More On Conspiracy

tokeless wrote:The problem with using the bible or any other religious scriptures is the accuracy of events as each will have their own versions.

IMO, it is less about accuracy and more about relevance to the situation. Documents are used to make some sort of claim of "original ownership", as if that matters.

If my family is shipwrecked on an island, I don't really give a damn if your family isn't happy about my arrival. I'm claiming some space on your island, whether you like it or not. Show me all the documents you want that you were on this island first. Does it matter? Nope.

Assimilate to the existing governance? Submit? Allow your family to tell my family where on the island my family can live? Nope. That isn't going to happen either.

Twice you gather up help from some surrounding families that come over from nearby islands and try push my family back into the ocean, to kill us, to take over the land we have claimed, to make us submit. That sucks, but okay. We win both of those fights.

You want to say that the situation is unequal, unfair, unjust. Okay. I understand that. I wouldn't be happy in your situation either.

Wow....

Yes, wow.

As I said before, it is a bad situation all the way around. There is no easy solution. And don't tell me you would just let your family be killed or forced to submit.

No problem Richard. No need to be irritated by it. Enjoy your life and stay safe.

tokeless wrote: No need to be irritated by it.

Irritated? I'm just pointing out the difficulty of finding your family stranded on an island, having lost 2/3rds to slaughter, now surrounded by people that have started wars with you twice, actively kill members of your family when they can, and have openly stated they will wipe out the remaining 1/3 when they can.

There is nothing to be irritated about. It's a hypothetical.

No problem. Stay safe.

Surely the harsh reality of Darwin is we are pretty divided and in conflict over race, geography and religion. The Jewish nation was once a world power well before the Romans came and turned Israel into a client province. Since then, Israel as an independent state endured centuries of struggle and occupation. The result was a homeless Jewish population scattered throughout the US, Russia and Europe.
After the hollocaust, I think it then boiled down to a need for the Jewish people to fight for what was their own historically. So now, as I said, any country that tries to destroy Israel or the people of that tiny country will face a formidable opponent. The IDF is well trained in combat and Israel today is a nuclear power. That is now the reality. Should Israel abuse their power, this is not condoned but, to be fair, what about abuses in other countries and imperialism? Personally I see Israel as historically justified to be where it is today and most of the ill-will towards it boils down to religion.

Should Israel abuse their power, this is not condoned but, to be fair, what about abuses in other countries and imperialism?

So, using whataboutery, you are condoning it. Considering the terrible plight of the Jews and the horrors of the holocaust, how did they manage to have such influence on countries that did nothing to stop the heinous acts of the nazi's when there was evidence of the death camps at the time... as I said in another post. If it was provable that Israel was always there and it had always belonged to the Jews, why has this never been fought legally? Why doesn't this get mentioned over the 'contested' argument?

tokeless wrote:Should Israel abuse their power, this is not condoned but, to be fair, what about abuses in other countries and imperialism?

So, using whataboutery, you are condoning it. Considering the terrible plight of the Jews and the horrors of the holocaust, how did they manage to have such influence on countries that did nothing to stop the heinous acts of the nazi's when there was evidence of the death camps at the time... as I said in another post. If it was provable that Israel was always there and it had always belonged to the Jews, why has this never been fought legally? Why doesn't this get mentioned over the 'contested'
argument?

Because the history of Israel is as ancient as Egypt and modern society has little connection to such a period. As a belief system Judeaism is much older than Christianity or Islam. It must have developed at the time of Ramases The Great. The Hebrews established their culture with borrowings from Sumerian mythology and Canaanite polytheism. It is regardless an ancient civilization the same as Egypt. Or Iraq.

Amazing too how they reconstructed such an ancient language. That is hard to do. Apparently we don't know how Latin was properly pronounced so modern Hebrew will only be an approximation to the original ancient language. Personally I was always tempted to study Hebrew as an ancient language - a small part of the Bible is written in it, as well as Aramaic and Greek. Incidentally Madonna is crazy about gnostic Jewish religion.

davidbanner99@ wrote: Incidentally Madonna is crazy about gnostic Jewish religion.

Incidentally, Madonna is he(she). Do a transvestigation. Baphomet.

Because the history of Israel is as ancient as Egypt and modern society has little connection to such a period. As a belief system Judeaism is much older than Christianity or Islam. It must have developed at the time of Ramases The Great. The Hebrews established their culture with borrowings from Sumerian mythology and Canaanite polytheism. It is regardless an ancient civilization the same as Egypt. Or Iraq.[/quote]

Swerved an answer there really. Is there unequivocal proof of ownership of those lands? There must have been other people there at these times. Do they have rights to it or do they no longer exist?

Why do you think Israel ignored the conditions of the Balfour declaration? It stated the rights of the existing people must not be affected.... like breaching the terms of a lease when you share a house.

tokeless wrote:Because the history of Israel is as ancient as Egypt and modern society has little connection to such a period. As a belief system Judeaism is much older than Christianity or Islam. It must have developed at the time of Ramases The Great. The Hebrews established their culture with borrowings from Sumerian mythology and Canaanite polytheism. It is regardless an ancient civilization the same as Egypt. Or Iraq.

Swerved an answer there really. Is there unequivocal proof of ownership of those lands? There must have been other people there at these times. Do they have rights to it or do they no longer exist?

Why do you think Israel ignored the conditions of the Balfour declaration? It stated the rights of the existing people must not be affected.... like breaching the terms of a lease when you share a house.[/quote]
The modern Palestinians are descendents of those people who migrated to to the territory of Israel after its destruction by Rome in the Jewish uprising. Hamas believes modern Israel must be an Islamic State but that makes no sense at all. I mean Judeaism predates Islam by hundreds of years. Plus there is no mention of a population called Palestinians by the Romans. They (Roman writers) used the term "iudaei" You are imposing a modern world view on much older history, which doesn't work.
Again, I stress I'm not myself either religious or Jewish but distortion of history on the internet is now problematic, and not just affecting Israel. Recently in Poland it was stated the USSR started WW2, basing that assertion on the Molotov Ribbentrop agreement. That ignores the less obvious detail Stalin sought civil war in countries and not territorial. Stalin wanted a Marxist revolution in Germany and so this aspect of history is also distorted.
The bottom line is where internet sources refer to Israel as "Palestine" that is factually and historically plain wrong. The real indigenous people of Israel were the semitic Canaanites but these mixed and intermarried with the Hebrews and later the Aramaic language became established.
Anyway, to substitute one question for another, can you prove ownership of Australian territory or how about Spanish being spoken in locations as far as Peru? Are we to totally reshape borders all over the globe in cases where other races settled or wars were fought? Are the British Isles Roman (Italian), Welsh or Gallic? Are European Americans the indigenous peoples, the Inca or the Indians? Should the Israelis revise their geographical borders or all other nations as well?

like breaching the terms of a lease when you share a house.

Lease = spoils of war.

The lease is not some legitimate legal document. You are writing a lease agreement that nobody likes, over a home which the previous landlord just signed over to you. The previous landlord, Otto, controlled the home for a few hundred years. But, under what authority?

What makes the lease "legitimate"? Absolutely nothing other than brute force. This is how nations have come to rise and fall since the dawn of civilization. You have one empire taking land from another empire as part of the spoils of war. And then the new landlord, given that they are the victor, writes the new lease.

Neither tenant is happy with the new lease. And neither tenant recognizes the legitimacy or authority of an agreement drafted by an illegitimate landlord.

What makes the lease "legitimate"? Absolutely nothing other than brute force. This is how nations have come to rise and fall since the dawn of civilization. You have one empire taking land from another empire as part of the spoils of war. And then the new landlord, given that they are the victor, writes the new lease.

Would that include killing them and trying to rid your home from them?

tokeless wrote: Would that include killing them...

Is it best to peacefully coexist? Absolutely. That would be a win/win. But yes, I'm willing to kill if needed. It depends on how "them" is responding to my family being a tenant in the home.

I say "the home" because it is not their home. It is not my home. It is not the landlords home. The very idea of claiming a homeland, to own a home in perpetuity, is nonsense. It assumes a static universe with unlimited resources, with equal access, where disease, natural disasters, droughts, war, and other dynamics cease to exist. Time stands still.

I'm realistic. I see a dynamic world constantly in flux, full of tough situations. I see what landlords can do and have done throughout the ages. I also know what my neighbors can do as well as my fellow tenant. And from the very beginning in this post-war arrangement, the new landlord having provided some rooms in this home for my family, there are calls for my eviction by any means necessary. In fact, my family has been repeatedly attacked and members killed. There have been attempts to submit my family by force. My family is not welcome here. I get that.

tokeless wrote: and trying to rid your home from them?

By rid the home, I think you mean the destruction of a people, including things like their values, customs, beliefs, etc.

This is not an easy question, but I take my lessons from history. The concept of assimilation and the blending of cultures is nothing new.

The degree to which the values, customs, and beliefs of my family conflict with the those of the other tenant can create conflict. If the other tenant believes in cannibalism, for instance, that might be a difficult custom to accommodate.

I'm not trying to rid the home of anyone or destroy anyone. Live and let live. And the extent to which your customs, values, and beliefs can be accommodated with the culture of my family, great.

Two books that I think you and maybe David would enjoy:

Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond
Why Nations Fail...by Baron Acemoglu and James Robinson

If you have any recommendations that would enlighten me to your views that would be great.