So why do people hate Israel? - Page 163




 
--
 
December 30th, 2013  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Yep, I reckon you have made a sensible choice.
I really wanted to get into some of this though but the upshot is the “Jewish people” were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. It is not clear when exactly Judaism as a religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm form. It appears to have been a late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE.

There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 10 plagues & etc. Jews and Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside Palestine.

Archeology does not show the existence of a Jewish kingdom or kingdoms in the so-called First Temple Period, it is not clear when exactly the Jewish people would have ruled Jerusalem except for the Hasmonean Kingdom.

The Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 722. The Babylonians took it in 597 and ruled it until they were themselves conquered in 539 BCE by the Achaemenids of ancient Iran, who ruled Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took the Levant in the 330s BCE. Alexander’s descendants, the Ptolemies ruled Jerusalem until 198 when Alexander’s other descendants, the Seleucids, took the city. With the Maccabean Revolt in 168 BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom did rule Jerusalem until 37 BCE, though Antigonus II Mattathias, the last Hasmonean, only took over Jerusalem with the help of the Parthian dynasty in 40 BCE. Herod ruled 37 BCE until the Romans conquered what they called Palestine in 6 CE.

The Romans and then the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium ruled Jerusalem from 6 CE until 614 CE when the Iranian Sasanian Empire Conquered it, ruling until 629 CE when the Byzantines took it back.

The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638 and ruled it until 1099 when the Crusaders conquered it. The Crusaders killed or expelled Jews and Muslims from the city. The Muslims under Saladin took it back in 1187 CE and allowed Jews to return, and Muslims ruled it until the end of World War I, or altogether for about 1200 years.

So basically if you accept that it wasnt Jews that built Jerusalem given that Jerusalem has been in existence about 3000 years longer than Judaism has I think this is a fairly obvious claim you have:
- Jewish rule of Jerusalem about 160-170 years
- Muslim rule for about 1200 years.
- Egyptian rule for and unknown period but certainly at least several hundred years.
- Greek/Byzantine rule for about 400 years.
- Roman rule for around 450 years.
- Iranian rule for about 220 years.
- Iraq for an unknown period due to Assyrian and Babylonian invasions.

I am also reading a couple of papers which claim Jerusalem was not inhabited between 1000 and 900 BCE which would indicate that Jerusalem can not be the city of David but I havent finished those yet.

But lets face it who needs archeology, research, peer review or fact when you can just make up a history, still I guess I should be thanking VD for keeping this topic alive as I have learned a lot about the region thanks to the fun in countering his arguments unfortunately nothing of what I have read seems to support his argument.

It would also seem that the regions of Israel and Judea were regions of Palestine comprising about one third of the land mass Israel covers currently and don't you think it is odd that we have dates, times and names of all these kingdoms, leaders, invasions and defeats yet we have nothing but a couple of religious books which themselves have no archeological or written validation to tell us of the great David and co.
December 30th, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
You have obviously been a lot more thorough than I ever have Monty.

I could never see the value in delving deeper, when even the most superficial and obvious evidence is more than enough to disprove 99.9% of the Great Zionist lie.

Such simple things as, the followers of a delusional Russian nut job, who considered himself to be an Atheist, basing their claims to this so called "Homeland" on an alleged religious "Right". The left hand has no idea of what the right hand is doing.
December 30th, 2013  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
You have obviously been a lot more thorough than I ever have Monty.

I could never see the value in delving deeper, when even the most superficial and obvious evidence is more than enough to disprove 99.9% of the Great Zionist lie.

Such simple things as, the followers of a delusional Russian nut job, who considered himself to be an Atheist, basing their claims to this so called "Homeland" on an alleged religious "Right". The left hand has no idea of what the right hand is doing.
That is possibly true but if you do not look at the problem in its entirety you can never fully understand it.

I am relatively fortunate that my job gives me access to many of the research libraries which makes it fairly easy to get information but for the most part I can't be arsed doing it however VD's persistence has made me arsed.

Take Exodus, just the knowledge that the time frame for building the pyramids being out destroys the validity of the book, back that with the now accepted fact that tradesmen built them not slaves and it really is a "hit and sunk" case and without Exodus where does that put Israeli history?

Reinforce that with the fact that no where is Moses listed as an Egyptian Prince in a world where they recorded everything down to the last detail and things grow even more shaky. The destruction of the biblical narrative is imperative to bringing about change in the way the two sides are seen in this conflict.

Basically I think if this fairy tale is to be destroyed we now have not just a realistic vision to do it from but actual archeological proof to aid in its destruction and if there is one thing I love doing it is ferreting out fact from fiction.

In the end the only defense left will be "faith" based and faith is something you cling to in the absence of empirical evidence which does not stand up in court.
--
December 31st, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
I dunno who said it, but someone once supposedly stated that "Faith is what we fall back on when the facts and logic fail to provide the answer we want",... or words to that effect.

To me (as you well realise), the truth about the whole matter is so glaringly obvious that I find "deep research" to be just an exercise in time wasting and over kill. At some stage or another I have read most of the pertinent evidence and can't be bothered looking for it again merely to quote it verbatim. Also by giving Hasbara Trolls like VD too much detail, they merely fcuk you about with semantics and endless disputes over the meaning of every single word and phrase, hoping that they can avoid admitting you are correct, and will eventually forget what your original point was, and that you had the obvious answer to the whole issue in a nut shell.

This then allows them the opportunity to re-present their point hoping your answer may be different,... the old "Merry Go Round Principle" that all these nut cases seem to fall back on.
December 31st, 2013  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
I dunno who said it, but someone once supposedly stated that "Faith is what we fall back on when the facts and logic fail to provide the answer we want",... or words to that effect.

To me (as you well realise), the truth about the whole matter is so glaringly obvious that I find "deep research" to be just an exercise in time wasting and over kill. At some stage or another I have read most of the pertinent evidence and can't be bothered looking for it again merely to quote it verbatim. Also by giving Hasbara Trolls like VD too much detail, they merely fcuk you about with semantics and endless disputes over the meaning of every single word and phrase, hoping that they can avoid admitting you are correct, and will eventually forget what your original point was, and that you had the obvious answer to the whole issue in a nut shell.

This then allows them the opportunity to re-present their point hoping your answer may be different,... the old "Merry Go Round Principle" that all these nut cases seem to fall back on.
hehe I am a very pedantic person and not easily dragged off target something that used to irratate the hell out of my math teachers.

Basiclly the one thing I have learned (although don't always follow) is that when you have to repeat yourself, don't and then you can not be dragged down dead end alleys.

The advantage of "deep research" may not always be apparent as nothing anyone says here will change the other sides mind, I know that, you know that and VD knows that but it may affect others looking for answers and if you are the one with the better facts then it may sway them.

I suspect this is what you alluded to earlier?
Highlight: Out of Khazaria—Evidence for “Jewish Genome” Lacking

Hebrew language and Jewish culture have been around for thousands of years. For much of that history, the Jews managed to maintain their heritage and cultural identity in the absence of a geographical state. Wanderings, settlements, and dispersal were thus a big part of their history. Is evidence for that history preserved in genome data?
Eran Elhaik, a geneticist at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, thinks so. In a recently published study in Genome Biology Evolution (Elhaik 2012), he is calling for a rewrite of commonly held assumptions about Jewish ancestry. Instead of being primarily the descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel, present-day Jewish populations are, finds Elhaik, primarily the children of a Turkish people who lived in what is now Russia, north of Georgia, east of Ukraine. This civilization, the Khazars, converted from tribal religions to Judaism between the 7th and 9th centuries.
The controversy cut into by Elhaik's work runs deep, far past the lab bench. Among some circles, his conclusions are bound to be unpopular. “This is the first scientific paper to prove the Khazarian Hypothesis and reject the Rhineland Hypothesis,” he says, “and with it about 40 years of research.” Although his findings will not be welcome in all circles, Elhaik's interest is more medical than political.
“All I want is to help my colleagues who are studying genetic disorders,” he says. “I hope this work will open up a new era in genetic studies where population stratification will be used more correctly.”
Jewish populations are used in many disease studies because of their presumed genetic homogeny. Some conditions, such as Tay–Sachs disease, are more common among select Jewish populations than other populations. However, Elhaik says, the acceptance of a flawed origin narrative is hampering the best science.
For several decades, two hypothetical backgrounds of present-day European Jews have seemed plausible to historians and geneticists. In the favored “Rhineland Hypothesis,” Jews descended from Israelite–Canaanite tribes who left the Holy Land for Europe in the seventh century, following the Muslim conquest of Palestine. Then, in the beginning of the 15th century, a group of approximately 50,000 left Germany, the Rhineland, for the east. There they reproduced rapidly, in a kind of “hyper–baby boom.” Their breeding outpaced their non-Jewish neighbors by an order of magnitude—despite disease, persecutions, wars, and economic hardship—ballooning to approximately 8 million strong by the 20th century. Under this history, European Jews would be very similar to each other and would have Middle Eastern ancestry.
Several scholars prefer the “Khazarian Hypothesis,” Elhaik included. This suggests the Jewish-convert Khazars, with reinforcements from Mesopotamian and Greco-Roman Jews, formed the basis of Eastern Europe's Jewish population when they fled northeast, following the collapse of their empire at the 13th century.
Elhaik first became fascinated by this idea 10 years ago when reading Arthur Koestler best-selling book The Thirteenth Tribe, published in 1976. Koestler calculated that Jews could not have numbered 8 million in Eastern Europe without the Khazar contribution. Upon reading his ideas, “I couldn’t wait for genetic data that would allow someone to publish an evaluation of this hypothesis,” says Elhaik.
When Behar et al. published “The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people” in 2010, Elhaik decided to investigate the question that had intrigued him for so long. Using data published by Behar, he calculated seven measures of ancestry, relatedness, and geographical origin. Though he used some of the same statistical tests as prior studies, he chose different comparisons.
“Results in the current literature are tangled,” Elhaik says. “Everyone is basically following the same assumption: Ashkenazi Jews are a population isolate, so they are all similar to one another, and this is completely incorrect.”
Previous studies had, for example, combined the question of similarity among and between Jewish populations and the question of ancestry and relatedness to non-Jewish populations. Elhaik viewed these questions separately. Jewish communities are less homogeneous than is popularly thought, he says, with Jewish communities along the former Khazarian border showing the most heterogeneity.
His second question centered on ancestry: When comparing Jewish communities to their non-Jewish neighbors, Caucasus or Levant (Middle Eastern) populations—which is the closest to Jews? “All Eurasian Jewish communities are closer to Caucasus populations,” he writes, with Central European Jews closer to Italian non-Jews as the exception. Not one of the eight evaluated Jewish populations were closer to Levant populations.
“I had the hardest time clearing myself from the mindset (of previous work),” Elhaik says. “I was on the train, thinking hard, when it came to me how to separate the questions. It was a great moment.” However, it would be a mistake, Elhaik says, to conclude present-day Jews have nothing to do with the ancient Judeans. “I found a signature of the Middle East. I’m not certain whether it suggests Judean or Iranian ancestry, but it's there.” Iranian, as well as Judean, Jews began joining the Khazarian empire as early as the 5th century B.C.E. “It might be strange given today's political situation, but it makes a lot of historical sense.”
For Shlomo Sand, history professor at Tel Aviv University and author of the controversial book The Invention of the Jewish People, Elhaik's paper was a vindication of his long-held ideas.
"It's so obvious for me," says Sand. “Some people, historians and even scientists, turn a blind eye to the truth. Once to say Jews were a race was anti-Semitic, now to say they're not a race is anti-Semitic. It's crazy how history plays with us.“
“There is no Jewish genome and certainly no Jewish gene,” says the Israeli-born Elhaik. Instead, all humans are a mix of the same building blocks, built with slightly different architectures. “The confusion about European Jews results from their tragic history of persecutions and deportations, creating multiple links between ancestry and geography. By dismantling our notions of genetically distinct populations and understanding our kinship, we can better appreciate our common history, and more importantly, our shared future.“

http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/75.full
December 31st, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
Yep, that's a small part of it I tried to read the whole report and must admit that much of the deeper material went right over my head,... even though references to other supporting works were there. The fact being that I never had the time nor inclination to read them as with the work having had a number of favourable peer reviews by persons and groups much more knowledgeable than I am, I accepted that what was said was the truth or as near to it as one could get.

The Addendum with all of the diagrams and graphical representations took more time than enough.

Perhaps had I have been one of those knowledgeable enough in their respective fields to make a valued judgement I would have followed up all the links and references. In short there was plenty of easily available and understandable info there to make it more than credible.

I did particularly like the fact that it vindicated virtually all of the earlier work by Shlomo Sand, whose book was very controversial, but in fact no one had been able to significantly disprove. My main reason for liking that book was that unlike so much other research, it's findings were logical and debunked the religious claptrap.
December 31st, 2013  
MontyB
 
 
Having read some of his paper I am not entirely convinced primarily because he makes an assumption that isn't proven in that Armenians can be substituted for Khazars by virtue of geographic location and that is a fairly big leap to make without proof (I am not saying it can not be proven just that he hasn't proven it).

However his biggest critic is Harry Ostrer who has written papers validating the Jewish narrative but Ostrer has problems as well in that he has not released his data just his findings which from a scientific point of view is a big red flag where as Elhaik has made his data available.

I havent read anything of Shlomo Sand in fact this is the first I have heard of him but it may be worth looking into.
December 31st, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
From what I can understand, Shlomo Sand as a Professor of History at Tel Aviv's went to print because in his research he just kept running into details relating to the "Jewish people" that were often illogical and usually totally unsupported by any credible research.

The resulting book is recognised as a Historical work and is the most translated Jewish Historical work ever printed. Although it is much debated, none of his detractors have really dented the intent of the narrative. It opens up a whole new can of worms regarding the alleged and very contentious "Jewish gene". Sand himself remains an avid supporter of Israel and as such has no personal axe to grind.

The fact that this latest work by Elhaik supports much of Sands findings only adds strength to both findings.
December 31st, 2013  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
You never answered my post, instead jumping to an entirely different subject, which as usual has been dealt with on several earlier occasions.

There is no need to provide evidence of an earlier Palestinian State as it has no bearing on this matter. If you are after answers regarding this subject I suggest that you re-read all of the earlier material already discussed regarding this deliberate repetition.
Again the usual BS. Lots of empty words and no facts. It's the same as saying blablablabla.

The reason why you avoid giving facts is because you don't have them. They don't exist!

And why must the Jews give proof of their historical claim (which they have BTW and which is endorsed by the international community - see the Palestine mandate which does not mention Palestinians at all) and your beloved "Palestinians" not, which they don't have BTW.
Jerusalem never has been a capital od any Arab state, let alone a "Palestinian" one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
So I take it from your reply that you can not disprove what I said?
Now on to Mohammads claims that he flew to Jerusalem in a night, nope don't believe that either (see when it comes to religion I am an equal opportunities hater) but the lunacy of his story doesn't make Jewish fairy tales anymore real does it.

So we are left with the same argument we started with, given that both you and I agree that those now calling themselves Palestinians were originally descendants of Canaanites as were the Jews (I assume we both agree on this as you posted the DNA evidence that proved it) we have to determine who has a priority in terms of legitimacy:

1) The descendants of the original population who stayed in the region and over time changed religions and now call themselves Palestinians.
or
2) The descendants of the original population who left the region for 2000 years mostly voluntarily as there is no tangible proof (archeological or physical) of the Romans marching off an entire population from anywhere and who now feel like they should be able to go back and evict population 1.

For the record I back group 1.
I fully agree with you on the religious part, but you cannot deny that the Jewish one was first and in that region while the Muslim one came last and was from another region.

But you forget one thing, "Palestinians" are overwhelmingly Arab. That's what they called themselves as witnessed by governors of the British mandate. Those same governors had to admit they had no clue about the Arab (illegal) immigration only than that it was underestimated.

The people you mention are not the Arab "Palestinians" but Greek Orthodox Christians of the Byzantine Empire, together with Jews and Samaritans as two minorities (the Jews were a minority because they were not allowed to practise their religion). When the Arabs invaded the Christian empire they did not bring along Arab settlers. The first Arab immigrants came after the crusades when the Mamluk army massacred many Christians and drove away the ones who were able to flee. The ones who stayed had to face the the Black Death, and the economic situation, severely minimising the population in the region. Most Arabs immigrated when the Turks started their Tanzimat period to enhance the economy of the region and that's when the Arabs started to immigrate into the region. And those Arabs are the ancestors of the "Palestinians". The "Palestinians" are NOT Christians and Jews who converted to Islam or do you think that the Arab armies were very friendly to the Christian survivors when they beat the crusaders who massacred both Muslims and Jews living in what used to be Christian and Jewish cities?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I really wanted to get into some of this though but the upshot is the “Jewish people” were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. First of all, it is not clear when exactly Judaism as a religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm form. It appears to have been a late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE.
Nice copy and paste from Top Ten Reasons East Jerusalem does not belong to Jewish-Israelis

Are you saying that if the Jews cannot prove that they had a homeland 3000 years ago their historical claim to the land is invalid, while the ones you support cannot even prove their historical claim 200 years ago?
Was their ever evidence dug up from a lost "Palestinian" state?

Quote:
There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 10 plagues & etc. Jews and Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside Palestine.
Nice copy and paste from Top Ten Reasons East Jerusalem does not belong to Jewish-Israelis

Of course there was no invasion of Palestine in the 1200 BCE's, it did not exist then. And when the Jews emerged there was no Palestine either. You should give the real name of the land around that time like the Levant or the land of Canaan.

Quote:
Archeology does not show the existence of a Jewish kingdom or kingdoms in the so-called First Temple Period, it is not clear when exactly the Jewish people would have ruled Jerusalem except for the Hasmonean Kingdom.
Aha! The recognition of a Jewish homeland long before there was any talk of Palestinians. The Hasmonean Kingdom!

Quote:
The Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 722. The Babylonians took it in 597 and ruled it until they were themselves conquered in 539 BCE by the Achaemenids of ancient Iran, who ruled Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took the Levant in the 330s BCE. Alexander’s descendants, the Ptolemies ruled Jerusalem until 198 when Alexander’s other descendants, the Seleucids, took the city. With the Maccabean Revolt in 168 BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom did rule Jerusalem until 37 BCE, though Antigonus II Mattathias, the last Hasmonean, only took over Jerusalem with the help of the Parthian dynasty in 40 BCE. Herod ruled 37 BCE until the Romans conquered what they called Palestine in 6 CE (CE= ‘Common Era’ or what Christians call AD)

The Romans and then the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium ruled Jerusalem from 6 CE until 614 CE when the Iranian Sasanian Empire Conquered it, ruling until 629 CE when the Byzantines took it back.
.

Nice copy and paste from Top Ten Reasons East Jerusalem does not belong to Jewish-Israelis

Here is mine, but I include the link.

Judea (Iudaea) was the Roman name for the Land of Israel during the heyday of the Roman Empire. This meant not only the area called Judea in Israel today; it included the whole area ruled and/or chiefly inhabited by Jews. We can see this usage in various writers in Latin and Greek of that period. Consider Pliny, Suetonius, and Tacitus in Latin, and Plutarch as well as the geographers Strabo and Ptolemy in Greek. Judea stretched along both sides of the Jordan and included, besides Judea proper, most of the coastal plain, Samaria, most of the Galilee, the Golan Heights of today and considerable land to the east of there (areas called in Latin Gaulanitis [=Golan], Batanaea [=Bashan], Auranitis [=Hawran], and Trachonitis). The Romans called this land as a whole Iudaea (from the Greek Ioudaia). The land was mainly inhabited by Jews and was ruled by Jews. Therefore, Lord Robert Cecil, acting British foreign secretary, was right to use the name Judea for the whole land in his famous remark: "Our wish is that Arabian countries shall be for the Arabs, Armenia for the Armenians, and Judea for the Jews" (December 2, 1917).


Quote:
The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638 and ruled it until 1099 when the Crusaders conquered it. The Crusaders killed or expelled Jews and Muslims from the city. The Muslims under Saladin took it back in 1187 CE and allowed Jews to return, and Muslims ruled it until the end of World War I, or altogether for about 1200 years.
Well, the original text says 1192 years instead of 1200. But there's something that you , and the writer of the article, forgot to mention. Jewish presence from at least 116BCE until today, or more than 2000 years!
And in all of those 1192 years the Muslims neglected to give your beloved Palestinians a homeland! They had to wait until 4 May 1994 to get their first homeland, thanks to the Jews who liberated the land from the Jordanians.
December 31st, 2013  
VDKMS
 
Part two:

Quote:
So basically if you accept that it wasnt Jews that built Jerusalem given that Jerusalem has been in existence about 3000 years longer than Judaism has I think this is a fairly obvious claim you have:
- Jewish rule of Jerusalem about 160-170 years
- Muslim rule for about 1200 years.
- Egyptian rule for and unknown period but certainly at least several hundred years.
- Greek/Byzantine rule for about 400 years.
- Roman rule for around 450 years.
- Iranian rule for about 220 years.
- Iraq for an unknown period due to Assyrian and Babylonian invasions.
Palestinian rule : O years.
You either divide the occupation years into religious rulers: Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Pagan, meaning the pagans win hands down.

Or you devide the occupation into societies or countries and you must split the Muslim rulers into Arabs, Kurds, Turks and others. Or you must admit that it IS about religion and then the Pagans were first, but they don't exist anymore. next are the Jews then the Christians and last the Muslims.

Quote:
I am also reading a couple of papers which claim Jerusalem was not inhabited between 1000 and 900 BCE which would indicate that Jerusalem can not be the city of David but I havent finished those yet.

But lets face it who needs archeology, research, peer review or fact when you can just make up a history.
You made this up?

Anyway, when we are talking about who owns the house then it is definitely not the one who lived there the most but the one who lived there first. Since the original ones are gone, it's the next in line, the Jews.

I wish both of you a happy and healthy 2014!
 


Similar Topics
Israel rightfully own the West Bank .
Israel strikes Beirut suburb, tightens blockade
A conversation with Iranian dissident (MUST READ)
Palestinians
American racism