We have a right...

[GuruJane]

GuruJane what is your opionion of Arthur Koestler and his book The Thirteenth Tribe?

Interesting question! And very appropriate.

Haven't read Koestler but am aware of his thesis. The story of the Kazhars is a fantastic episode in Jewish history, but that is all it is - one episode among so many others. The idea that all of western jewry is actually descended from the Kazhars is a complete furphy, as anyone familiar with Jewish history would know. For a start, if it had been so it would have been meticulously chronicled by Jewish historians and scholars of the day, as they chronicled everything else in their almost 4000k history.

And also genetics refute it: http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html

The history of the Jews is fascinating from beginning to end and it is a great pity it is not taught in schools any more ... instead history seems to begin with JC or the Greeks!

 

[John]

Interesting question! And very appropriate.

It might be worth you reading as his thesis is supported by Dunlop for example. You should get a copy cheap of Amazon or you can print out the link I gave.

 

[John]

Interesting question! And very appropriate.

Haven't read Koestler but am aware of his thesis. The story of the Kazhars is a fantastic episode in Jewish history, but that is all it is - one episode among so many others. The idea that all of western jewry is actually descended from the Kazhars is a complete furphy, as anyone familiar with Jewish history would know. For a start, if it had been so it would have been meticulously chronicled by Jewish historians and scholars of the day, as they chronicled everything else in their almost 4000k history.

And also genetics refute it: http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html

The history of the Jews is fascinating from beginning to end and it is a great pity it is not taught in schools any more ... instead history seems to begin with JC or the Greeks!

Not so sure it is a furphy with this comment from the link you sent me and I quote
"All existing studies fail to compare modern Jewish populations' DNA to ancient Judean DNA and medieval Khazarian DNA, but in the absence of old DNA, comparisons with living populations appear to be adequate to trace geographic roots." My bolding of the word.

Also this "There are known skeletons of Khazars from the Don-valley (Sarkel, Semikarakovskoye, etc.) and from the Crimea (e.g., Sudak). It is important to note that Khazarian skeletons and North Caucasian Turks have not yet been used to compare Jewish genes with likely traces of the Khazars. Thus, the Khazar theory has not really been put to the genetic test yet."
I am not looking to refute what you say but I am surprised that you used the genetics theory to repute the book. I have no problem with it being refuted by the way. I look forward to you reading it and commenting.

 

[Mr Q]

You appear to be totally ignorant of Jewish history. Wilfully so? Deliberately so?

Again. Please demonstrate where the Celts have kept a religious and cultural tradition with Germany and Switzerland for 2000 years?

I never said the Celts had kept such a tradition. The bulk of your argument seems to be divided into (1) Jews have been saying prayers about Jerusalem and (2) the Jews were in Palestine 2000 years ago. I utterly discount version one since the "Holy Land" is part of the cultural and religious traditions of two larger religions than Judaism who don't claim ownership based upon such a tradition (well not recently anyway), and when you get right down to it, I don't have any time for rights being granted for specious reasons like race or religion. So you're left with this being a homeland because the Jews lived there a couple of millenia ago. Well, I've discounted that as well.... even if you don't like the argument.

Were they "driven" out like you say the Palestinians were and then not allowed to return home?

Well, its certain that many Irish Catholics were driven off their land by the British (well English), most notably in the North. Difference was that the Irish weren't all penned up in a tiny subsection of their nation - they got to live in poverty all over Ireland. Except in the North where the British shipped in Protestants so that they would outnumber the native Irish... sound similar?

Or were they forced out by the dire economic conditions created by British policies?

So you're saying that taking the land by force is somewhat better than taking it by enforcing dire economic conditions on a land... interesting.

If the first, your argument might have some relevance. If the second, then clearly your great grandparents, grandparents and possibly even your own parents would have been able to return to Ireland had they so chosen at any time.

Yes, they could have returned due to the change from the persecution of the British occupation of Ireland to the more civilised modern age. Oddly enough, this right of return to your homeland is one of the things the Palestinians demand. Oddly enough, while Jews who have had no links to the land in millennia are permitted free entry, Palestinians who's parents/grandparents or even themselves were evicted are not permitted this right. Sounds wrong to me. Downright racist I'd say.

Basically, if you're claiming that the right for Jews to enter Israel is fair because its a return to their homeland, then equally you must 100% acknowledge that Palestinian Arabs driven off that land have an equal right of return to the land... which is, if I'm not totally off the track, one of the things the Palestinians demand - the right of return.

Well my point was that in the (admittedly unlikely) event that the rest of the world start racially pursuing you and others just for being Irish, then there would be a nation state available to give you haven. They would relax their immigration requirements, would they not?

The persecution of Irish Catholics in Ireland drove a majority of the Irish out of Ireland (to this day the number of people of Irish descent outside of Ireland exceeds the number in Ireland many times over). It was done by a minority group of invaders, and was often enacted on religious grounds (Protestantism v Catholicism). And at the time, there was no homeland for the Irish - it had been forcibly united with Britain. The independence of Ireland would be closer to the formation of a Palestinian state encompassing the majority of Palestine, with a small remaining Jewish state similar to Northern Ireland...

But that's the difference between you and the Jews. They didn't have a nation state.

And the result of taking land of previous occupants to create a state is effectively forcing those former occupants into giant refugee camps.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that they had a legitimate claim. It happens that many people believe that claim should not have been met. I happen to believe it was right in the circumstances of the time, when there were no nation states in that area. As it turns out, the League of Nations, and then 25 years later the United Nations voted to endorse their claim

And I maintain that while the concept of the Jewish homeland could have been managed, the decision to partition Palestine was in fact the most foolish decision made in the modern world. Utter and complete idiocy, as it is the core cause of the contention between Islam and the West.

You on the other hand argue they had no legitimate claim at all, and you appear to use your ignorance of Jewish history in support of your argument.

I do indeed argue that they had no legitimate claim to the land other than that small Jewish community that had remained in Palestine. The facts of the matter were that the Jews had left Palestine - for whatever reason, they were gone for centuries, and had been replaced in bulk by Arabs. These Arabs were resident in Palestine (they weren't busing in from Syria or Lebanon like you seem to imply). They were the locals there, and as such, should have had priority rights to the land as the current residents.

All the Jews asked for was a tiny nation state in its ancestral land at a time a huge landmass was being divided into states from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Their claim was recognised by both the League of Nations and the United Nations.

And had the land been empty, I'm sure there wouldn't have been a problem. You see (well clearly you don't, but that's your own blindfold), the land chosen was not empty. It's also quite a fertile and prosperous section of the area you talk about (the Negev aside). Simply speaking, it wasn't an empty area to be occupied freely. There were already inhabitants in the area, who's civil rights were completely ignored in the creation of Israel.

There they are and there they stay. A sovereign state entitled to all the rights shared by sovereign states.

And ever since Israel was established it has taken in persecuted Jews from USSR, Eastern Europe to Africa and given them dignity and sanctuary.

The persecution of the Jews in Europe and elsewhere is a blight on history. However, that neither gives them the right to take someone else's land, nor then proceed to persecute and marginalise the people that land was taken from. Oddly enough, the punishment if you like for this persecution in Europe and elsewhere wasn't inflicted on the perpetrators, it was inflicted on a completely different bunch of people.

For a group that have made so much of how they were persecuted in Europe and elsewhere over the previous millenia and more, they've certainly taken to being the perpetrators with zeal, that's for sure.

 

[GuruJane]

Not so sure it is a furphy with this comment from the link you sent me and I quote
"All existing studies fail to compare modern Jewish populations' DNA to ancient Judean DNA and medieval Khazarian DNA, but in the absence of old DNA, comparisons with living populations appear to be adequate to trace geographic roots." My bolding of the word.

Also this "There are known skeletons of Khazars from the Don-valley (Sarkel, Semikarakovskoye, etc.) and from the Crimea (e.g., Sudak). It is important to note that Khazarian skeletons and North Caucasian Turks have not yet been used to compare Jewish genes with likely traces of the Khazars. Thus, the Khazar theory has not really been put to the genetic test yet."
I am not looking to refute what you say but I am surprised that you used the genetics theory to repute the book. I have no problem with it being refuted by the way. I look forward to you reading it and commenting.

I posted the link as additional information on the issue.

As I said in earlier post, had there been anything in it it would have been meticulously documented by Jewish scholars and historians at the time instead of being some buried part of history that was only unearthed in the 20th century.

Its a distinguishing feature of Judaism that Jewish scholars have recorded their history since ancient times so why would they have ignored such a significant mass immigration into Eastern Europe in the 10th and 11th centuries?

Jews were already well established in Western Europe as suppliers of capital when William the Conqueror invited them into England in 1066,.

 

[GuruJane]

I never said the Celts had kept such a tradition.

Well the Jews did, so your arguments fall apart.

The bulk of your argument seems to be divided into (1) Jews have been saying prayers about Jerusalem and (2) the Jews were in Palestine 2000 years ago.

This reduction of Jwish history is risible.

I utterly discount version one since the "Holy Land" is part of the cultural and religious traditions of two larger religions than Judaism who don't claim ownership based upon such a tradition (well not recently anyway), and when you get right down to it, I don't have any time for rights being granted for specious reasons like race or religion. So you're left with this being a homeland because the Jews lived there a couple of millenia ago. Well, I've discounted that as well.... even if you don't like the argument.

Ditto.

So you're saying that taking the land by force is somewhat better than taking it by enforcing dire economic conditions on a land... interesting.

Where did I say it was somewhat better?

My comment was suggesting it was better for your argument, not "better" per se.

Oddly enough, this right of return to your homeland is one of the things the Palestinians demand. Oddly enough, while Jews who have had no links to the land in millennia are permitted free entry, Palestinians who's parents/grandparents or even themselves were evicted are not permitted this right. Sounds wrong to me. Downright racist I'd say.

The Palestinians have right of return to their own state that should have been established in 1948 and would have been except they rejected it.

Agreed they will suffer the massive injustice of having to live a few dozen klicks to at most a few hundred klicks from the homes they left 60 years ago but I'm sure the EU will come up with huge compensation and counselling and possibly even sewerage.

Life just can't be perfect, but in adversity we must try to look on the upside.

 

[dan warna]

maybe the palastinians should fight for their homes.

bulldoze the homes the isrealis built on top of their homes.

that seems fair...

 

[just maybe]

GJ comes up with such pathetic arguments. Who cares if Jews pray about a homeland. Since when does religion get to decide land ownership? What a farce.

 

[just maybe]

The Palestinians have right of return to their own state that should have been established in 1948 and would have been except they rejected it.

Complete lie.

 

[GuruJane]

maybe the palastinians should fight for their homes.

bulldoze the homes the isrealis built on top of their homes.

that seems fair...

Absolutely. Feel the same way about my neighbours here in Melbourne who destroyed my own amenity with lies blah blah which turned out to be within local planning laws ruthlessly enforced by local government, put in place by my state.

Sad for me, but true. If only had had a UN agency since then to keep me going as they have for Palestinians ......

 

[Mr Q]

Well the Jews did, so your arguments fall apart.

So while the Arabs were actually living in Palestine, the Jews were praying about it. Therefore the Jews have a priority right to the land?

Don't make me laugh. That's the sort of argument you get from a theocrat.

This reduction of Jwish history is risible.

Hey, I'm just summarising your argument into what it seems to be. If its not what you're saying, then perhaps you should consider that you're not articulating your point very well.

Ditto.

Excellent. So you agree that I've discounted your argument. Seems strange that you're still arguing it....

Where did I say it was somewhat better?

My comment was suggesting it was better for your argument, not "better" per se.

But you argue that the fact the Palestinians were forced off their land by force is all OK... well you seem to, and your main justification seems to be either some other race's cultural and religious traditions that mean nothing to the locals, or a United Nations resolution that the locals never asked for.

The Palestinians have right of return to their own state that should have been established in 1948 and would have been except they rejected it.

That's not the same thing though, is it. That's like telling an Australian living overseas that they can return, but despite being from Perth, they can only resettle in Tasmania or NSW.

These people don't come from the Palestinian allocated areas. Not by the current, 1967 or 1948 borders. They lived in what was defined as Israel by the partition plan. Anywhere else in the civilised world they'd have the right of return to the actual place they left - not the country next door.

Agreed they will suffer the massive injustice of having to live a few dozen klicks to at most a few hundred klicks from the homes they left 60 years ago but I'm sure the EU will come up with huge compensation and counselling and possibly even sewerage.

Ha. Its still not even in the same country as where they come from (unless Israel was merged into a single Palestinian political entity, and we all know the Israelis won't accept that).

Life just can't be perfect, but in adversity we must try to look on the upside.

Upside? The only people who are getting any "upside" from your ideas are the Jews. The Palestinians have been blatantly kicked off their land to make way for immigrants from another part of the world, and then excluded from having a say. Remember, the Palestinians were never once asked whether they were happy to have partition foisted upon them. They weren't asked if they were happy about the "Jewish Homeland" being created in their land.

By what right did the League of Nations or the United Nations unilaterally split up the land? Certainly under no circumstances could it be said to be the actual will of the people, because the people were never asked.

 

[fridige's failures]

Unfortunately for Israel, as history has proven, the Palestinians are not interested in sharing the country. The Palestinian Government are not interested in just occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip, they will ONLY be satisfied when they have complete control of the land. Only a few years ago the Israeli government offered Arafat an unprecedented portion of Israel, yet he declined.

Despite being attacked in 1967 and 1973 by surrounding countries, Israel managed to not only defeat their enemies, but also gain territory. This territory has later been given back to the very nations who attacked them, highlighting Israel’s ambition for peace.

Does Israel have the right to its own country?. Yes. In 1948 the UN voted in favour of Israel. Therefore, by International law, Israel has sovereignty over its land.

A quick comment I have to raise. Osama bin Laden and numerous other terrorists have justified their terrorist attacks in response to the plight of the Palestinians. Why is it then that no Arab country will give the Palestinians a home in their own country?

 

[just maybe]

Unfortunately for Israel, as history has proven, the Palestinians are not interested in sharing the country. The Palestinian Government are not interested in just occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip, they will ONLY be satisfied when they have complete control of the land. Only a few years ago the Israeli government offered Arafat an unprecedented portion of Israel, yet he declined.

What they offered Arafat was completely unacceptable and Arafat never could have accepted it and retained any credibility.

Despite being attacked in 1967 and 1973 by surrounding countries, Israel managed to not only defeat their enemies, but also gain territory. This territory has later been given back to the very nations who attacked them, highlighting Israel’s ambition for peace.

That's stretching reality.

Does Israel have the right to its own country?. Yes. In 1948 the UN voted in favour of Israel. Therefore, by International law, Israel has sovereignty over its land.

No, Israel has sovereignty over the territory provided in 1948. Not the current territory it occupies.

A quick comment I have to raise. Osama bin Laden and numerous other terrorists have justified their terrorist attacks in response to the plight of the Palestinians. Why is it then that no Arab country will give the Palestinians a home in their own country?

There are lots of Palestinian refugees in other Arab countries.

Why should the Palestinians give up their holy land?

 

[MSR273]

What they offered Arafat was completely unacceptable and Arafat never could have accepted it and retained any credibility.

Er... he stole hundreds of millions from the Palistinian people. Just how much credibilty did he have.

Why should the Palestinians give up their holy land?

Er... because it is a sh*thole where hundreds of their children are being killed.

 

[- PC -]

Just going slightly off topic but in a weird way on topic.

If the Aborigines got organised and started violently trying to reclaim their land back how would the rest of the world react? How would they react to the ''white Australians '' attempt to quell the violence?

What right could whitey claim their moral superiority? '' I declare this land in the name of God and King and his antecedents''

 

[MSR273]

Just going slightly off topic but in a weird way on topic.

If the Aborigines got organised and started violently trying to reclaim their land back how would the rest of the world react? How would they react to the ''white Australians '' attempt to quell the violence?

What right could whitey claim their moral superiority? '' I declare this land in the name of God and King and his antecedents''

By what right can the Aborigines claim their moral superiority?

 

[- PC -]

By what right can the Aborigines claim their moral superiority?

Where did I say they could?

 

[MSR273]

Where did I say they could?

Where did I say you said they could?

I'm just posing a follow on from your theme.

 

[- PC -]

If the aborigines = the palestinians and ''whitey'' = Israel then whose side would you take?

 

[just maybe]

Er... he stole hundreds of millions from the Palistinian people. Just how much credibilty did he have.



Er... because it is a sh*thole where hundreds of their children are being killed.

You really aren't smart, are you?

 

[Murray]

You really aren't smart, are you?

He really isn't anything.
Every thing he says is a regurgitation of someone elses diatribe

 

[GuruJane]

So while the Arabs were actually living in Palestine, the Jews were praying about it. Therefore the Jews have a priority right to the land?

To repeat. Your reduction of Jewish history is risible.

By what right did the League of Nations or the United Nations unilaterally split up the land? Certainly under no circumstances could it be said to be the actual will of the people, because the people were never asked.

That's how it was done in those days. Tough but true.

 

[Contra Mundum]

By what right can the Aborigines claim their moral superiority?

That is bizarre; since when has their been moral equivalence between the coloniser and the colonised - few dead Tasmanian Aborigines would have a clear view on whose side morality was on

 

[MSR273]

That is bizarre; since when has their been moral equivalence between the coloniser and the colonised - few dead Tasmanian Aborigines would have a clear view on whose side morality was on

Not at all CM. Every piece of land owned was taken from someone else, who had taken it from someone else etc etc.

The aborigines had no greater moral claim to their land than we do now, as they had certainly stolen it themselves from some other group.

If I steal something, then I can hardly complain when that item is stolen from me.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Not at all CM. Every piece of land owned was taken from someone else, who had taken it from someone else etc etc.

The aborigines had no greater moral claim to their land than we do now, as they had certainly stolen it themselves from some other group.

If I steal something, then I can hardly complain when that item is stolen from me.

Spears and Boomerangs vs. Spears and Boomerangs

Not Spears and Boomerangs vs. Guns and Tall Ships.

On the basis of your logic a 300 year old blood fued is morally justified. Even murder can be justified on your argument - can't see it meself