abu_rashid wrote on Jul 12^th, 2008 at 7:41pm:


Neither is making false claims. I knew it was a false claim that most of the Jews were not born there. I held off replying until I had enough time to   back up my response with a researched answer.

Quote:


I know they are apostates. They actually believe that they are guardians of the one-true version of Islam. The main point I was making is that they currently identify themselves with Israel rather than Palestine.


Quote:


It's ridiculous to think that you can just turn back the clock 100 years.  The population of Palestine in 1948 was around 1.3 million.

It's not their land - it was their grandfather's land perhaps.

You're obsessed with this idea of an international Muslim Caliphate.

That's almost like a Christian saying that they should establish some kind of fundamentalist Christian state in Egypt because in historical time most of the population of Egypt were Coptic Christians.

The irony behind this is that if you go back even further, most of this land came under the Ottoman Empire, and that the first Arab Revolt (WW1) was instigated by the British.

It wasn't as though the land had been in Palestinian hands for centuries and was seized by the Israeli occupiers. This land had changed hand many times going right back to the 6th century BCE and before.

One of the wisest sayings I have heard came from an Aboriginal elder. He said that the land was not theirs. They were merely caretakers for future generations.

sprint

Quote:


No, they want to be free, from occupation and oppression.

Quote:


All those 'facts' are absolute nonsense. Please go and do some actual research into the issue and stop quoting lies verbatim about which you have not even the most rudimentary knowledge.

I'll give you some simple facts:

1) DNA tests have shown that many Palestinians are either descended from the original Hebrews of the region, and in some cases even predate their arrival and are descendants of other Semitic inhabitants of the region (most likely Canaanites and Phoenicians). Almost all of the original inhabitants of the region embraced Islam during the 200 years after Islam arrived, except for a small % who remained Christians.

2) The Masjid al-Aqsa (main Mosque in Jerusalem) has stood there for longer than both Jewish temples combined!

3) In the 1st. century C.E The Romans expelled every single Jew from the land, barring them from returning and razed the city of Jerusalem, building in it's place the city of Aelia Capitolina. When the Roman empire embraced Christianity this ban continued, and when the Muslims arrived in the 7th century (btw, in our texts the city is often referred to as Aeila), the Christians forced us to agree to not allow the Jews back in (funny how now you've changed your minds??). And in fact many Arab Christians today still call upon the Muslims to expel the Jews to uphold the agreement we made in the 7th. century, as they're well aware the Jews have almost completely rid Jerusalem of Christians.

4) According to the agreement mentioned in point 4, Jerusalem and her district (ie. Palestine) remained virtually devoid of Jewish inhabitants up until 1900. In 1900 an Ottoman census showed that Jews were less than 2% of the population of the greater Sanjak of al-Quds (ie. Palestine). This means that Jews, when they began their Zionist project, had not lived in Palestine in any sizeable amount for about 1800 years. That's far longer than they ever lived there for.

5) Muslims ruled Palestine for about 1200 years, nice and convenient how you now started saying "Arab rule".

Sprint, please for once how about you make a post containing your own thoughts and knowledge, instead of just posting someone elses garbage, which is usually horribly inaccurate anyway.

muso, yes DNA tests don't prove conclusively that they've been there all that time, and they certainly don't establish ownership over a piece of land. But coupled with the fact that most of the inhabitants of the land when the Muslims arrived ended up converting to Islam within the first 200 years, indicates that the current Palestinian population have a very long history there.

Then there's the Ghassanid factor as well. In the early 3rd. century large amounts of Arab tribes from Yemen migrated north to Bilad ash-Sham (Arabic name for the whole Levant region) and established a kingdom there, embracing Christianity. Many of the modern day Arabs in ash-Sham are in fact descendants of them, including a lot of Palestinians, especially Christians. That would raise their time there to at least 1800 years.

Why on earth was a scared little girl wandering into the no-go zone? She obviously knew she was taking a huge risk.

Just because you call a state Israel it doesn't mean that it's the Israel of the Bible. There are specific conditions of such a state and modern day Israel doesn't fit in that criteria.

So what? Why does that make a difference to whether you would allow the state to exist?

They therefore have no claim to the land.

Posession is nine tenths of the law. Other than that, no-one has any morally superior claim to the land. Why on earth do you get to judge for the Israelis whether their state is holy enough to continue to exist?

muso wrote on Jul 13^th, 2008 at 12:21pm:

We also ruled southern Italy btw

freediver wrote on Jul 13^th, 2008 at 2:48pm:

That's a very limited form of logic your using..

The fact that they are NOT Jews by ethnicity and the fact that they are NOT running a Jewish state by the standards set in the Torah is testimony that they don't have any claim to the land.

Just calling it Israel doesn't make it a Jewish state.

It's a secular state made and run for Europeans. Not a state set up and run for Jews.

Australian native title claims are not given to indigenous Australians who have no connection to the land, if they lost their culture (even if they do deserve it).. So why on earth should these Europeans be given the land when not only they have no ethnic connection to the land but they don't even follow their own book in implementing a state?

Shows that their is obviously double standards when you are white and European as far as I'm concerned.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 13^th, 2008 at 3:01pm:


I think I've stated from the start that I would rather not see any more deaths. To me a death like this is senseless.

That's why I'd rather see a settlement to this problem that has no more carnage, but in order for that to happen, both sides must compromise.

The Jewish population of Israel was mostly born there. They have a right to be there.

Now I get the feeling from what you say that the deaths of Israelis are less of a problem for you.

We've had a taste of the kind of tolerance that the Palestinian Authority is likely to show. It's no wonder that minority groups such as the Druze would much prefer the secular state of Israel.

The terrorist groups in Palestine are called that because they target innocent people. They bomb discos. They use bullying tactics to move Christians out of Bethlehem. They burnt down their houses or resort to other scare tactics. They do so with impunity, because they have the blessing of the Authority.

They have lost all credibility with people in the civilized world. They don't deserve to rule Palestine. All they know is violence. They might be Muslims, but they are not good Muslims. All they want to do is manipulate the pious who would sacrifice their children to further the struggle.

They would turn a modern efficient country into another Zimbabwe. Any people who chose to remain there would live in a medieval theocracy, ruled by 'God'. You know the one - Priests and Imams have God 'glove puppets' (metaphorically speaking) so that they can impose their own will on the population. The Qur'an has many choice verses. You just pick one for the right occasion.

It's getting to the stage with the energy crisis and the onset of global warming that the world simply can't tolerate another dog's breakfast like Zimbabwe.