Who started it (Jews or Arabs?)

[Brown_Pride]

http://www.the-coli.com/higher-lear...itics-foreign-policy-economy.html#post2293251

View that thread and Epic and mine's back and forth.

Who started it depends on your definition. If you want to be technical than I guess Zionism started it when the Jews first immigrated to the area.

good looking out just read it.

So here's basically what i took from that (keep in mind i'm laying this out to a 10 year old and that's how i'm summarizing what i've gathered.)

Back at the turn of the century the current area where everything is going on was populated by various Arab peoples as well as Jews. During this time two things happened.
1. Britain told the Arabs they would be allowed to govern their own lands.
2. Jews had begun purchasing land in the area and kicking the locals, who were mostly Arabs, off the land. Sometime very close to this the UN and told "the jews" they could have a country in that area, because of historical and biblical ties to the land.

As each group felt they had a right to exist in that area there were tensions. Israel just happens to have won the wars between the the two groups so they dictated what happened to some of the lands after the wars. In all fairness the Jews took more than they said they would, mostly because some of the lands would have given the Palestinians a military advantage in terms of a place to launch attacks on Jewish cities. So on the one hand they took to much, on the other hand it can be argued they did so out of self preservation.

Ultimately both sides have a claim to the land, just depends on how far back you want to look or who's word you want to take.

??? Is that the situation in the beginning in a nutshell then?

 

[Brown_Pride]

why are you confused Brown Pride? what's the ambiguity? I told you zionism started it from my first post in this thread. But nationalism in general and world war I and ww2 were involved as palestinians wanted freedom as well

the whole romans etc ancient stuff is part of a different backdrop it's not related to the arabs

telling a 10 year old, "it's zionism" comes off as a little disingenuous and doesn't really get at the details.

 

[No1]

good looking out just read it.

So here's basically what i took from that (keep in mind i'm laying this out to a 10 year old and that's how i'm summarizing what i've gathered.)

Back at the turn of the century the current area where everything is going on was populated by various Arab peoples as well as Jews. During this time two things happened.
1. Britain told the Arabs they would be allowed to govern their own lands.
2. Jews had begun purchasing land in the area and kicking the locals, who were mostly Arabs, off the land. Sometime very close to this the UN and told "the jews" they could have a country in that area, because of historical and biblical ties to the land.

As each group felt they had a right to exist in that area there were tensions. Israel just happens to have won the wars between the the two groups so they dictated what happened to some of the lands after the wars. In all fairness the Jews took more than they said they would, mostly because some of the lands would have given the Palestinians a military advantage in terms of a place to launch attacks on Jewish cities. So on the one hand they took to much, on the other hand it can be argued they did so out of self preservation.

Ultimately both sides have a claim to the land, just depends on how far back you want to look or who's word you want to take.

??? Is that the situation in the beginning in a nutshell then?

Sort of, but there was always disagreement between the Arabs and British while negotiating over whether Palestine would be included. There's no clarity there. So if you want to say who is right or wrong blame it competing desires of self-preservation both literally and culturally because at its core, that's what this is.

 

[Brown_Pride]

Sort of, but there was always disagreement between the Arabs and British while negotiating over whether Palestine would be included. There's no clarity there. So if you want to say who is right or wrong blame it competing desires of self-preservation both literally and culturally because at its core, that's what this is.

see now was that so hard


good looking out though and hey, we can say we've had 2 threads about this topic that didn't get completely derailed now.

 

[Techniec]

Faisal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement

 

[IVS]

Lmao! Britain started it when they promised the Palestinians they could have their land after WW1 if they helped the Allies defeat the Turks. Only to have the British give the land to Israel in 1947. And Britain never enforced the rules they set for Israel so chaos has ensued. Also the British had already approved the creation of a jewish state via the balfour declaration in 1917.

 

[rapbeats]

First of all you must know the historical and biblical context.

1. Hebrews aren't Jews. Hebrews are Afro-Asiatic( Semite) tribes. Jews is term used to describe Ashkenazi's and Khazars in the late 1700's and early 1800's. That term didn't exist before those years.

2. Kingdom of Judea( Yudea) and Kingdom of Israel covered 90% land together. Yet Jerusalem isn't apart of the Kingdom of Israel...

File:Kingdoms of Israel and Judah map 830.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


3. It says in the Bible "And the sons of Ham, Cush & Mizraim & Phut & Canaan. "Genesis 10:6".

1. CUSH (Ethiopians / Cushytes & Nubians),
2. MIZRAIM (Egyptians / Khemet),
3. PHUT (Ancient Somalia),
4. CANAAN (Canaanite, the original inhabitants of the land of Israel)

None of those describe Jews of Europe.

4. Amos 9:7 says ""ARE YOU NOT AS CHILDREN OF THE ETHIOPIANS UNTO ME, O CHILDREN OF ISRAEL?".."

5. Lamentations 5:10 reads:

"OUR SKIN WAS BLACK LIKE AN OVEN BECAUSE OF THE TERRIBLE FAMINE."

So this already explains how White Supremacy uses this and tells others who is the land owners based off how they can manipulate historical and biblical facts.

Zionists aren't people who follow the book of the Torah...but the Talmud. Who you think started it?

you lost all credibility with this "None of those describe Jews of Europe."

there were no jews in europe at the time. because they were all in the lands mentioned. that doesnt mean jews could not have been dispersed to europe in the future. now if they just all of a sudden became jews over night. thats different and i agree with your point.

 

[thekingsmen]

you lost all credibility with this "None of those describe Jews of Europe."

there were no jews in europe at the time. because they were all in the lands mentioned. that doesnt mean jews could not have been dispersed to europe in the future. now if they just all of a sudden became jews over night. thats different and i agree with your point.

I was speaking of their appearance, not their location. Second Jews aren't Hebrews...I just mentioned that 1700's and 1800's the term "Jews" described European Converts. That term never existed before hand. In the bible it does describe Japeths sons who are Ashkenaz...but they are not Shem or Ham.

Where are the recorded documents by their books saying they traveled from Judea all the way up to Germany? That only happened in documented history of the Khazars, not Hebrews who were of Kush/Khemet descent.

 

[IVS]

Well according to the Bible, as per the old testament and torah, aren't the Jews supposed to keep a perpetual fire burning and make burnt offerings according to Moses Levitical Law?