NationStates Jolt Archive


Thousands protest Gaza pullout/Sharon warns Israel at risk of 'civil war'

The What Man
13-09-2004, 03:10
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5974183/


The Associated Press
Updated: 8:38 p.m. ET Sept. 12, 2004JERUSALEM - Tens of thousands of Jewish settlers and their backers demonstrated in Jerusalem on Sunday against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan to evacuate all settlements from Gaza and four West Bank enclaves in a rally held against a backdrop of assassination threats and warnings of civil war.


The withdrawal plan has upset the Israeli political scene since it was announced last year, turning Sharon’s backers into opponents and detractors into supporters. Skeptical Palestinians believe the whole plan is a trick to annex large parts of the West Bank to Israel.

The demonstrators filled downtown Jerusalem, shutting down much of the city, to protest the planned pullout.

Most of those filling downtown were Orthodox Jews, many of them teenage girls in long skirts or youths wearing knit skullcaps. A huge banner behind the stage set the theme: “Disengagement tears the people apart.” Many waved blue-and-white Israeli flags.

Organizers pledged to prevent incitement to violence, but there were also some ominous signs.

One placard warned that the head of Sharon’s disengagement committee would “not be forgiven.” Another showed a picture of Sharon under the words, “The Dictator.”


Another sign said, “A time to love, a time to hate,” quoting the biblical Book of Ecclessiastes.

After the demonstration, hundreds of participants, many holding candles, marched to a square near Sharon’s official residence, where they called on the prime minister to resign. The rally dispersed peacefully.

At a Cabinet meeting Sunday morning, Sharon warned of statements of “grave incitement” that were “directing toward a civil war.”

“There are not enough voices being heard among the Cabinet on this subject,” Sharon complained.

The issue of incitement has been especially sensitive in Israel since the Nov. 4, 1995, assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by an ultra-nationalist Jew opposed to Rabin’s policy favoring territorial concessions to the Palestinians in exchange for peace. Some Israeli commentators have compared the current atmosphere to the vitriolic period preceding Rabin’s death.

Mainstream settler leaders rejected Sharon’s statement as an attempt to paint all of them with the extremist brush.

“We are completely against violence or threats of violence,” Settlers Council spokesman Josh Hasten said. “These blanket statements unjustly put an entire group into a category.”

'Land of Israel'
Israel’s minority Orthodox Jews revere the West Bank as part of the biblical Jewish homeland.

“This is the land of Israel, not the land of Ishmael,” ancestor of Islam, said Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, a spiritual leader of the settlers, to cheers from the crowd.

Polls show that the large secular Jewish majority favors steps to distance Israel from the Palestinians, including an exit from Gaza and removal of some West Bank settlements.

Opposition to Sharon’s plan comes from his traditional constituency. For decades, Sharon was the prime mover behind creation and expansion of Jewish settlements.

During Sunday’s demonstration, organizers showed a series of video clips from recent years in which Sharon spoke in favor of settlements and against giving up territory to the Palestinians.

His change of heart has shocked supporters and left traditional opponents skeptical. In the months that have followed his first pronouncement at the end of last year, Sharon has tried to persuade both sides of his sincerity — convincing many that he has abandoned his former ideology of giving up little or no territory in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Sharon has explained that the Jewish presence in Gaza has become untenable, with about 8,000 Jews in 21 settlements living along 1.3 million Palestinians.

Sharon said pulling out of Gaza would help Israel solidify its hold on parts of the West Bank where most of the 240,000 settlers live and would pre-empt international peace initiatives he feels would be unfavorable to Israel.

'Crossed all the lines'
Sharon refuses to coordinate the pullout with Palestinian officials, charging that Yasser Arafat’s administration is responsible for four years of violence. Palestinians counter that Israeli military moves lead to violence, and they believe that Sharon’s plan amounts to a West Bank land grab to prevent them from forming a state.

Sharon’s domestic opposition is just as formidable. Twice he has lost internal Likud Party votes on his plan by wide margins, but he insists he will carry it out regardless.

Last week, a group of prominent Israeli hard-liners published a call to Israeli soldiers to disobey orders to carry out the withdrawal.

On Friday, settler leaders said Sharon had no mandate to carry out the withdrawal, calling the plan a “Nazi act” and warning it could lead to civil war.

“When you feel the winds, many feel the prime minister has crossed all the lines and is no longer seen as legitimate,” Eran Sternberg, a spokesman for Gaza Strip settlers, said Sunday. “This prepares the ground for violence.
New Vinnland
13-09-2004, 03:15
Meh. Israel is just a swollen parasite suckling from America's teat.
The What Man
13-09-2004, 03:19
Meh. Israel is just a swollen parasite suckling from America's teat.


And you are a moron who needs a brain transplant.


(Not an American)
New Vinnland
13-09-2004, 03:22
And you are a moron who needs a brain transplant.


(Not an American)

You sure showed me.
The What Man
13-09-2004, 03:23
You sure showed me.


Got anything intelligent to say? Guess not, go away.
New Vinnland
13-09-2004, 03:26
Got anything intelligent to say? Guess not, go away.

I'm not the one 'trolling', am I?
Gee Mister Peabody
13-09-2004, 03:37
yep, Zionists suck all right.

Seriously though, no matter what Sharon does there will be protests. Too bad there's so many Israelies that prefer expansion to peace.
Gigatron
13-09-2004, 03:42
yep, Zionists suck all right.

Seriously though, no matter what Sharon does there will be protests. Too bad there's so many Israelies that prefer expansion to peace.
These people got their priorities wrong. In politics, the bible is not a good thing to base claims on...
New Vinnland
13-09-2004, 03:42
yep, Zionists suck all right.

Seriously though, no matter what Sharon does there will be protests. Too bad there's so many Israelies that prefer expansion to peace.

That's because they arrogantly believe that they superior to the gentiles due to "divine preference".
Austrealite
13-09-2004, 03:55
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5974183/


The Associated Press
Updated: 8:38 p.m. ET Sept. 12, 2004JERUSALEM - Tens of thousands of Jewish settlers and their backers demonstrated in Jerusalem on Sunday against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan to evacuate all settlements from Gaza and four West Bank enclaves in a rally held against a backdrop of assassination threats and warnings of civil war.


The withdrawal plan has upset the Israeli political scene since it was announced last year, turning Sharon’s backers into opponents and detractors into supporters. Skeptical Palestinians believe the whole plan is a trick to annex large parts of the West Bank to Israel.

The demonstrators filled downtown Jerusalem, shutting down much of the city, to protest the planned pullout.

Most of those filling downtown were Orthodox Jews, many of them teenage girls in long skirts or youths wearing knit skullcaps. A huge banner behind the stage set the theme: “Disengagement tears the people apart.” Many waved blue-and-white Israeli flags.

Organizers pledged to prevent incitement to violence, but there were also some ominous signs.

One placard warned that the head of Sharon’s disengagement committee would “not be forgiven.” Another showed a picture of Sharon under the words, “The Dictator.”


Another sign said, “A time to love, a time to hate,” quoting the biblical Book of Ecclessiastes.

After the demonstration, hundreds of participants, many holding candles, marched to a square near Sharon’s official residence, where they called on the prime minister to resign. The rally dispersed peacefully.

At a Cabinet meeting Sunday morning, Sharon warned of statements of “grave incitement” that were “directing toward a civil war.”

“There are not enough voices being heard among the Cabinet on this subject,” Sharon complained.

The issue of incitement has been especially sensitive in Israel since the Nov. 4, 1995, assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by an ultra-nationalist Jew opposed to Rabin’s policy favoring territorial concessions to the Palestinians in exchange for peace. Some Israeli commentators have compared the current atmosphere to the vitriolic period preceding Rabin’s death.

Mainstream settler leaders rejected Sharon’s statement as an attempt to paint all of them with the extremist brush.

“We are completely against violence or threats of violence,” Settlers Council spokesman Josh Hasten said. “These blanket statements unjustly put an entire group into a category.”

'Land of Israel'
Israel’s minority Orthodox Jews revere the West Bank as part of the biblical Jewish homeland.

“This is the land of Israel, not the land of Ishmael,” ancestor of Islam, said Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, a spiritual leader of the settlers, to cheers from the crowd.

Polls show that the large secular Jewish majority favors steps to distance Israel from the Palestinians, including an exit from Gaza and removal of some West Bank settlements.

Opposition to Sharon’s plan comes from his traditional constituency. For decades, Sharon was the prime mover behind creation and expansion of Jewish settlements.

During Sunday’s demonstration, organizers showed a series of video clips from recent years in which Sharon spoke in favor of settlements and against giving up territory to the Palestinians.

His change of heart has shocked supporters and left traditional opponents skeptical. In the months that have followed his first pronouncement at the end of last year, Sharon has tried to persuade both sides of his sincerity — convincing many that he has abandoned his former ideology of giving up little or no territory in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Sharon has explained that the Jewish presence in Gaza has become untenable, with about 8,000 Jews in 21 settlements living along 1.3 million Palestinians.

Sharon said pulling out of Gaza would help Israel solidify its hold on parts of the West Bank where most of the 240,000 settlers live and would pre-empt international peace initiatives he feels would be unfavorable to Israel.

'Crossed all the lines'
Sharon refuses to coordinate the pullout with Palestinian officials, charging that Yasser Arafat’s administration is responsible for four years of violence. Palestinians counter that Israeli military moves lead to violence, and they believe that Sharon’s plan amounts to a West Bank land grab to prevent them from forming a state.

Sharon’s domestic opposition is just as formidable. Twice he has lost internal Likud Party votes on his plan by wide margins, but he insists he will carry it out regardless.

Last week, a group of prominent Israeli hard-liners published a call to Israeli soldiers to disobey orders to carry out the withdrawal.

On Friday, settler leaders said Sharon had no mandate to carry out the withdrawal, calling the plan a “Nazi act” and warning it could lead to civil war.

“When you feel the winds, many feel the prime minister has crossed all the lines and is no longer seen as legitimate,” Eran Sternberg, a spokesman for Gaza Strip settlers, said Sunday. “This prepares the ground for violence.

Just want to respond to this "“This is the land of Israel, not the land of Ishmael,” ancestor of Islam, said Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, a spiritual leader of the settlers, to cheers from the crowd."

Most of the Jews, in fact...more than 90% are not descendants of Israel...the land belongs to the Israelites, not the Jews!
QahJoh
13-09-2004, 11:40
Sigh...

yep, Zionists suck all right.

Oversimplistic and unfair. Zionism is an extremely broad movement that encompasses a whole bunch of different viewpoints. A lot of the peace movements in Israel are both run by Zionists, and are Zionist in their ideology and aproach to peace.

Furthermore, the article refers to "tens of thousands" of people. There are over 6 million Israelis, the vast majority of whom are Zionists. It is extremely disengenuous to take one protest as being reasonable evidence with which to malign and indict an entire ideological movement.

The nationalist, expansionist wing of right-wing Zionism is merely a faction of the Israeli political spectrum, akin to, say, the Dixiecrat faction of the Democratic party in the 1960s.

Seriously though, no matter what Sharon does there will be protests. Too bad there's so many Israelies that prefer expansion to peace.

Actually, poll after poll taken over the past ten-plus years have shown a clear majority of Israelis favor a 2-state solution. This number was over 70 percent during the Oslo process, culminating with Camp David II which unfortunately backfired on all involved.

Recent polls show about 70 percent of Israelis support the disengagement plan.

Like I said, don't label all these people with the same brush.

That's because they arrogantly believe that they superior to the gentiles due to "divine preference".

Some of them do indeed believe that. But about half (possibly closer to 2/3rds) of the Israeli settlers are not there for religious or nationalist reasons, but rather for economic ones. For Israelis, settlements are like very nice suburbs or ranches. They offer people a lot of amenities with a close-knit community, etc, and all for very low rent. Some settlers are recent immigrants with not a lot of money, who can't really afford to live in a house inside Israel proper.

Furthermore, settlers who want to leave (and yes, they do exist), have been effectively prevented from doing so by the government, because it refuses to let them out of their leases- this would force them to pay for two homes if they went back inside the Green Line. So that's also a factor.

BUT, what's interesting is that polls of the settlers have shown that a significant number want to leave, and even more important, a large proportion would leave if told by the government, without resisting.

It's the ideological settlers, the ones who are there for religious and nationalist reasons, where you run into trouble. It is THOSE people who are likely to use violence to resist evacuation. It is THOSE people who claim that they are the only legitimate Jews in Israel, that only they know God's will, and that God has explicitly given that land to THEM.

They are a threat not just to Middle East peace, but also to Israeli democracy, for which they are contemptuous. Many secular Israelis feel no more kinship with these people than they do with Muslim fanatics in Iran or Afghanistan.

Most of the Jews, in fact...more than 90% are not descendants of Israel...the land belongs to the Israelites, not the Jews!

Prove it. This time, try a new quote.
QahJoh
13-09-2004, 11:51
As I said:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/477277.html

Police estimated that about 40,000 people filled the Kikar Zion intersection of Jaffa Road and the Ben Yehuda promenade in downtown Jerusalem. But the settlers - who kept politicians off the stage - said there were as many as 70,000.

Just for some perspective, there are about 6 million Jews in Israel. And about 245,000 settlers. This rally is certainly noteworthy, but not really meaningful in terms of size.

The demonstrators - mostly teenagers, and almost all wearing the knitted scullcaps of the national-religious community - did not display the kind of extremist placards seen at similar rallies in the 1990s, when Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister.

As I said- these people do not represent anybody but themselves. They're angry and they're frustrated, but THESE folks are not the ones that Israelis need to worry about- they need to worry about the ones that won't bother will protests and the like. They need to worry about the future Yigal Amirs and Baruch Goldsteins out there.

Edit: And furthermore, it seems like one of the purposes of this rally was to TONE DOWN the far-right rhetoric that's been being heard in Israel over the past couple of weeks!

http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=11030

However, the aim of the event’s organizers was to lower the heightened tensions and calm public discourse. They handed out the “10 Commandments of the settler”, which included the following instructions:

- The struggle against the disengagement plan will be a determined one but also non-violent.
- Physical or verbal abuse against security forces who, God forbid, would be ordered to uproot settlements illegally, is strictly forbidden.
- Civil war is a disaster that must not be reached in any case or situation. The government and us should fight this with all their power.
- Promoting the disengagement plan while crushing all rules of democracy places the blame on the nation’s division, if it were to take place, God forbid, on the prime minister.
Austrealite
13-09-2004, 12:14
Prove it. This time, try a new quote.

Well, I'll look at it from a prophacy and from the Bible view...

1) Israel must be an Island Nation - "Here the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock" - Jeremiah 31:10, also see (Isa. 41:1; 42:12; 11:11; 24:14-16; 49:1-3; 49:12.)

2) Israel must exist as a GREAT nation - (Jer. 31:35-37; 33:20-26.) Until 1948 there was no such nation of the Jews and the present nation of the Israeli in Palestine is a "psuedo-Israel."

3) Israel must be made up of a vast number of people, the Bible illustrates this by saying: "as the sand of the sea, or the stars of heaven, in number." (Hosea 1:10; Gen. 22:17; Gen. 32:12.) The Jews, according to their own census figures, have never numbered more than 18-million at any one time.

4) Israel must have found the island lands too small for their numbers and desired larger areas for expansion. "For thy waste and desolate places, and the land of thy destruction, shall even be too narrow (small) by reason of thy inhabitants, and they that swallow thee shall be far away." The American Standard Version translates this to read: "Surely now, you will be too cramped for the inhabitants." This was what happened during the 18th and 19th century, when during a fifty year period, more than 40-million Anglo-Israelites migrated to Canada and the United States, in the greatest migration of all time. This has never happened to the Jews.

5) Israel must have lost part of their people, at least one tribe, which split off from the mother nation. Isaiah 49:20 -"The children which thou shalt have, AFTER THOU HAST LOST THE OTHERS, shall say again in thy ears, THE PLACE IS TO STRAIT (small) for me; give me a place where I may dwell." So in 1776, when Britain lost her children in the United States, within a few years, the migration took place which took Israelites to South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and of course, the United States. The Jews have never had a split off from their ranks like this.

6) Israel must be living under a monarchy and have a descendant of King David (king or queen) sitting on their throne. (1 Chron. 22:10; 2 Chron. 13:5; Jer. 33:17; 33:19-26; 2 Sam. 7:13-16.) The British monarchy traces its ancestry back to David and the genealogy is there for even the skeptics to see if they so desire. It is openly displayed at Westminster Abbey and is an official part of British government documentation.

7) Israel must be represented by more than one nation. (Gen. 35:11) says ". . . a nation, and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins." Only the nations of Christendom qualify here. One nation, the United States, and a "company of nations," the British Commonwealth, all white nations. By no stretch of the most vivid fundamentalist imagination, can the Jews qualify here.

8) Israel must have immense colonies (Isa. 49:8; 54:3.) Again, only the British Commonwealth qualifies here. The Jews have never had any colonies.

9) Israel will be the chief (most prominent) of the nations, (Jer. 31:7; Amos 6:1.)

10) Israel will be a wealthy nation. (Deut. 8:18.) The Gross National Product of the Israeli in 1980, was about $16.4-billion; that of the U.S. $2.5-trillion; that of Canada $249.3-billion; that of Australia $119.1-billion; that of New Zealand $20.2-billion; that of South Africa $54.9-billion; that of Britain $346.6-billion. This means that the nations of Christendom, "true Israel, has a yearly GNP of about $3.289-trillion compared with $16.4-billion for the Israeli. Israeli leaders know that if the U.S. were to withdraw their support of the Israeli, they would soon collapse.

11) Israel will lend to others, but not borrow (Deut. 15:6). This is a conditional promise. Since the end of World War II, the United States has supplied other nations (this is through the end of 1979) more than $246-billion in military, economic and technical aid and loans. Of this, only $75-billion has been in loans, the rest has been in the form of gifts. To the Jews in Palestine, for instance, we have given $1 2-billion plus, with only $4.4-billion repaid. But during this time, as the U.S. has drawn away from God, we have begun to borrow from the International Bankers, who are almost l00% Jews who control the Federal Reserve System until in one year, we borrowed more than $80-billion at huge interest rates, so that we could give it away, often to nations who hate us. The conditions of Deut. 28:44 are now at work in this country: "He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.''

...want me to continue?
QahJoh
14-09-2004, 03:03
Well, I'll look at it from a prophacy and from the Bible view...

Of course you will. Prophecy and the Bible are so fluid that they can be manipulated to prove any point they wish, as you go on to do.

*Sigh* Here we go...

1) Israel must be an Island Nation - "Here the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock" - Jeremiah 31:10, also see (Isa. 41:1; 42:12; 11:11; 24:14-16; 49:1-3; 49:12.)

First, this doesn't say ANYTHING about Israel being an island nation- it says that the declaration (about God having scattered Israel will also gather him) will be declared IN THE ISLES.

Second, the "island" as an allegory can be used in many contexts. Israel could be referred to as an "island" of monotheism, for example. Even today, Israel is often referred to in the media as an "island" of democracy, or "an island in the Arab/Muslim world".

2) Israel must exist as a GREAT nation - (Jer. 31:35-37; 33:20-26.) Until 1948 there was no such nation of the Jews and the present nation of the Israeli in Palestine is a "psuedo-Israel."

Well, first, remember that you're using PROPHECY- we don't know when this is "supposed" to happen. Jeremiah is often referred to, along with Isaiah, as being a "messianic" scripture.

http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm

The Moshiach
The moshiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The moshiach is often referred to as "moshiach ben David" (moshiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments. (Isaiah 11:2-5) He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

This site points out that the Jeremiah scripture you mentioned is, at least in Jewish thought, explicitly referring to the messianic age. Your attempt to apply it to the past and, indeed, the present, is thus absurd and irrelevant.

3) Israel must be made up of a vast number of people, the Bible illustrates this by saying: "as the sand of the sea, or the stars of heaven, in number." (Hosea 1:10; Gen. 22:17; Gen. 32:12.) The Jews, according to their own census figures, have never numbered more than 18-million at any one time.

That's not what the verses say. You are misquoting and misinterpreting. Hosea says: "Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass that, instead of that which was said unto them: 'Ye are not My people', it shall be said unto them: 'Ye are the children of the living G-d.'"

Genesis 22:

"And the angel of HaShem called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven, and said: 'By Myself have I sworn, saith HaShem, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast hearkened to My voice.'"

Genesis 32:

"And Thou saidst: I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.'"

Source: Jewish Publication Society Bible, 1917. http://www.hareidi.org/bible/bible.htm

In all three cases, the "multitude" thing is merely a promise to the patriarchal line- and then to the nation of Israel as a whole- that it will, IN THE FUTURE, be vast and multiplied. Again, using the fact that these prophecies (which have no apparent time qualifications,) have yet to occur as "proof" that they do not apply to the people commonly referred to as Jews is particularly nonsensical.

4) Israel must have found the island lands too small for their numbers and desired larger areas for expansion. "For thy waste and desolate places, and the land of thy destruction, shall even be too narrow (small) by reason of thy inhabitants, and they that swallow thee shall be far away." The American Standard Version translates this to read: "Surely now, you will be too cramped for the inhabitants." This was what happened during the 18th and 19th century, when during a fifty year period, more than 40-million Anglo-Israelites migrated to Canada and the United States, in the greatest migration of all time. This has never happened to the Jews.

First, just note that it's particularly rude and irritating to not cite your quotes. I'm already looking up your cited quotes and refuting them, don't give me MORE work, please.

Second, you are referring, yet again, to a messianic prophecy. Jews do not believe the messianic age has yet occured, so it is, once again, erroneous to use this as an indication that Jews are not Jews because they have yet to do things the Bible says they will do AT SOME POINT.

Third, there is another school of thought which says that this ALREADY happened (the "two-fold" approach, that is, the Isaiah- like many other Jewish prophets) not only describes contemporary tragedies, but also weaves the same events into a future narrative). In this case, the argument is that Isaiah is describing the Babylonian exile of the Hebrews.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/isaiah.html

Gerald T. Sheppard writes: "Scholars have, for many years, observed that the latter half of the book addresses the conditions of people in the Babylonian exile; in the times of Isaiah, Assyria alone was a threat and Babylon was viewed as a friendly, historically minor nation (see Isa. 39). Furthermore, on its own terms, the prophet's message in Isaiah 40-55 describes social circumstances in which the audience is positioned in a time after 'former things' have been fulfilled. This fulfillment could have occurred only during the time of the Babylonian exile (see Isa. 40:21; 41:4, 27; 42:9), a fulfillment that provides the basis for the prophet's argument that trustworthy 'new things' can be announced. Among these 'new things,' the prophet states that Cyrus will expedite the restoration of the nation of Israel and its return to the promised land. The logic of the prophet's argument turns on a recognition that the historical setting is the Babylonian exile and that previous oracles have been fulfilled in that time. For that reason, the prophet can mock other prophets who pretend to promise things without similar proof, namely, that they actually have come to pass (see Isa. 41:21-24). This prophet to the Babylonian exiles could not be identified with the historical Isaiah without either violating the logic of the argument or introducing a strange understanding of prophecy, one at odds with even a traditional view of how prophets performed and what they foresaw. Still, a modern admission of underlying similarities in theme and subject matter between the two parts of the books inspired critics to call this later unknown prophet Second Isaiah. One could speculate, without explicit biblical support, that this later prophet must have been a gifted disciple of the eighth-century 'First Isaiah.'" (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 543)

http://cc.cumberlandcollege.edu/acad/rel/hbible/HebrewBible/hbout/isaout.htm

(Isaiah outline)

E. Return to the land (49:7-50:3)

1. God will bring His people home (49:7-12)
2. Hymn (49:13)
3. Glorious return to the land (49:14-26)
4. Judgment was due to sin (50:1-3)

If we look at it from this perspective, then the verse becomes entirely different:

For thy waste and thy desolate places and thy land that hath been destroyed--surely now shalt thou be too strait for the inhabitants, and they that swallowed thee up shall be far away.

For thy waste- referring to Hebrew sins, thy land that hath been destroyed, i.e., by someone specifically (like the Babylonians, for example?) thou shalt thou be too strait for the inhabitants- no clue what this really means, whether it means "narrow" or not- I interpret it as a culture/religious clash between the Hebrews and SOMEONE ELSE, not themselves.

The last bit, they that swallowed thee up shall be far away seems to support my earlier contention that it refers to the Babylonians- they had sought to absorb the Hebrews, but the Hebrews, in returning to Israel, once again establish their national and cultural boundaries from them.

5) Israel must have lost part of their people, at least one tribe, which split off from the mother nation. Isaiah 49:20 -"The children which thou shalt have, AFTER THOU HAST LOST THE OTHERS, shall say again in thy ears, THE PLACE IS TO STRAIT (small) for me; give me a place where I may dwell." So in 1776, when Britain lost her children in the United States, within a few years, the migration took place which took Israelites to South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and of course, the United States. The Jews have never had a split off from their ranks like this.

Bull-fucking-shit. First of all, this is also Isaiah, so the same messianic thing applies. Second of all, as mentioned before with the Babylonian thing- this DID happen, at least according to standard Jewish belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribes_of_Israel#Israelites_in_Biblical_times

The ten lost tribes are those from the northern Kingdom of Israel who were deported by the Assyrians in the 8th century BC to Khorason. In Jewish popular culture they disappeared from history, leaving only the tribes of Benjamin and Judah and the Levi who evolved into the modern day Jews. See Bnai Israel.

According to the Bible, after the civil war in Solomon's son Rehoboam time, 10 tribes split off to create the northern kingdom of Israel. These were the 9 landed tribes Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, Dan, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben and Gad, and and some of Levi which had no land allocation. The Bible makes no reference at this point to Simeon and we might conjecture the author had in mind that that tribe had already disappeared due to the curse of Jacob.

Judah, the southern Kingdom, had Jerusalem as its capital and was led by King Rehoboam. It was populated by the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (and also some of Levi).

In 722 BC the Assyrians, under Shalmaneser, and then under Sargon II, conquered Israel (the northern Kingdom), destroyed its capital Samaria, and sent the Israelites into exile and captivity in Khorasan, now part of Eastern Iran and Western Afghanistan.

Today's Jews are descended from the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah.

6) Israel must be living under a monarchy and have a descendant of King David (king or queen) sitting on their throne. (1 Chron. 22:10; 2 Chron. 13:5; Jer. 33:17; 33:19-26; 2 Sam. 7:13-16.) The British monarchy traces its ancestry back to David and the genealogy is there for even the skeptics to see if they so desire. It is openly displayed at Westminster Abbey and is an official part of British government documentation.

Same tactics as before. This both happened in the Jewish past (Saul, then David and Solomon, then the division into two kingdoms, each which had their own monarchies, ostensibly descended from David- see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Judah, then the Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms- again, both dynasties theoretically descended from David), and is spoken of as occuring in the messianic age. The fact that it is not happening NOW doesn't prove anything.

Furthermore, the degree to which the British monarchs can be traced back to David is debateable.

7) Israel must be represented by more than one nation. (Gen. 35:11) says ". . . a nation, and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins." Only the nations of Christendom qualify here. One nation, the United States, and a "company of nations," the British Commonwealth, all white nations. By no stretch of the most vivid fundamentalist imagination, can the Jews qualify here.

A ridiculous statement entirely hanging on the modern use of the term "nations". Of course Jews can qualify. Not only did Jacob (which is whom the verse is addressing) go on to father Twelve sons, who became the Twelve TRIBES, he was also the progenitor of the various Jewish nations that have existed throughout history. There is nothing in the passage to indicate that the "company of nations" must exist simultaneously in time. Furthermore, one could even extend the verse to the allegorical- "company of nations shall be of thee" could refer to the impact Jews have had on the Western world in terms of religion, ethics, and philosophy.

8) Israel must have immense colonies (Isa. 49:8; 54:3.) Again, only the British Commonwealth qualifies here. The Jews have never had any colonies.

Isa. 49:8 never mentions the word colonies, and neither does 54:3.

49:
Thus saith HaShem: in an acceptable time have I answered thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee; and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to raise up the land, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages

To me, this simply looks like another generic "the land will be yours and you will be numerous" prophecy. Made all the more important in the context of the Hebrews returning from exile. The "desolate heritages" most likely refers to the Hebrews getting their own stuff back.

54:

For thou shalt spread abroad on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall possess the nations, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.

Ditto for above. There's the messianic age factor, as well as the fact that the "desolate cities" refer to Hebrew land and cities which were forcibly abandoned, which Isaiah (and God) have promised them back.

No colonies. No problem.

9) Israel will be the chief (most prominent) of the nations, (Jer. 31:7; Amos 6:1.)

A- More messianic stuff, which could theoretically happen in the future.
B- Who's to say this hasn't already (or is presently) happening? "Most prominent" and "chief" among the nations are particualrly subjective terms. If you follow the Chosen People doctrine, Jews are COMMANDED to be the most prominent among the nation. It's all in how you look at it- who's doing the judging? The Jews? Their neighbors? God?

C- Jeremiah doesn't refer to the Hebrews as being "chief" of anything.

For thus saith HaShem: sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout at the head of the nations; announce ye, praise ye, and say: 'O HaShem, save Thy people, The remnant of Israel.'

It is telling its audience to shout at the head of the nations- whoever they are (either non-Jewish nations or the Jewish 'nations' themselves, it's hard to tell).

D- You misrepresented Amos, too.

Woe to them that are at ease in Zion, and to them that are secure in the mountain of Samaria, the notable men of the first of the nations, to whom the house of Israel come!

This does not say "Israel will be the first of the nations", it describes a specific group of people as being "the most important of the first of nations". Who knows if this is supposed to be an accurate and objective description of them, or whether it's instead mocking and attacking them, as the rest of Amos goes on to do? Hardly clear-cut.

10) Israel will be a wealthy nation. (Deut. 8:18.) The Gross National Product of the Israeli in 1980, was about $16.4-billion; that of the U.S. $2.5-trillion; that of Canada $249.3-billion; that of Australia $119.1-billion; that of New Zealand $20.2-billion; that of South Africa $54.9-billion; that of Britain $346.6-billion. This means that the nations of Christendom, "true Israel, has a yearly GNP of about $3.289-trillion compared with $16.4-billion for the Israeli. Israeli leaders know that if the U.S. were to withdraw their support of the Israeli, they would soon collapse.

All irrelevant, as you've misquoted yet again.

But thou shalt remember HaShem thy G-d, for it is He that giveth thee power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore unto thy fathers, as it is this day.

There is no prophecy here about Israel being wealthy; it is saying that the power TO GET wealthy comes from God. This is like saying the fact that God gives man free will, and thus, the power to do evil, is a prophecy saying man WILL BE evil.

Not to mention, we could get into a whole debate over what constitutes "wealth" (there are other definitions besides the material, for instance).

11) Israel will lend to others, but not borrow (Deut. 15:6). This is a conditional promise. Since the end of World War II, the United States has supplied other nations (this is through the end of 1979) more than $246-billion in military, economic and technical aid and loans. Of this, only $75-billion has been in loans, the rest has been in the form of gifts. To the Jews in Palestine, for instance, we have given $1 2-billion plus, with only $4.4-billion repaid. But during this time, as the U.S. has drawn away from God, we have begun to borrow from the International Bankers, who are almost l00% Jews who control the Federal Reserve System until in one year, we borrowed more than $80-billion at huge interest rates, so that we could give it away, often to nations who hate us. The conditions of Deut. 28:44 are now at work in this country: "He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.''

Deut. 15:6 is not a prophecy, it is a commandment, that is, a section of Jewish law. It is apparently designed to keep Jews from becoming indebted to non-Jews, as this would make them vulnerable and possibly in danger.

A more utopian perspective comes from here: http://www.besr.org/dvartorah/Reeh.html

This question should be approached from a philosophical perspective. Judaism believes that wealth is not divided evenly and that "poverty will not cease in the world". (Devarim 15:11) G-d made some people rich and others poor to remind us that acts of benevolence (Chesed) are the foundation of the world. The rich must do all in their power to mitigate the effect of poverty on the poor. One of the most effective ways to fight poverty is by extending credit to a poor individual so that he can recommence economic activity. This may not create total equality but it will ensure that "there will be no poor among you", (ibid 15:4) since the poor will be adequately taken care of (either through charity or through free loans) and the rich will fulfill the function for which they were granted their riches. This ideal society will then become so affluent that it can perform the same duty on a macro level -"And you will lend to many nations and you will not need to borrow".

This argument suggests that this quote is, in fact, an ASPIRATION- the Jews will be successful enough that they can lend and have no need to borrow anything; that they will be self-sufficient.

Lastly, you have also managed to misrepresent Deut. 28:44, which is a prophecy ADDRESSED TO JEWS about what happens if they don't obey God- they get cursed:

But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of HaShem thy G-d, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.

...The stranger that is in the midst of thee shall mount up above thee higher and higher; and thou shalt come down lower and lower. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him; he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.

In short, Gentiles will gain control over you, you will be indebted to them, and therefore beholden to do whatever they say.

... Are you implying that you white folks have done something to deserve being cursed by god? ;)

...want me to continue?

Exposing your own ignorance and intellectual dishonesty? Sure, go nuts. Next time, though, try to post a bit less- it took me a long time to answer all those "points".
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 04:24
Of course you will. Prophecy and the Bible are so fluid that they can be manipulated to prove any point they wish, as you go on to do.

*Sigh* Here we go...



First, this doesn't say ANYTHING about Israel being an island nation- it says that the declaration (about God having scattered Israel will also gather him) will be declared IN THE ISLES.

Second, the "island" as an allegory can be used in many contexts. Israel could be referred to as an "island" of monotheism, for example. Even today, Israel is often referred to in the media as an "island" of democracy, or "an island in the Arab/Muslim world".

The whole "Isles thing can be used in anyway, you think of your way, I think of mine. When I think Isles, I think the BRITISH Isles, i.e. Israel will be declared in the Isles.

And your right the whole "island" thing can be used in many contexts, but remember there was no democracy, so it rules that one out, and you say can be used in many contexts, why not a true Island? After all, 2 Nations can fit this quote - Britain, and Australia.

Well, first, remember that you're using PROPHECY- we don't know when this is "supposed" to happen. Jeremiah is often referred to, along with Isaiah, as being a "messianic" scripture.

http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm

What makes you think that Yahsha ha'Meshiyakh didn't exist? Sadly his name has been corrupted, and a lot of Pagan crap put in there, but once that is cut away, you will find the true Meshiyakh

This site points out that the Jeremiah scripture you mentioned is, at least in Jewish thought, explicitly referring to the messianic age. Your attempt to apply it to the past and, indeed, the present, is thus absurd and irrelevant.

Did you ever think that Yeremiah was before Yahsha? And that the end times is quite close, with America under attack not just from enemies outside, but also from within.


That's not what the verses say. You are misquoting and misinterpreting. Hosea says: "Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass that, instead of that which was said unto them: 'Ye are not My people', it shall be said unto them: 'Ye are the children of the living G-d.'"

Who for hundreds of years have claimed to be YHWH's people, and yet no one doubts this? And these same people call Christians Idol Worshippers...and how we are NOT the sons of YHWH!...

Genesis 22:

"And the angel of HaShem called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven, and said: 'By Myself have I sworn, saith HaShem, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast hearkened to My voice.'"

Genesis 32:

"And Thou saidst: I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.'"

Source: Jewish Publication Society Bible, 1917. http://www.hareidi.org/bible/bible.htm

In all three cases, the "multitude" thing is merely a promise to the patriarchal line- and then to the nation of Israel as a whole- that it will, IN THE FUTURE, be vast and multiplied. Again, using the fact that these prophecies (which have no apparent time qualifications,) have yet to occur as "proof" that they do not apply to the people commonly referred to as Jews is particularly nonsensical.

Yet if I were to use it towards the Anglo-Saxon race, I would be classed as a Racist, white power supporter who is talking nothing but particularly nonsensical crap? Double Standards...???


First, just note that it's particularly rude and irritating to not cite your quotes. I'm already looking up your cited quotes and refuting them, don't give me MORE work, please.

Second, you are referring, yet again, to a messianic prophecy. Jews do not believe the messianic age has yet occured, so it is, once again, erroneous to use this as an indication that Jews are not Jews because they have yet to do things the Bible says they will do AT SOME POINT.

Third, there is another school of thought which says that this ALREADY happened (the "two-fold" approach, that is, the Isaiah- like many other Jewish prophets) not only describes contemporary tragedies, but also weaves the same events into a future narrative). In this case, the argument is that Isaiah is describing the Babylonian exile of the Hebrews.

Isaiah wasn't Jews, he was a Hebrewlite, if you look at many of the prophacies, it is quite scary as many have come true or are coming true - As we experience the "wars and rumors of war" under the "king of the north" (Daniyl 11:40 - the U.S.A.'s King George II) who is the symbolic "White Horse" of Revelation's "First Seal", we see that the time is indeed short!

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/isaiah.html



http://cc.cumberlandcollege.edu/acad/rel/hbible/HebrewBible/hbout/isaout.htm

(Isaiah outline)

If we look at it from this perspective, then the verse becomes entirely different:

For thy waste- referring to Hebrew sins, thy land that hath been destroyed, i.e., by someone specifically (like the Babylonians, for example?) thou shalt thou be too strait for the inhabitants- no clue what this really means, whether it means "narrow" or not- I interpret it as a culture/religious clash between the Hebrews and SOMEONE ELSE, not themselves.

If you look at any verse in the Torah, it can be seen entirely differnt - when the land was destroyed by the Babylonians the majority of Israelites never returned...

If you want a book on the Egyptian exodus, you should get "The Thirteenth Tribe" by Arthur Kosetler (I have never seen it, but I hear its good)

The last bit, they that swallowed thee up shall be far away seems to support my earlier contention that it refers to the Babylonians- they had sought to absorb the Hebrews, but the Hebrews, in returning to Israel, once again establish their national and cultural boundaries from them.

Bull-fucking-shit. First of all, this is also Isaiah, so the same messianic thing applies. Second of all, as mentioned before with the Babylonian thing- this DID happen, at least according to standard Jewish belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribes_of_Israel#Israelites_in_Biblical_times

Isaiah was a prophet, what makes you think that the Messiah never came?

Same tactics as before. This both happened in the Jewish past (Saul, then David and Solomon, then the division into two kingdoms, each which had their own monarchies, ostensibly descended from David- see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Judah, then the Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms- again, both dynasties theoretically descended from David), and is spoken of as occuring in the messianic age. The fact that it is not happening NOW doesn't prove anything.

The Herodian kingdom - King Herod the wicked lived..during Yahsha's time, but like everything this can be translated into 1000 different things.

Furthermore, the degree to which the British monarchs can be traced back to David is debateable.

So does Debateable mean it ISN'T true?

A ridiculous statement entirely hanging on the modern use of the term "nations". Of course Jews can qualify. Not only did Jacob (which is whom the verse is addressing) go on to father Twelve sons, who became the Twelve TRIBES, he was also the progenitor of the various Jewish nations that have existed throughout history. There is nothing in the passage to indicate that the "company of nations" must exist simultaneously in time. Furthermore, one could even extend the verse to the allegorical- "company of nations shall be of thee" could refer to the impact Jews have had on the Western world in terms of religion, ethics, and philosophy.

This could all be...as you put it...debateable, and you say the impact the Jews have had, is that the Money traders - which is a form of usery. And no I am not classing all Jews as money traders...



Isa. 49:8 never mentions the word colonies, and neither does 54:3.

49:

To me, this simply looks like another generic "the land will be yours and you will be numerous" prophecy. Made all the more important in the context of the Hebrews returning from exile. The "desolate heritages" most likely refers to the Hebrews getting their own stuff back.

54:

Ditto for above. There's the messianic age factor, as well as the fact that the "desolate cities" refer to Hebrew land and cities which were forcibly abandoned, which Isaiah (and God) have promised them back.

The Aposltes were told by Yahsha to seek out the lost sheep of Israel - look at the maps they took, many went up into Europe, while some went south, Yahsha told them that they would not find them all until he returned to unite them. The Lost sheep would know him, according to his own words, yet in the Biblical Israel the Aposltes looked not for the lost sheep were not there.

A- More messianic stuff, which could theoretically happen in the future.
B- Who's to say this hasn't already (or is presently) happening? "Most prominent" and "chief" among the nations are particualrly subjective terms. If you follow the Chosen People doctrine, Jews are COMMANDED to be the most prominent among the nation. It's all in how you look at it- who's doing the judging? The Jews? Their neighbors? God?

The Messianic stuff could have already happened, i.e. when Yahsha came and deafeated the beast. No one Judges but YHWH, for every man, women and child will come and kneel before Yahsha when he sits upon the throne of King David.

It is telling its audience to shout at the head of the nations- whoever they are (either non-Jewish nations or the Jewish 'nations' themselves, it's hard to tell).

D- You misrepresented Amos, too.



This does not say "Israel will be the first of the nations", it describes a specific group of people as being "the most important of the first of nations". Who knows if this is supposed to be an accurate and objective description of them, or whether it's instead mocking and attacking them, as the rest of Amos goes on to do? Hardly clear-cut.

All irrelevant, as you've misquoted yet again.

There is no prophecy here about Israel being wealthy; it is saying that the power TO GET wealthy comes from God. This is like saying the fact that God gives man free will, and thus, the power to do evil, is a prophecy saying man WILL BE evil.

Not to mention, we could get into a whole debate over what constitutes "wealth" (there are other definitions besides the material, for instance).

Deut. 15:6 is not a prophecy, it is a commandment, that is, a section of Jewish law. It is apparently designed to keep Jews from becoming indebted to non-Jews, as this would make them vulnerable and possibly in danger.

A more utopian perspective comes from here: http://www.besr.org/dvartorah/Reeh.html

This argument suggests that this quote is, in fact, an ASPIRATION- the Jews will be successful enough that they can lend and have no need to borrow anything; that they will be self-sufficient.

Like Modern Israel?

Lastly, you have also managed to misrepresent Deut. 28:44, which is a prophecy ADDRESSED TO JEWS about what happens if they don't obey God- they get cursed:

Is that the 90% who make up Khazar Jews? Or say the 5% Shepadim Jews - both not descendants of Shem and thus not Israelites.

In short, Gentiles will gain control over you, you will be indebted to them, and therefore beholden to do whatever they say.

... Are you implying that you white folks have done something to deserve being cursed by god? ;)

...gee white folk...that is quite racist...

Exposing your own ignorance and intellectual dishonesty? Sure, go nuts. Next time, though, try to post a bit less- it took me a long time to answer all those "points".

I am too bored to answer the rest, if you want me to I'll do it later, I need some sleep as I have work tonight...

I was never ignorant nor intellectual dishonest, I just quoted it how I saw it, as you did.
QahJoh
15-09-2004, 00:45
The whole "Isles thing can be used in anyway, you think of your way, I think of mine. When I think Isles, I think the BRITISH Isles, i.e. Israel will be declared in the Isles.

And your right the whole "island" thing can be used in many contexts, but remember there was no democracy, so it rules that one out

Not at all. It is a PROPHECY. Meant to refer to events in the FUTURE.

and you say can be used in many contexts, why not a true Island? After all, 2 Nations can fit this quote - Britain, and Australia.

I never said it COULDN'T be a true island. Merely that you are misrepresenting it when you imply that the only valid interpretation is a literal one.

What makes you think that Yahsha ha'Meshiyakh didn't exist? Sadly his name has been corrupted, and a lot of Pagan crap put in there, but once that is cut away, you will find the true Meshiyakh

I never said I didn't believe he existed. I'm unconvinced that he was a historical figure, and even more skeptical that he actually did what the NT alleges. I certainly don't believe he was the Messiah. If he did exist, and was anything like the Gospels allege, I'd say he was probably mentally ill.

Did you ever think that Yeremiah was before Yahsha?

I am aware of this. And? You're applying Christian theology to Jewish scriptures. I'm obviously going to approach this from a Jewish angle. The Jewish position is that the Messiah has not arrived.

And that the end times is quite close, with America under attack not just from enemies outside, but also from within.

Debateable.

Who for hundreds of years have claimed to be YHWH's people, and yet no one doubts this? And these same people call Christians Idol Worshippers...and how we are NOT the sons of YHWH!...

Irrelevant to the point, which is that Hosea is using the future tense. You're dodging.

Yet if I were to use it towards the Anglo-Saxon race, I would be classed as a Racist, white power supporter who is talking nothing but particularly nonsensical crap? Double Standards...???

Another dodge. I said nothing about racism or Anglo-Saxons. I simply said that YOUR position, which is that the quote allegedly disproves that Jews are Jews, is untenable, because the verse is clearly using the future tense, like Hosea.

Isaiah wasn't Jews, he was a Hebrewlite

Prove it.

if you look at many of the prophacies, it is quite scary as many have come true or are coming true - As we experience the "wars and rumors of war" under the "king of the north" (Daniyl 11:40 - the U.S.A.'s King George II) who is the symbolic "White Horse" of Revelation's "First Seal", we see that the time is indeed short!

Oh, wow, because it's not like mankind has EVER experienced "war or a rumor of war" before. King of the North?! Holy shit!!! There's never been ANY "King of the North" in history before!!!

Oh wait... :rolleyes:

These prophecies can be argued to apply to almost ANY TIME. That's why it's particularly absurd to use them to "prove" anything.

If you look at any verse in the Torah, it can be seen entirely differnt

My point exactly. Which is why your attempt to use your one interpretation to "prove" that Jews aren't Jews is particularly ridiculous.

when the land was destroyed by the Babylonians the majority of Israelites never returned...

Your point?

Isaiah was a prophet, what makes you think that the Messiah never came?

Jesus didn't fulfill the required Messianic prophecies. If you want to debate this point further, please open a new thread.

Also, I notice you once again dodged my point- which was that there was indeed a significant segment of Jews which were split off.

The Herodian kingdom - King Herod the wicked lived..during Yahsha's time, but like everything this can be translated into 1000 different things.

Again, irrelevant. I was responding to your FALSE contention that Israel did not have any kings and that they were not descended from David.

So does Debateable mean it ISN'T true?

It means that you can't just toss it out as if it IS true. It means it's not an actual fact, it's a position, which you have to support and attempt to prove if you're going to try to use it. You have not. Feel free.

This could all be...as you put it...debateable, and you say the impact the Jews have had, is that the Money traders - which is a form of usery.

First, usury is not condemned between Jews and non-Jews, but only between Jews. Second, did you just contradict yourself?

The Aposltes were told by Yahsha to seek out the lost sheep of Israel - look at the maps they took, many went up into Europe, while some went south, Yahsha told them that they would not find them all until he returned to unite them. The Lost sheep would know him, according to his own words, yet in the Biblical Israel the Aposltes looked not for the lost sheep were not there.

This is a Christian argument, which I obviously don't accept. You could, however, feel free to argue that it applies to this passage, although I am of the opinion that my explanation is just as, if not more, justified. You have AGAIN failed to prove anything.

The Messianic stuff could have already happened, i.e. when Yahsha came and deafeated the beast. No one Judges but YHWH, for every man, women and child will come and kneel before Yahsha when he sits upon the throne of King David.

The idea that the Messiah has come is a Christian position, not a Jewish one. And you have again avoided my point. There is no reason this prophecy can't be applied to Jews.

Is that the 90% who make up Khazar Jews? Or say the 5% Shepadim Jews - both not descendants of Shem and thus not Israelites.

You have yet to prove this.

...gee white folk...that is quite racist...

How so?

I am too bored to answer the rest, if you want me to I'll do it later, I need some sleep as I have work tonight...

Do as you please. I could care less, particularly given your debating style.

I was never ignorant nor intellectual dishonest, I just quoted it how I saw it, as you did.

Bullshit. You were caught in repeated textual distortions, as well as saying certain things about Jewish history which are blatantly false, such as your contention that:

Israel must have lost part of their people, at least one tribe, which split off from the mother nation...Jews have never had a split off from their ranks like this.

Which is obviously proved false by the Ten Lost Tribes example. Ditto for when you said that Jews didn't have a monarchy descended from King David.

So yes, you are either ignorant, lying, or both.
Purly Euclid
15-09-2004, 01:50
While I agree that both Gaza and the West Bank should eventually be Jewish lands, that won't happen peacefully for a very, very long time. The best way to protect Israelis is to a.) build walls on the West Bank and Gaza strip borders, and b.) that Israelis retreat behind those walls, especially in that hellhole of Gaza.
Unfortunatly, a few radicals just don't get it. I don't even know if they feel that a state of war is prefferable to peace, or are so litteral with the Torah that they feel that they don't just have a right, but a religious obligation to settle that land. The Israelis should put their asses in jail, and track their more prominent followers. This is turning into the Jewish version of HAMAS, and it must be stopped before it starts.
However, if they arrest him, and Sharon is still in office, his life may very well be in danger. As a gesture of good will, he should step down to someone that will carry out his reforms, perhaps even Shimon Peres.
QahJoh
15-09-2004, 05:57
While I agree that both Gaza and the West Bank should eventually be Jewish lands, that won't happen peacefully for a very, very long time. The best way to protect Israelis is to a.) build walls on the West Bank and Gaza strip borders, and b.) that Israelis retreat behind those walls, especially in that hellhole of Gaza.
Unfortunatly, a few radicals just don't get it. I don't even know if they feel that a state of war is prefferable to peace, or are so litteral with the Torah that they feel that they don't just have a right, but a religious obligation to settle that land. The Israelis should put their asses in jail, and track their more prominent followers. This is turning into the Jewish version of HAMAS, and it must be stopped before it starts.
However, if they arrest him, and Sharon is still in office, his life may very well be in danger. As a gesture of good will, he should step down to someone that will carry out his reforms, perhaps even Shimon Peres.

A point of clarification: do you mean the West Bank, etc, should be PALESTINIAN lands?

Otherwise, I agree totally with your post.
Purly Euclid
16-09-2004, 01:45
A point of clarification: do you mean the West Bank, etc, should be PALESTINIAN lands?

Otherwise, I agree totally with your post.
I actually meant that, one day, Gaza and the West Bank should be Jewish lands. You're Jewish yourself, so I'm surprised you don't agree with me. In any case, however, I'd rather prefer that somehow, the Jews are allowed to peacefully coexist there with the Palestinians, and not gain those lands through civil war or genocide. I also support, in the short term, a Palestinian state. After all, if the Jews waited 2,000 years for any of Palestine, I personally think that they can wait a bit longer for the rest of it, and it is inevitable that sometime in the next 1,000 years, everywhere from the coast to Amman and Damascus will be Jewish lands, as I want it to be.
QahJoh
16-09-2004, 03:35
I actually meant that, one day, Gaza and the West Bank should be Jewish lands. You're Jewish yourself, so I'm surprised you don't agree with me.

I feel that the West Bank and Gaza don't belong to Israel, and certainly not to me. I support a 2-state solution. I have no problem with Jews living in holy Jewish cities in Palestine, but they have to realize they are going to be living under Palestinian law, as Palestinian citizens, just as Israeli Arabs are Christians and Muslims living under Israeli law as Israeli citizens.

In short, no, I don't believe in the ideology of "Greater Israel", particularly when this ideology has direct negative impacts on other people (Palestinians, Jordanians, Egyptians, etc...)

In any case, however, I'd rather prefer that somehow, the Jews are allowed to peacefully coexist there with the Palestinians, and not gain those lands through civil war or genocide. I also support, in the short term, a Palestinian state.

Ok, so there we're agreed.

After all, if the Jews waited 2,000 years for any of Palestine, I personally think that they can wait a bit longer for the rest of it, and it is inevitable that sometime in the next 1,000 years, everywhere from the coast to Amman and Damascus will be Jewish lands, as I want it to be.

I disagree that it's inevitable- or even desirable. But that's largely a matter of personal opinion.
Ankher
16-09-2004, 06:38
Just want to respond to this "“This is the land of Israel, not the land of Ishmael,” ancestor of Islam, said Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, a spiritual leader of the settlers, to cheers from the crowd."
Most of the Jews, in fact...more than 90% are not descendants of Israel...the land belongs to the Israelites, not the Jews!The land does neither belong to Israelites nor Jews, not even Hebrews. The alleged wishes of any god have no relevance in the real world, especially not from a god wading knee-deep in human blood and demanding human sacrifices for his satisfaction. The god of Abraham is no authority and never was.
Lenbonia
16-09-2004, 07:14
The land does neither belong to Israelites nor Jews, not even Hebrews. The alleged wishes of any god have no relevance in the real world, especially not from a god wading knee-deep in human blood and demanding human sacrifices for his satisfaction. The god of Abraham is no authority and never was.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But to ignore the fact that a belief in God has a profound effect on people is only wishful thinking. By your logic no one anywhere has any claim to any land, since those claims are never based upon any rational argument.
Ankher
16-09-2004, 07:24
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But to ignore the fact that a belief in God has a profound effect on people is only wishful thinking. By your logic no one anywhere has any claim to any land, since those claims are never based upon any rational argument.That's exactly my point. And claiming a land and basing that claim on the word of a god that has been invented exactly by those people who raise the claim, is the worst possible human behavior.
QahJoh
16-09-2004, 18:06
That's exactly my point. And claiming a land and basing that claim on the word of a god that has been invented exactly by those people who raise the claim, is the worst possible human behavior.

And how exactly do you know it's the "worst" possible human behavior? You can't think of ANYTHING worse?

You with your extreme adjectives. ;)
Ankher
16-09-2004, 22:53
And how exactly do you know it's the "worst" possible human behavior? You can't think of ANYTHING worse?No. Behaving badly and putting the responsibility on someone else, and may it be a god, is the worst.
QahJoh
16-09-2004, 23:43
No. Behaving badly and putting the responsibility on someone else, and may it be a god, is the worst.

I don't see how that's what's being done here. How is responsibility for bad behavior being put on a god? It seems to me that both sides accept responsibility for their actions- at least, material responsibility (moral responsibility is another matter). No one says, "I didn't do this, God did it." They might say, "God told me to do this," or "God wanted me to do this", but that's not really the same thing. And they might say that "this is all the other side's fault", but again, that's not the same thing as saying, "God is responsible for this."

I don't get where God comes into this equation.
Ankher
17-09-2004, 00:13
I don't see how that's what's being done here. How is responsibility for bad behavior being put on a god? It seems to me that both sides accept responsibility for their actions- at least, material responsibility (moral responsibility is another matter). No one says, "I didn't do this, God did it." They might say, "God told me to do this," or "God wanted me to do this", but that's not really the same thing. And they might say that "this is all the other side's fault", but again, that's not the same thing as saying, "God is responsible for this."
I don't get where God comes into this equation.Have you read the "Declaration Of The Establishment Of The State Of Israel" ? That's an insult to any intelligent person.
QahJoh
17-09-2004, 00:26
Have you read the "Declaration Of The Establishment Of The State Of Israel" ? That's an insult to any intelligent person.

How so? Explain, please. Also, you haven't addressed my earlier question as far as God being held responsible for these folks' actions.
Purly Euclid
18-09-2004, 01:22
I feel that the West Bank and Gaza don't belong to Israel, and certainly not to me. I support a 2-state solution. I have no problem with Jews living in holy Jewish cities in Palestine, but they have to realize they are going to be living under Palestinian law, as Palestinian citizens, just as Israeli Arabs are Christians and Muslims living under Israeli law as Israeli citizens.

In short, no, I don't believe in the ideology of "Greater Israel", particularly when this ideology has direct negative impacts on other people (Palestinians, Jordanians, Egyptians, etc...)

Well like I said, I want this to be long term. I say what I say partly because of religious reasons, partly because I feel very sorry how oppressed the Jews are, even to this day. However, I am a realist. While an annexation of the West Bank and Gaza strip won't be desirable today, the situation may change a few hundred years from now. Not 2,000 years ago was there a largely Christian empire in the Middle East. In the span of about a century, the area turned largely Muslim.
QahJoh
18-09-2004, 21:56
I see what you're saying, in my mind, though, I think that the ideal solution is a moderately-sized Jewish state (with an army powerful enough to defend itself) having peaceful relations with its neighbors. In my mind, there is no need for Israel to expand beyond its present borders, and in fact, I would support Israel withdrawing (more or less) to the Green Line, if it would lead to peace with the Palestinians and other Arab countries.

IMO, nothing positive can be gained by further expansion.

But then again, my conception of Zionism is about Jewish self-determination, not territorial maximalism. Obviously there are those who disagree with me.
Superpower07
18-09-2004, 22:07
Have you noticed that the ppl protesting this action all seem to be ultra-Orthodox?
QahJoh
18-09-2004, 22:16
Have you noticed that the ppl protesting this action all seem to be ultra-Orthodox?

Not really- most of them are actually Religious-Zionists. Technically, they fall under the more traditional side of the "modern Orthodox" wing of Judaism. Although there are some similarities between these folks and the "ultras", a huge component of ultra-orthodox Judaism is its (general) position on Zionism and Israel, which range from apathetic to hostile. There are other elements as well, particularly opinions regarding dress codes, involvement with secular matters, such as politics, (especially in Israel), etc.

Chabad-Lubavitch and the Mizrachi movement are exceptions. Most ultra-orthodox take the position that modern Israel has little, if any, theological importance. Religious-Zionists, particularly the schools of Abraham Isaac and Zvi Yehuda Kook, actually tie the state of Israel, its creations, and accomplishments, into a whole theological worldview. As such, many of them are not only Religious-Zionists, but also Messianic Zionists.

Again, I refer people to this map:

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/363_Transp/08_Orthodoxy.html