easel,

Quote:


They're neither true nor in context, let's dissect them a little:

Quote:


The modern day state of Israel has absolutely no connection whatsoever with that state. Anymore than modern day Greece does with ancient Greece or modern day Egypt does with Phaoronic Egypt. The name is meaningless.

Quote:


The word Falasteeni (Arabic for Palestinian) first originated from the time of the earliest Caliphs of Islam. During the reign of Omar Bin al-Khattab (May God be pleased with him) the area of Palestine came under Islamic rule and was called 'Jund Falasteen'. The name was taken as a direct transliteration from the Roman/Latin Palestina. The Arabs of the mandate began calling themselves Palestinians during the British mandate period, when ideas of Arab independance were being hammered out. This is no different from Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis etc. all of who didn't exist under this name prior to the British dismantling of the Ottoman empire, those were names of geogrpahic regions, not of nations. Or Kuwaitis for instance, who never existed until about 1970....

This has gotta be the biggest 'moot' point that any goose has ever tried scoring. It's like if Australia came under a mandate, and the people of Gippsland were said to be non-Existent prior to the mandate, because there was never any people calling themselves Gippslanders prior to the mandate, therefore Muslims have more right to Gippsland than them... What a load of crap.

So did the people exist? Perhaps in sprints warped little mind they didn't. After all the Zionists of  the time claimed it was "A land without a people for a people without a land". Did their homes exist? Did their governments and mosques and endowments and farms etc. all exist? Or was it all just a figment of our imagination? Are those millions of Arabs in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan etc. just really Lebanese, Syrians and Jordanians who had nothing better to do than check themselves into the luxury of a refugee camp?

Many different evidences can be brought to show the Arabs of the region began referring to themselves as Palestinians long before 1967, such as the Office of Grand Mufti of al-Quds (Jerusalem) being changed to "Office of the Grand Mufti of Palestine" in the 1920's, but all of it is irrelevant anyway, as people's claims to their homes, land and farms have nothing to with a name. Whether they choose to call themselves Palestinians, Jerusalemites, Canaanites or Eskimoes really means nothing whatsoever, nor does it change their situation or their rights to their land, homes and farms. The choosing of the name for their land was arbitrary, as was the choosing of the names for Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.

Quote:


The Jews were completely expelled several times since 1200 BC. However, in 75 C.E though the last Jews were completely expelled after the siege of Masada, and no Jews remained in Palestine. In the 7th. century when the Muslims took Palestine from the Byzantines, they signed an agreement, at the behest of the Christian Byzantines that they would not allow any Jews into the land. This situation lasted until close to the end of the 19th. century when the Ottoman Islamic Caliphate began declining and Jews began illegally immigrating. The situation further deteriorated when the British took over and allowed hundreds of thousands of Jews in.

So in fact Jews have spent 2000 of the last 3000 years out of Palestine, not in it as sprint falsely claims. And even during the 1000 years they were there, it was not unbroken, they came and left so many timess, sometimes forcefully, sometimes voluntarily (read the Bible).

Quote:


Firstly, I couldn't care less about Arab or not Arab. It is a Muslim land, and it has been ruled by Muslims for the past 1350 years (with the short exception of the Crusader occupation, which was only of the major cities anyway). The ethnicity of the ruler himself is completely irrelevant.

But even if we go with the ethnic Arab idea, Palestine was under Arab rule from the conquest of Caliph Omar Bin al-Khattab (638) until the Crusades (1099), so that's 461 years, not 22. Looks like sprint needs some maths lessons.

Quote:


What a load of CRAP.! The Assyrians took Palestine in about 720 B.C and from then on was merely a province of the Persians, Greeks then Romans. Around the time of Jesus (pbuh) there were a few independance movements and revolts but in the mid 1st. century they were completely quelled and Jerusalem was completely flattened and renamed Aelia Capitolina (by the Romans) and has since that time not been the capital of the Jews, until this day.

Also the fact it was not a capital of a Muslim state is absolutely irrelevant. Sydney has never bee the capital of Australia either..

Quote:


Well that settles it then. If it's mentioned 700 times, then every Palestinian should get up and leave.

Masjid al-Aqsa is mentioned in the Qur'an, which is in Jerusalem. Also Jerusalem is mentioned hundreds of times in the Hadiths. So again, another irrelevant point. Only useful to someone who can deceive people into thinking the Qur'an is the only holy text of Islam.

Quote:


Muslims originally also prayed facing Jerusalem, but changed to Makkah later. But again, another moot point. We also don't face Cairo, Baghdad, Istanbul or Islamabad, but that doesn't mean Muslims there have no right to their homes, does it?

Quote:


Likewise Jesus (pbuh) never set foot in Australia, therefore Muslims can take over Australia....?

These arguments are just ridiculous.

Quote:


The Arab leaders were working in conjunction with the British and the Zionists, so that's not surprising they urged the Palestinians to leave. Interesting to know where the 68% figure comes from? Even Jewish historians have documented how most of those Arabs who fled, did so at gunpoint. Even if they didn't, after hearing about the massacres in other villages, is enough reason for them to flee. Civilians have a right to flee war do they not? Or does that justify taking their homes does it? What kind off twisted logic is that?

Quote:


They did not flee until about 20-30 years after the commencement of the occupation. When Jews began massive military operations against the Palestinian civilians. Also note that they'd lived for well over a thousand or more years in those Arab lands without a problem....

Quote:


Most Jews left voluntarily, most Palestinians fled armies or were deported. For instance most of those Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria were deported forcefully AFTER the occupation, even up until the 1980's they were still being rounded up and deported they did not flee during the initial occupation.

Quote:


That's irrelevant to the occupation of Palestine. Arab regimes do a lot of stuff wrong, and have about as much legitimacy as Israel in the eyes of most Muslims. Doesn't change a thing about the usurping of Palestine by the Zionists.

Quote:


Actually there's a lot more than 22 Muslim countries. Means nothing. There's also about 1000 times more Muslims in the world than there is Jews...

Again, you need some maths lessons sprint.

As for the wars, the Arab armies were all trained by the British and French, the wars were a farce to convince the Arab populations that Israel was there to stay. The Jordanian army, the largest, was in fact commanded by a British intelligence officer.... The wars were just for show.

Quote:


As any country would call for the destruction of a foreign state formed inside their land... Doesn't that go without saying?

As for what Israel was willing to 'let' the Palestinians have of their own land, it was token control of less than half of the land of the West Bank, and Gaza has been under complete blockade since it was withdrawn from...

Quote:


Plenty of mosques have been converted into Jewish places of worship, the Tomb of Joseph is a classic example we've already discussed. Also Masjid al-Aqsa has been damaged and Muslims are routinely prevented from praying there.

Quote:


Yeh and pretty much all of them were vetoed by the US....

This begs more questions than it answers.

If they were not lobbing rockets at them, and sending in suicide bombers, you may have some case Gaybriel.
But they do, so you don't.

Israelis have a right to security and peace, and if a neighbour threatens that, then expect to be stopped, especially if the people refuse to stop of their own accord.

You cannot divorce this from Islamists, anti jewish, anti Israel, philosophy, as long as that exists, they will be a threat that has to be dealt with.

If they were peaceful neighbours, the world would stand up for them, but as Grendel showed in his opening post, they are clearly influenced by terrorists, and that is unacceptable to the non muslim, civilised world.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 12:36am:


The number of anti-Israel/USA people I meet are definitely not represented in the polls/parliament.

I can hardly condone much the newspapers/media tell me Israel do (which might be misleading), in regards to 20/21st century history.

The part I dislike about the whole thing is when a British politician said setting up a Jewish state would be like making an Ulster in the Middle East, and then went ahead with it.

When the British had a long history of oppression towards the inhabitants of that region, and uprisings against their occupation, makes you wonder why they would want to make another situation like that.

easel,

Quote:


Not really, just goto an online Bible search site, and look up Jerusalem.

Quote:


Not really, the Qur'an doesn't talk a lot about Jerusalem. In most mentions of the Children of Israel the setting is Egypt.

As far as English translations go, I prefer Marmeduke Pickthall's, mostly because he's a native English speaker, and his English is therefore much more refined than non-native english speakers.

Quote:


Wrong, completely different book. The OT, in Hebrew is called Tanakh (which is actually an acronym), Talmud is basically a codification of the Tanakh, along with rulings by Rabbis and some extra oral traditions.

Quote:


Islam is no more about domination than any other ideology/civilisation is. Of course nobody wants to be dominated, we want to dominate, doesn't that go without saying? Some ideologies/civilisations might pretend they don't believe in it, they're the ones you really should be careful of. However, that doesn't mean Muslims are out to enslave everyone, just means we're going to hold our own. Muhammad (pbuh) said: The upper hand is better than the lower hand. Quite wise advice if you ask me.

Quote:


Gotta agree with you there, very sound advice.

Quote:


LOL. Put a keffiyeh on your head and then whiteboy is a genuine Palestinian freedom fighter. As an audience member at the Oprah show might say 'You go girl!'