Jump to content

change of conduct in USA administration towards Israel


ShaNDiaN
 Share

UN attitude towards Israel  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think the UN did justice with Israel under Obama's administration?

  2. 2. Do you think Trump will stand for Israel as he promised to in his campaign?



Recommended Posts

I'd like to hear all opinions on this matter.

I think Trump wants to be 'good' to Israel but can't find a way to do it. He promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but in his meeting with Netanyahu he said he does not think he will be able to do that anytime soon.

The only good thing he did so far IMO is nominating Nikki Haley to be the United States Ambassador to the UN, considering her attitude towards Israel and her strong belief that the UN did no justice with Israel, as can be shown in this article: http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/20/nikki-haley-slams-united-nations-for-anti-israeli-double-standards/

 

Do you think Trump will move the embassy to Jerusalem or not?

Do you think Trump will nominate more people who stand for Israel like Nikki Haley?

 

 

This used to be a subtopic in another post of mine which got locked, so I decided to open this by itself and give it its own place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I frankly hope that Trump has indeed clued into the fact that moving the embassy to Jerusalem is a beyond stupid move. Jerusalem is a mess. Even if you ignore the enormous problem that is the Israel v Palestine conflict, you still need to understand how absurdly convoluted Jerusalem is. There are shrines literally built on top of shrines from wildly different sects or even different religions. This is not an appropriate place for any sort of political maneuvering simply because of how symbolic and important it is to so many forms of religion. Ideally, I'd like to see Jerusalem turned into a kind of Vatican City, with a 3rd party, non-religious entity governing it as a city-state. The fact Israel keeps making claims to it is frankly ridiculous- they "follow" the terms of the extremely old drawings of the ME that created Israel back in WWI(I?) when it benefits them concerning Syria, but then they argue that said agreement is invalid when it shows them not controlling Jerusalem. They try to have it both ways, and that simply isn't how things work.

 

In regards to Nikki Haley, no, I don't. I mean he literally hasn't. Look at General Mattis, his Sec. of Defense. The guy is a genius when it comes to the Middle East, he knows his stuff down to a science. He understands what kinds of interventions are actually effective, the importance of allies, the dangers of Iran's leadership, and the crucial emphasis of obtaining friendship with the locals. He also is a strong supporter of the logical 2-state solution, obviously while emphasizing the importance of moderate leadership in Palestine. 

 

Frankly, Israel has become more and more extreme in recent years. They have always been a little "lax" about civil liberties (Just go to an airport there and you'll see the blatant profiling the agents are instructed to do), but it's gotten worse lately. This largely stems from paranoia about losing the identity of a "Jewish State". Their population has become more and more diluted in the past years, possibly due to the economic advances the country is making that you yourself cited. They either must accept this fact or face a reality in which they become more extreme in their policy of Jewish people above all, an enhancement that would further degrade all other citizens as a direct result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supporting Israel is supporting Western culture.

 

It's about time to stop favor alien culture over Western one. Supporting Israel is a good idea - no matter the words "Jews control the World!!!!". And I am writing it as an European, where in my homeland I feel like an alien because I like what's European more than what's non-European.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I frankly hope that Trump has indeed clued into the fact that moving the embassy to Jerusalem is a beyond stupid move. Jerusalem is a mess. Even if you ignore the enormous problem that is the Israel v Palestine conflict, you still need to understand how absurdly convoluted Jerusalem is. There are shrines literally built on top of shrines from wildly different sects or even different religions. This is not an appropriate place for any sort of political maneuvering simply because of how symbolic and important it is to so many forms of religion. Ideally, I'd like to see Jerusalem turned into a kind of Vatican City, with a 3rd party, non-religious entity governing it as a city-state. The fact Israel keeps making claims to it is frankly ridiculous- they "follow" the terms of the extremely old drawings of the ME that created Israel back in WWI(I?) when it benefits them concerning Syria, but then they argue that said agreement is invalid when it shows them not controlling Jerusalem. They try to have it both ways, and that simply isn't how things work.

 

In regards to Nikki Haley, no, I don't. I mean he literally hasn't. Look at General Mattis, his Sec. of Defense. The guy is a genius when it comes to the Middle East, he knows his stuff down to a science. He understands what kinds of interventions are actually effective, the importance of allies, the dangers of Iran's leadership, and the crucial emphasis of obtaining friendship with the locals. He also is a strong supporter of the logical 2-state solution, obviously while emphasizing the importance of moderate leadership in Palestine. 

 

Frankly, Israel has become more and more extreme in recent years. They have always been a little "lax" about civil liberties (Just go to an airport there and you'll see the blatant profiling the agents are instructed to do), but it's gotten worse lately. This largely stems from paranoia about losing the identity of a "Jewish State". Their population has become more and more diluted in the past years, possibly due to the economic advances the country is making that you yourself cited. They either must accept this fact or face a reality in which they become more extreme in their policy of Jewish people above all, an enhancement that would further degrade all other citizens as a direct result.

The country got more 'extreme' in the past few years because of the way it was treated by other countries and specifically the UN. A month (or so) ago the UN claimed Jewish people have no historic roots to Jerusalem, which is absolutely ridiculous. Bibi explained it well; "Saying Jews have no historic roots to Jerusalem is like saying China has no historic roots to the Great Wall of China".

About Jerusalem being a 'mess', that's true. However, the administration is the one responsible for this mess and it shouldn't have been like that. The only real issue regarding Jerusalem atm is Palestinian's vs. Jews as you said, but we are the one in-charge of the Temple Mount, and we (Jews) were the ones who let them keep whatever they got there without touching it, to keep peace within the area, but this may change if we keep being treated bad/unfair by the UN. Bibi may not be the one to build the third 3rd Temple, but I can assure you it will happen in a few years if the UN does not change its attitude towards Israel -- then, it will be a REAL MESS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The country got more 'extreme' in the past few years because of the way it was treated by other countries and specifically the UN. A month (or so) ago the UN claimed Jewish people have no historic roots to Jerusalem, which is absolutely ridiculous. Bibi explained it well; "Saying Jews have no historic roots to Jerusalem is like saying China has no historic roots to the Great Wall of China".

About Jerusalem being a 'mess', that's true. However, the administration is the one responsible for this mess and it shouldn't have been like that. The only real issue regarding Jerusalem atm is Palestinian's vs. Jews as you said, but we are the one in-charge of the Temple Mount, and we (Jews) were the ones who let them keep whatever they got there without touching it, to keep peace within the area, but this may change if we keep being treated bad/unfair by the UN. Bibi may not be the one to build the third 3rd Temple, but I can assure you it will happen in a few years if the UN does not change its attitude towards Israel -- then, it will be a REAL MESS

I'll break this down as I usually do on this subforum.

 

The country got more 'extreme' in the past few years because of the way it was treated by other countries and specifically the UN. A month (or so) ago the UN claimed Jewish people have no historic roots to Jerusalem, which is absolutely ridiculous

The racial profiling in airports I used as an example has been happening since the 1970s. The extremist tendencies have not sprung about in recent years thanks to "poor treatment" by the U.N. Further examples include the capture of Hebron by Israeli soldiers in 2002 and Benjamin Netanyahu's fiery and racist rhetoric and accusations that earned him re-election relatively recently.

 

Let's not skirt around what the UN was actually addressing, instead of using anecdotes. The UN was condemning plans by Israel to build ~11k settlements on the West Bank, in clear violation of international law and Palestine's pseudo-sovereignty. This is not the UN being racist, this is the UN very clearly addressing the unnecessary aggression that Israel is continuing to push towards Palestine. While obviously the phrase you mentioned was poor, that does not give Israel anymore justification to encroach further than they already have.

 

About Jerusalem being a 'mess', that's true. However, the administration is the one responsible for this mess and it shouldn't have been like that.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your wording, are you attempting to claim the Obama administration constructed ancient burial sites and temples in Jerusalem? When I refer to mess, and I thought I made this clear, I was referring to the incredible (and sometimes volatile) amalgamation of religious sects and religions that is Jerusalem's religious heritage.

 

The only real issue regarding Jerusalem atm is Palestinian's vs. Jews as you said, but we are the one in-charge of the Temple Mount, and we (Jews) were the ones who let them keep whatever they got there without touching it, to keep peace within the area, but this may change if we keep being treated bad/unfair by the UN.

Jerusalem was divided (unlawfully) into East and West Jerusalem by the Israeli people following the 6-Day War. This division completely ignored all entities excluding Israel, and thus is divided in such a way to serve Israel's interests. On top of this, the issue of Jerusalem has extended beyond this division as Israel is blatantly threatening to or in some cases is encroaching upon the terrority of West Jerusalem, violating the jurisdiction it established itself. This violation cannot be justified as "retribution" against the UN for "unfair" treatment for a number reasons. Firstly, it's illegal by Israel's own decree back in the 60s- it's not unfair for the UN to condemn violation of law. Secondly, one cannot threaten to violate international law because their feelings were hurt by the UN telling them to stop breaking the law.

 

Bibi may not be the one to build the third 3rd Temple, but I can assure you it will happen in a few years if the UN does not change its attitude towards Israel -- then, it will be a REAL MESS

Are you Jewish or Israeli? The 3rd Temple is explicitly not meant to be built because the Jewish people are supposed to be in a state of mourning following the 2nd Temple's destruction, a period that will be broken when Elijah returns to all of the Jewish people during the Seder. Wouldn't then Netanyhu's building of such a structure be explicitly un-Jewish? Not to mention you're just blatantly threatening people at the end. To quote a certain movie "We have skulls on our hats. Maybe we're the bad guys right now?"

 

EDIT: I would appreciate a response, but if you feel that's unwarranted I'll respect that. This thread is getting a bit of attention so I suppose I can understand not wanting to "take everyone on", so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supporting Israel is supporting Western culture.

 

It's about time to stop favor alien culture over Western one. Supporting Israel is a good idea - no matter the words "Jews control the World!!!!". And I am writing it as an European, where in my homeland I feel like an alien because I like what's European more than what's non-European.

hmmm ... that's interesting.

 

(1) Isreal is a jewish nation - which is in contradiction with to western culture, with favors seperation of church and state.

 

(2) You seem to complain about "feeling like an alien in your homeland" ... yet try to argue in favor of

  • Isreal trying to expand it's borders.

    ("feeling like an alien in your homeland"? Try "your homeland litterly not being your homeland anymore")

  • massive of immigration into the country (Aliyah)
I can only presume, that you haven't considered that 3 generations ago, the large majority of people living there were muslim (~75%). Now, they've become a small minority of only ~20%.

If anything, would think that the native arab population knows exactly what it means "feeling like an alien in your homeland".

 

 

Secondly, one cannot threaten to violate international law because their feelings were hurt by the UN telling them to stop breaking the law.

Captain Nitpick here. To be fair, one can. One shouldn't, but one can.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Supporting Israel is a good idea - no matter the words "Jews control the World!!!!". 

Funny that Israel always jump straight to this idea it's antisemitism the second they are criticised. 

I could criticise the Indonesian government and no-one would call me out on attacking the 87%+ Muslims.

But if I want to criticise Israel it's all "muh antisemitism" and Jews playing the victim card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read all the comments, while I do not agree with the vast majority of them, I am still taking them into consideration (always good to hear different opinions on the matter). I won't respond to each of the comments. If somebody wants to ask me something specific about the topic feel free to do so and I will try to respond.

 

Are you Jewish or Israeli?

I'm both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny that Israel always jump straight to this idea it's antisemitism the second they are criticised. 

I could criticise the Indonesian government and no-one would call me out on attacking the 87%+ Muslims.

But if I want to criticise Israel it's all "muh antisemitism" and Jews playing the victim card.

Will only reply to this comment above. I didn't know that being stabbed each day because of your beliefs, is called playing the victim card. Not only we do our best to not shoot 'palestinians' who are running with knifes towards our children and soldiers, we also give them treatment at our hospitals if they have been harmed. We give their children the best medical treatment they could have ever dreamed of, no middle-eastern country lives in a democracy like Israel, those people should be thankful they live here, they should be thankful we treat them nice after all they've done. In case you want to ask 'what medical treatment do you give their kids?' - Just a week ago 6 'palestinian' kids who were born deaf went in a surgery that the state paid for (that means Jews paid for it), which allowed them to hear for the first time, where can you see that on the American news? Nowhere. I have multiple examples to provide to prove you wrong. We play the 'victim card' because we are the victims. A few more small examples; we take injured people from Syria and give them medical treatment in our hospitals, we give the 'palestinians' guns to protect themselves in their cities (yes, the same gun they use to shoot us whenever they feel like it), we have no death penalty in the country, which means someone can literally shoot to death 100 of us, be arrested and then stay alive at our jail and get out in ש prisoner exchange deal (example; Gilad Shalit was captured by the enemy, and we returned 1000 prisoners for 1 of ours), the prisoners in jail get the best conditions -- BA (as crazy as it sounds), see their families and friends which they use to plan more terror attacks (they are not isolated), and so much more.

If you want me to keep proving you wrong then go ahead, feel free to add me and I will happily do so. I hope I changed your mind at least a little bit about us playing the 'victim card'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will only reply to this comment above. I didn't know that being stabbed each day because of your beliefs, is called playing the victim card. Not only we do our best to not shoot 'palestinians' who are running with knifes towards our children and soldiers, we also give them treatment at our hospitals if they have been harmed. We give their children the best medical treatment they could have ever dreamed of, no middle-eastern country lives in a democracy like Israel, those people should be thankful they live here, they should be thankful we treat them nice after all they've done. In case you want to ask 'what medical treatment do you give their kids?' - Just a week ago 6 'palestinian' kids who were born deaf went in a surgery that the state paid for (that means Jews paid for it), which allowed them to hear for the first time, where can you see that on the American news? Nowhere. I have multiple examples to provide to prove you wrong. We play the 'victim card' because we are the victims. A few more small examples; we take injured people from Syria and give them medical treatment in our hospitals, we give the 'palestinians' guns to protect themselves in their cities (yes, the same gun they use to shoot us whenever they feel like it), we have no death penalty in the country, which means someone can literally shoot to death 100 of us, be arrested and then stay alive at our jail and get out in ש prisoner exchange deal (example; Gilad Shalit was captured by the enemy, and we returned 1000 prisoners for 1 of ours), the prisoners in jail get the best conditions -- BA (as crazy as it sounds), see their families and friends which they use to plan more terror attacks (they are not isolated), and so much more.

If you want me to keep proving you wrong then go ahead, feel free to add me and I will happily do so. I hope I changed your mind at least a little bit about us playing the 'victim card'.

Nothing says giving medical care to Palestines like taking the Israeli to hospital and shooting the other guy in the street. I am aware he was the aggressor but you are not the victims here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing says giving medical care to Palestines like taking the Israeli to hospital and shooting the other guy in the street. I am aware he was the aggressor but you are not the victims here

The shooter have been arrested. IDF condemned the action and he went to trial. Also, this is an edited version of the full video which is way longer and explains the whole situation, don't believe the fake news. I myself don't support the act and I am happy that the soldier went to prison for it, this is a democratic country and such actions will not be supported by the country. The soldier got support from Bibi not for his act, but because of the way the media here treated him and his family, literally teared them apart.

On each video you provide, I can give you a dozen of the enemy doing worse things. You can't highlight 1 incident and claim it represents all. We (unlike 'palestinians') don't share the horrors they do to us on the media, nor sending it to media outside of our country. The only thing they are good at is lies, edited and fake videos -- which the fake media in the US supports and helps, because this is what brings them the most rating they can get. For example, about 2 years ago 'palestinian' went into a synagogue and murdered 6 Jewish people with cold blood, some he murdered with a gun and some with a knife while they were praying. How did the CNN report it? -- A Jew went into a mosque and murdered 6 'palestinians'. Seems fair, right? This is one case out of many, you don't to highlight 1 incident, which we took care of, arrested the soldier and put him in prison, and say it represents the whole while they do whatever they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we also give them treatment at our hospitals if they have been harmed.

Yeah, see, be it prisoner or PoW, in Western culture, this is considered common sense, opposite to something one brags about ...

 

those people should be thankful they live here, they should be thankful we treat them nice after all they've done.

Yeeeah, see ... that's like saying the native americans should be thankful they are aloud to live in the US, and that they are treated nicely.

 

The arabs were there before Isael was. They were there, going back beyond the ottomanian empire, and even the crusades all back to the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire (who's state religion was christianity). That's almost 1500 years. They lived there 50 generations. I'm not even going to bother copy-pasting "great" 48 times, followed by grandfather, for maginitude of that.is.

 

And then you guys show up, and now it's

 

those people should be thankful they live here

I don't think "should" is the right word.

 

We play the 'victim card' because we are the victims.

Yeeeeeah, see ... when you move onto someone's land, and the local population rebels against you ... it's reeeally hard to credibly claim you're the victim.

 

Sure, the situation is messed up, and sure, horrible things happen ... but it all came to pass because you guys decided you wanted lands around Jerusalem, local population be damned.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny you say they have been there before us -- this is what the main argument is about. The fact is that we've been there before them, we have been kicked from our homeland long before, and 'taking back' what was ours is not called stealing, especially if half of it was given to us by the UN, and there are dozens of Arab-countries out there. We don't take what was not ours, and no, I do not mean 'what was given to us by god' -- this is something else.

Us wanting lands 'around Jerusalem' made THEM want lands 'around Jerusalem' as well, no one, and I mean no one claimed Jerusalem was his before we started the discussion about it, only then they woke up claiming it's theirs, when before they gave 0 fu**s about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny you say they have been there before us -- this is what the main argument is about.

No, my argument is that when you say "those people should be thankful they live here" ... where else should they live?

 

It's their land - Not in the '2500 years ago, those lands belonged to us'-sense, or in the 'my political party rules the country'-sense, but in the sense that

  • Their father lived there.
  • Their grandfather lived there.
  • Their great grandfatther lived there.
  • Their great great grandfatther lived there.
  • Their great great great grandfatther lived there.
  • Their great great great great grandfatther lived there.
  • Their great great great great great grandfatther lived there.
  • ...
  • Their great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfatther lived there.
(and that number of 'great's is still a concervative amount as it assumes a generation is ~30 years, while it probbably closer to ~20 years in the olden days)

 

 

 

Sorry, but saying "those people should be thankful they live here" ... is, well, ... incomprehencable (to put it politely).

 

The fact is that we've been there before them, we have been kicked from our homeland long before, and 'taking back' what was ours is not called stealing

So, because your, *clears thoat* great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfatther used to own that land, you consider it your land?

 

(again, the same assumption that a generation is ~30 years)

 

But ... why you? why is it yuors? The cannites (which would end up being current Lebalon) owned it before you and afterward, the babionians (current Iraq, I guess), the romans (Italy), then the Byzantines (greece, if I were to venture a wild guess), then the ottoman empire (Turkey) and then the brittish.

 

Is this a game of "the person who had these lands 5 empire ago is the true owner" or is 83 the magical number of generations?

 

Seeing as I'm quite sure, that you don't think Lebalon, or Turkey, Or Iraq, or Italy, should have a say in it, it would be hyprocritical to argue "there was a time in history that we lived there, so it's ours"

 

(btw, fyi, that's so many generations, probbably more then half the planet is related to that ancestor)

 

especially if half of it was given to us by the UN

I'm not sure it's wise to bring that up, seeing as
  • the british warned it was a bad idea, but under zionist pressure, eventually caved.
  • there were even other options (Uganda or Argentina) but you didn't want to.
  • as you say yourself "half of it was given" ... care to explain the other half?

    I'm sure the local population loved getting conquered after already being very unhappy with the initial situation?

Bringing up the UN is highlights that you yourself decided the poorer of options of a decision you weren't forced to make; and then made it worse ...

 

Not the best of argument, if you ask me.

 

Us wanting lands 'around Jerusalem' made THEM want lands 'around Jerusalem' as well, no one, and I mean no one claimed Jerusalem was his before we started the discussion about it

yeah ... see, with the lands 'around Jerusalem', I mean current Israel/Palastine/Whatever you the region is called; opposite to Uganda or Argentina.

 

That decision was taken on Juli 1905, after the death of Theodor Herzl.

 

Note that that's before World War 1 - so before the ottomanian empire lost; before the british gained control of the palastine region, before the british gave it away

 

It's not

Us wanting lands 'around Jerusalem' made THEM want lands 'around Jerusalem' as well

as 'THEM' already were there. Hence, my point:

when you move onto someone's land, and the local population rebels against you ... it's reeeally hard to credibly claim you're the victim.

 

Sure, the situation is messed up, and sure, horrible things happen ... but it all came to pass because you guys decided you wanted lands around Jerusalem, local population be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me for not quoting like you, I seem to have trouble doing so.

 

Love the 'great great great great...........................' part. Made me laugh really hard (for real).

I see why saying 'they should be thankful they live here' is not the accurate statement for the situation, yet I can't find a better way to describe it.

Uganda or Argentina were not an option for us, we wanted our homeland, the one we got kicked from ages ago. Argentina was not even something to discuss about, I don't know where you brought that up from, but Uganda was discussed for a few days and then the idea was dropped (it was discussed in the first place because of the horrors Russian people did to Jews in Russia, we wanted to get out people out of there as fast as we could).

The British wanted to leave the land as soon as possible, they cared about their soldiers who died by BOTH Jews and Arabs at the time (We both had extreme groups that thought killing British soldiers would help achieve our land, it did work, I just wish it was not this way...). They warned the UN it was a bad idea to make them leave, but not to let the Jews have their own land.

About us being the victim -- I stand strong on this one, I won't go back in time to history books to show you we've been there before anyone else, and that the quran is a different variation of the bible, it would simply take too long for me to do that, but I am sure you can do your research on it if the topic interests you.

About the 'half' part, half of the land was given to the Jews and half to the 'palestinians'. Jerusalem was neutral, until they captured it under the British administration, and we then captured it in our War of Independence, so it is ours to this date.

 

Long story short, the place is a mess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argentina was not even something to discuss about, I don't know where you brought that up from

Wikipedia

 

I won't go back in time to history books to show you we've been there before anyone else,

Odd ... weren't you guys Egyptian slaves that settled in Canaan? Never mind, not important.

 

The note I made earlier still stands:

 

(btw, fyi, that's so many generations, probbably more then half the planet is related to that ancestor)

So, technically, I've ALSO been there before anyone else as well, which makes your argument pretty mute.

 

 

That made me think however ... at what point in time do you think you got "kicked out" (or, by whom, if you have no date?). I mean, the region got conquered a couple of times ... but when you conquer a land, you don't kick out the local population. I'm not deying it's possibly you guys got kicked out, or left on your own free will ... but what happend with the local population that stayed behind?

 

Could it be they became the ones you accuse of stealing your land? Since, well ...

 

(btw, fyi, that's so many generations, probbably more then half the planet is related to that ancestor)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assyrian exile is just one example out of many where we have been kicked from our lands, you can search up more if you'd like to (the Romes, etc).
"Could it be they became the ones you accuse of stealing your land? Since, well ..." - It could be, because there are ten lost tribes (out of 12), but no one can actually prove or confirm that. The 10 lost tribes were forced to change their beliefs/religion, therefore what you say is possible.

"Wikipedia" - idk what about you, but when I was 8 my mom taught me to not believe anything on the internet (yes, that includes random people on the internet like me and you... weird, isn't it?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Could it be they became the ones you accuse of stealing your land? Since, well ..." - It could be, because there are ten lost tribes (out of 12), but no one can actually prove or confirm that.

... so ... your logic is ... they are thieves until the opposite is proven?

 

Now, is it just me, but doesn't that strike you as kind of ... well ... barbaric?

 

Why exactly would you think those you accuse as thieves, would accept such line of thought?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't accept such line of thought, just like we don't. This can't be proven even with DNA tests, there was a research about why it can't be prove, yet possible. I tried looking it up again but I don't seem to find it. From what I remember it was a Belgian woman who did research about it (don't ask me why :P).

"they are thieves until the opposite is proven" - No, in exiles such as the Assyrian exile, the administration takes all people from their land (trouble makers), most (but not all) people from the captured land (so they can't rebel) and switch between them, which means they are not thieves, the land was given to them against their wills. We never claimed they were thieves, we only claimed this land was ours, and still is ours.

By the bible theory, we are all brothers -- you and me as well. Over the years with so many exiles, people have been changing their beliefs/religion multiple times to match the current administration, which is why there are ten lost tribes (interesting fact; a new research might have found 1 of the missing tribes somewhere in Africa, but the research is not done yet). That basically means they could have been Jews in the past as well, something that sadly can't be proven. This is not my argument though, I honestly don't care if they used to be Jews or not, they don't care either.

 

I write a lot, sorry :wacko:

If you want me to write only to the point without facts/whatever in between let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"they are thieves until the opposite is proven" - No ... the land was given to them against their wills

I'm talking about the land they were living on before you moved them.

 

I'm not seeing you making a point that would point toward you not presuming "guily until proven innocent".

 

we only claimed this land was ours, and still is ours.

But, that's not the only thing you're doing, isn't it? Aside from claiming the land is yours, you also claim the land isn't theirs, don't you?

 

Because if it were both yours & theirs (for example, if they are part of the lost tribes) ... what justification do you have to move them?

 

 

By the bible theory, we are all brothers -- you and me as well

by science as well. It's a common trope in genetics (if you can speak about such thing, seeing as geneticist aren't known for their joking behavior), that everyone in europe is related to Charlemagne (who FYI lived about 1200 years back, making it a 1 to 700 000 000 ratio over 1200 years).

 

The Assyrian exile was twice as long ago. Mathematically speaking, that would give a projection of 490 000 trillion people (yes, a HUGE number OVER the current world population).

Basically, it's a mathematical certainty, that unless you lived isolated from the region (I'm thinking native americans, aboriginals, and maybe other examples), you're related to everyone who lived at the time of the Assyrian exile, and had children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"you also claim the land isn't theirs" - Yes, I don't see a problem with that.

"Because if it were both yours & theirs" - It was ours before they were there, they were forced to go there (not them specifically but you get the idea). If we stole their land (going by your words), then the Assyrians stole it from us in the first place, which means we are the victims and the land does belong to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting difference between the 2 polls. The majority of the people thinks that the UN did justice to Israel under Obama while 50/50 think that Trump won't improve that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"you also claim the land isn't theirs" - Yes, I don't see a problem with that.

Oh, but there's a huge difference. Unlike the proof you have that you were there in the past, you don't have proof they weren't there at the same time, do you?

 

"Because if it were both yours & theirs" - It was ours before they were there, they were forced to go there (not them specifically but you get the idea). If we stole their land (going by your words), then the Assyrians stole it from us in the first place, which means we are the victims and the land does belong to us.

I'm sorry, but you are contradicitng yourself now.

 

"Could it be they became the ones you accuse of stealing your land? Since, well ..."

It could be, because there are ten lost tribes (out of 12), but no one can actually prove or confirm that

-- you

 

If what you say could be, is the case, then it wasn't yours before it was they were there - it was yours at the same time as they were there.

 

 

 

You can't say "we were here before you" and "it's possible we were here at the same time". You'll have to pick one of the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting difference between the 2 polls. The majority of the people thinks that the UN did justice to Israel under Obama while 50/50 think that Trump won't improve that.

The majority of people think that the UN didn't do justice with Israel under Obama.

But I agree, this is very interesting, considering the controversial opinions about Trump.

 

If what you say could be, is the case, then it wasn't yours before it was they were there - it was yours at the same time as they were there.

 

 

You can't say "we were here before you" and "it's possible we were here at the same time". You'll have to pick one of the two.

 

I'm not saying we were there at the same time. I am saying they were forced to move there, and perhaps change their belief/religion to whatever just like we were forced to move away.

Also, you can't use the fact there are 10 lost tribes and say they could be us, they don't care to find that out, nor want to find that out. Even if some of them used to be Jews (on that specific time), that only means a small portion of the land belongs to them, and no one can prove which part. As I said, the majority of the people have exiled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying we were there at the same time.

Indeed: but you are saying that they weren't there at the same time

 

It was ours before they were there

... that's a though cookie to sell - if not impossible to sell - when you yourself also admit you don't know.

 

And, you entire explenation falls apparent without your ability to assert the land yous yours before theirs...

 

they don't care to find that out, nor want to find that out

Perhaps, but unless you're going to argue that their opinion in the matter somehow magically changes their great great grandparents, that's not relevant.

 

Do recall, it's you who thinks that criteria is important.

 

Unless you argue "guilty until proven innocent", it's up to you to prove guilt, not up to them to prove innocence.

 

Even if some of them used to be Jews (on that specific time)

What do you mean if and some? Have you missed the Charlemagne?

 

Have you stopped to consider a single peron living 1200 years ago has 10% of the world population as decendant?

And that is not because Charlemagne was somehow special - but becasue that's how reproduction works.

 

We're talking, not some, but EVERYONE in Isreal, Lebalon, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Azerbeiian, Georgia, Egypt, Lybia, Sudan, Yemen, OmanChad, Turkmenistan, Afganistan

(that's about 500M people, so lets take another 200M north of Turkey - namely europe & Russia)

Are decendant of the same person livign there 1200 years ago.

 

Please take a map and look at that area, and consider that if you live in that area, and you are NOT related to that person, you're an anomaly.

NOT the other way areond.

 

And then consider,

  • you're trying to argue not 1200 years, but 2500 years back.
  • that's only of a single person. not 10 people - not 10 tribes
  • and everyone was exiled - meaning they traveled - meaning the normal inbreading factor would be lower then normal, and thus have more offspring
Are you truely opperating under the assumption they don't have ancestors of those tribes?

Have you any idea how inconceavable that is?

 

 

that only means a small portion of the land belongs to them, and no one can prove which part.

Yes, indeed. and again ... how is that not "guitly until proven innocent"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...