Are the Palestinians the Jews NOT expelled from Judaea after Bar Kochba Revolt?

And those 900 years ended a long, long, long time ago.; more than 2000 years ago in fact.
Which other people would seriously claim territory based on a rule that ended 2000 years ago?
Ridiculous, I know.

Yet that is what HBendor has to fall back on as his only justification for Palestine being Jewish territory once his fiddling of the post WW1 demographic statistics, his misquoting and cherry-picking of the Survey for Palestine, and his inability to provide proof for his statement that 1 million 'squatters' entered Palestine in 1947/1948 are spotted and he is unable to refute the factual and verifiable rebuttals.

Just imagine the hysterical laughter if any of the following claims were to be made based on ancient rule:

# the Iroqouis claiming all of NE USA (they ruled it infinitely longer that the Jews ruled in Palestine; their Gods also gave that home to them; they are also eternally tied to that land)
# the Italians laying claim to Britain
# the Turks laying claim to Saudi Arabia
# the Greeks claiming Lebanon
# the Mongolians claiming Iran
# the Syrians claiming Spain (they ruled it for over 700 years)

The world laughter would ring on for decades.

# the Brits claiming Nigeria. ---- wait, that is vastly more reasonable because their rule only ended 50 years ago, not 2000. Mr Cameron, you oil supply problems are solved. Just follow HBendor's logic!!!!!

 

And what was the name of the last <RULER> if sooooooooooooooooooooooo please...???

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUNKO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Israel is the embodiment of the ubiquitous Land of the Jews of the world, and their return to the land of their ancestors where Jews can escape anti-Semitism and build a distinctive Nation that will flourish. The longing for a homeland through nearly 2,000 years of exile was the belief that Jews were a separate and distinct people. In a world where the right of self-determination for Papua is recognized, why are Jewish rights in their country challenged universally?

Jews constitute a unique people in that they are simultaneously a people, a religion, and a nation. They have lived alone, as a society based on its culture, language, religion, and ties to the outside world, in their own land...<Eretz Israel>. When they wandered they suffered horrors and massacres in foreign lands. They knew no peace in any country when their numbers grew large and their qualities were recognized. Not one society, religion, or economic or social system gave them homage, a permanent haven, or rest. Jews were burned, drowned, cut to pieces, converted, Inquisitioned, Crusaded, Islamized, pogromed, and Auschwitzed to death.

If the Arabs are unhappy about this, it is understandable. It is never easy to be a lodger in someone else's home. A lodger does not become the owner of the house. Arabs should live in their own house. They are Medieval and, another THOUSAND years will not civilize them&#8230; <There are 22 Arab states that were created this past century for their self-determination...> Israel cannot change its Jewish character. Jews have no moral right to an Israel that is a non-Jewish state. It is a contradiction between the Jewish character of Israel and the democratic right of Arabs to aspire to all the rights that Jews have...including having an Arab minority in the land. This is exactly what is happening with the Arab birthrate the homeland &#8216;Israel&#8217;, was reconstituted for Jews, not Arabs while 22 were <CREATED> for the Arabs, yet they covet the only ancient state of the Jews on earth...

The Arabs of Israel feel they belong wholly to the Arab nation, which opposes Israel right to be independent and even exist, and yet, they live in a Jewish state with whose political goals they cannot identify and whose social and cultural values they do not share. No Arab can identify with Zionism (the international movement of the dispersed Jews back to their homeland) we have our own preference, to live in our inherited ancestral Land, and carry on with our Jewish culture, etc. No amount of cajoling, no amount of public insults, defamation and other demeaning things through the 2,000 years of history has changed us&#8230; We are now in our Patrimony and we are the envy of the medieval Arab world. People here write evil statements to disparage the Jews as a last resort... If only they knew that as of today&#8230; we have not yet begun to fight.

It is time to choose: unswerving adherence to a Jewish state soon to be 66 years old or wait for an Arab democracy to burgeon when it is in contradiction to the Qur&#8217;an&#8230; It is either wait for an Arab Democracy or accept one Jewish Democracy already in existence.

 

Because the Papuans did not take a 2000 year leave-of-absence and then claim a right to sovereignty.

Yeah ..... good luck with that.

The only reason that it was allowed for the Jews was the colonialist habit of the British. Ask the descendants of the Boers who managed to survive the British concentration camp hell-holes in South Africa. Ask the Paddys in Ireland. Ask the Argentinian Wops. Ask the Guatamalans. Ask the Ndebele Kaffirs. Ask the Wogs in Australia. Or the Coolies in India.

So it was second nature for them to renege on their 1915 promise to Hussein, a promise made when they sent Lawrence to Arabia to get the Arabs to rise up against the Ottoman. The Arabs had done what they were asked to do and were now redundant. The objective of Ottoman overthrow had been achieved, so 2 years later it was fine to screw the Fellahs.

If that is not true, then why did the British not comply with the words of the Mandate for Palestine and why did they violate clause 22 of the covenant of the League of Nations? Is an alternative explanation to British disdain for local people that someone bullied THEM in 1946 when Britain was negotiating its war debt with the USA?

Or was it that they felt extreme guilt at what the had befallen the Jews during WW2, and the relaxing convenience of some Fellahs in the Levant having to pay for Western absolution?

I suspect it was mostly the latter, but I cannot prove it. Maybe the answer lies in some classified archive in Whitehall. Who knows?

Why did they not fight for the same to be done for the Kurds? For the Ndebele in Rhodesia? For the Hutus in central Africa? For the Bosnians in Serbia? For the Baluchi in western Pakistan? Why only for the Jews?

There has to be SOME reason for this sordid British duplicity.

 

Jews have a right to make their own state in Palestine after leaving 2,000 years ago?

what crap.

the Russians originally come from Scandinavia. Does that mean they have a right to make their own state in Sweden?

The people in Brittany, France come from Britian. Do they have a right to make their own state on Britain?

Eskimos originally come from Asia. Do they have a right to invade Siberia?

 

You do realise that the concentration camps were built out of malice? Also I'm really sick of hearing about Britain being the inventors of said camps. It's not true.

To be fair though Ireland did receive some cruelty from British rule particularly with the evictions of the late 19th century.
Argentina can go stick it next time they try and invade.
Umm we never had anything to do with Guatemala. The closest territory was Belize which is a protectorate.
Also our on and off wars with Xhosa actually helped protect emigrant Boers.

You've got the term Wogs wrong. It's an acronym for Western Oriental Gentleman. I think you'll find that the Australian settlers attacked aborigines themselves which was punished by the noose. In fact it only became legal to shoot aborigines after dominion status.

The British Raj would be too long to get into. But let's put it this way. It was both good and bad.

We did not violate the mandate. We left because we could not hold Palestine in a stable state and we were very broke defending both ourselves and continental Europe from Nazis.

Whoa do you know what you're saying? They were the ones slaughtering the Tutsi.

Your imagination. No seriously now, the British empire is gone. I'd appreciate it if people would stop blaming us for things that happened a VERY long time ago. World has moved on.

 

I do not believe that Britain acted out of malice. It was just the way they were used to doing things. It was "par for the course" in those days.

But I do disagree with you when you say that Britain did not violate the mandate. Britain clearly acted in violation of the critical prelude clause “it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. The Mufti of Jerusalem clearly signalled to Britain that the scale of Jewish immigration that Britain was allowing was unacceptable to the Palestinian people. Yet Britain continued until the publication of the 1939 White Paper. And then, instead of complying with the Arab call to create an independent Palestine, Britain passed the monkey to the UN in 1947, who then proceeded to act illegally, but that is another topic.

But the British hand in the ME mess of today started even before the 1922 Mandate. The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence embodied an October 1915 agreement that was approved at the highest level by Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Grey. McMahon's promises were therefore seen by the Arabs as a formal agreement between them and the United Kingdom. Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour represented the agreement as a treaty during the post war deliberations of the Council of Four. Palestine had been in the package that had been promised to the Arabs in return for their uprising against the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs complied. The British then shafted them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence


And that shafting was done via the May 1916 Sykes–Picot agreement in which France and Britain divided up the spoils between them in secret when the ink was hardly dry on McMahon’s letter. It has also been reported that the publication of the Sykes–Picot Agreement caused the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement

But the shafting went further still. In November 1917 Lord Balfour issues a declaration in which the British government would view favourably the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration,_1917 Although this was only a “view”, intense pressure by Britain got the Balfour declaration included in the Mandate for Palestine approval. It had become international law.

Remember that the Mandate was given to Britain under Article 22 of the League of Nations covenant. That covenant states "there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant". Promising a home for a European people in territory promised to the Arabs was clearly duplicitous.

 

I don't think that we did violate those rights through immigration. And we did limit it during the 30's
However it could be said that Jewish purchases of land had indirectly harmed Arabs in Palestine due to the economic problems caused by said purchases in regards to Arab workers.

That is not something we had control over except when it came down to immigration which prompted the white paper of 39. A bit too late in my opinion.
It should also be noted that at this time the Jewish population rose which meant that they were no longer a small minority and that independence would be tricky.

I agree that Sykes & Picot were two of the most clueless diplomats in the world.
And that there was a serious bit of shafting in wake of the Arab revolt in WW1 but that is of course pre-mandate.


Now finally when it comes to passing the monkey over to the UN. Well can you blame us all things considered?

Ultimately I believe that British governance over Palestine did not intentionally violate the rights the resident populations both Arab and Jew.
And that through slow as well as inaction had unintentionally exacerbated the rift between Arab and Jew.
Furthermore I refute the claim of British duplicity during the Mandate.

 

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Britain made conflicting promises to the two parties. In my book that is duplicitous. Britain as mandate holder could have created a Palestinian state in which Jews were allowed residence, in line with the original purpose and wording of the Mandate. Instead she went into parapet-ducking mode and handed the duplicitous mess to the UN. This was against both LoN and against the Mandate rules. I do agree that the lack of appropriate and speedy reaction to obvious developments exacerbated the situation.

Nonetheless, thank you for the civil tone in which you conducted the debate. Much appreciated.

 

Once again grandiloquent with big words and names of people is non applicable here.

Put your glasses on and compare the maps of the 1900 with the maps of today, you will notice that the Assyrians do not exist and Arab Syria took its place killing its own people, Jordan was created from nothing but the whim of Mr. Churchill from the <Lands assigned to the Jews> and it became Jordan another Fictitious Arab Country, look at the Mandate for Mesopotamia that destroyed the aspirations of Kurds, Mesopotamian and Babylonian and this turned up into Iraq an Arab country killing its own people today... Conquered Egypt received its Independence etc., etc., all these 22 Arab countries were created this past century by the so called Benevolence of the Allied Powers of WW I...

Israel is the ONLY country that has a basis in history for it represents its own people from <time immemorial>. The created Arab countries flaunt artifacts that have no connection with Arabs and do not belong to them... i.e. Syria, Egypt, Iraq, north Africa and so on... as an example Mexico and Peru are elated to show the tourists the Monuments of the Incas and the Mayas...

All of you Jews haters and Jew baiters, defamers and libelous of the only people in existence today to deny them <self determination> in the Land of their Forefathers... Go ALL whistle the Marseillaise!

 

March of Nations in my hometown Jerusalem the Capital of ISRAEL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ_kMFXy-LQ&feature=player_embedded

 

Beliefs are not what is real.

"jew' is not a people. A 'jew' is a religious adherant.

beliefs are not what makes a 'people' .

Beliefs may divide a people, but then there is no right when dividing based on belief.

If you can prove that 'jews' are not human, then you have a right.

How many people even know what the Bar Kochba revolt was? Was messiah as labeled for that revolt, know as nasi, just because he led people?

For example the Nasi of germany was hitler. I find that the whole reason behind the labeled nazi was born from usage of the beliefs of a nasi.


I can not help but find the 2 embodiments of nazi germany and israel are simply based on the ignorance of the adherants and in both cases, oppression is the ultimate proof that dividing based on belief, is what causes the horror.


If people are to enable the divide of human beings and any inheritance right to a land, based on belief then realize a holocaust (burnt sacrifice/samson option) is inevitable.



.

.

 

No worries Besides how else can you debate politics, everything else is just a grand exercise in anger management and it takes the fun out of it.

Although we have different opinions regarding the British administration of Palestine. I am glad that we have reached a consensus with this aspect.

 

A civil and polite debate is wonderful isn't it?????!!!!

What is even more amazing is to give the other person credit for being perhaps 5% or 10% or 15% or maybe even 30% kind of sort of perhaps correct.....sort of????!!!!

 

since when?

 

Bishadi is right on that one........My guess would be at the least since the Bar Kochba REvolt when the distinction between the Messianic Jewish/Messianic Gentile Community from the Rabbinic Jewish community became political......and rather serious??!!

Up until that time a Messianic Jew could generally go into the synagogue......and perhaps be asked to read a passage or so from the scrolls and elaborate........As Rabbi Jesus/ Yeshua was asked to do because his mom was a Royal Kohen.......and Rabbi Jesus and his twin brother Judas Didymus Thomas were educated to the teeth????!!!!!

 

Yes absolutely. That is the point of a reasonable debate otherwise it's just contradiction.

 

Last week I decided that I may as well get me a rather serious conflict going. I need to publicly discuss leaving the political party that I am involved with in order to increase the probability that the two leading political parties here in Canada will come through with a plan to decrease tensions in the Middle East!!!??

I sure hope that this debate will be civil and productive!!??


http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...gypt-what-we-can-do-about.html#post1062993901

 

nothing to prove jesus was royalty

luke 1 is not evidence

twin brother? Now, mary had twins????

~ Edit/ Focus on the topic ~

 

According to the Dead Sea Scrolls......yes!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle

 

What happened to his brother James then?

 

If I remember correctly he eventually was killed too.


HBendor......what do you personally think and/or feel when you hear about large groups of Palestinians asserting that their grandparents have been preserving Jewish customs for centuries.....and then they go all out and convert (or should I write re-convert) ....to Judaism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17i0JhKo7nM&feature=player_embedded
Palestinian Muslims convert to Judaism Part 2

 

The issue of James being the genetic brother or half brother of Rabbi Yeshua/ Jesus is an important one to assist Catholics to treat the Jewish people with more respect.

It is almost certain that James/Yacob was married.....probably had children.....and as they got older many of these children might feel closer to the Jewish community than to the Messianic community.....In some cases the great, great great, grandchildren who remained highly observant of many Jewish practices might not have felt able to become member of the large paganized Christian church.....and thus might have joined with the Jewish community. If Catholics were more so aware of the case that Rabbi Jesus/ Yeshua had brothers and sisters.........this could potentially translate into the Vatican being much more respectful for Israelis no matter of which branch of Judaism they belong to!!!????

 

You make a good point here... Very observant indeed.

 

Dennis,
What is the documentary evidence that Jews were expelled from Judea in 125 CE?
Where did most of them go to?