Genesis 17). God promised a child through Sarah, not Hagar (Genesis 17-1:cool:, and in due time God fulfilled His promise. "And the Lord visited Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did for Sarah as He had spoken. For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him-whom Sarah bore to him-isaac." (Genesis 21:1-3) Isaac was the child of promise. Isaac later begot Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes of Israel, and the Messiah, Jesus Christ, eventually came into the world through the nation of Israel, fulfilling the covenant which God had made with Abraham. God also promised to give the land of Canaan (Palestine) to Isaac's descendants, the land which Israel possesses today (Genesis 12:4-7; 13:12-18; 15:1-21; 17:1-22; 21:1-14; 25:19-26; 26:1-6; 35:9-12).

The Jews claim they sprang from Isaac and the Muslims claim they sprang from Ishmael. Both are Abraham's Sons and that is believed by both religions. So what we have is a very tangled family fight over which of Abraham's Sons were the Promised One.
 
A family fight ... what an interesting thought. All of the death and destruction because the descendants of two brothers can't get along. Maybe they both need to go visit a family counselor ... how ironic.
 
Missileer said:
The Jews claim they sprang from Isaac and the Muslims claim they sprang from Ishmael. Both are Abraham's Sons and that is believed by both religions. So what we have is a very tangled family fight over which of Abraham's Sons were the Promised One.
Click to expand...


Actually they claim that Muhammed was a direct descendant of Ishmael, not that they as a people are- which would be strange, considering the strong emphasis on conversion.


Ok, as far as i gather, the Arab stand on the 'Israel problem' is, atleast in its purest form, more social than religious... it was a big deal that their lands were being given to outsiders, the fact that they are non-Muslim adds to that. If the outsiders were Muslim Persians or any other Muslims, there still would have been an outcry. The fact that the anti- Israel movement is now a fanatic Muslim movement is more like a natural progression, given that, after all it is easy to use religion, especially when the basis of your adversary (nation of Israel) is a religion (Judaism) other than yours. Given the rise of Islmaic extremism in the region, this is not surprising.
The Iranian stance is something unfathomable to me. I guess its just some sort of stupid issue that the govt. uses to keep its people happy (a la Nazi Germany and the Jews). The only real issue i can see them having is like something from the Crusades, with the Holy City being held by non- Muslims, or some such nonsense. Like, I was talking to a couple of Arab guys i know, and these are typical Arabs, anti- Israel and the like, and they said, they really don't understand why Iran has a problem with the whole issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top