Iran Isreal and US

The section states that there is indeed a good case for the historical accuracy of the Bible. Much of the Old Testament content was recorded by contemporary scribes while the more miracle-laden parts were probably left to be embellished for a long time before they were recorded. However, there is no reason to doubt much of the Old Testament as an accurate, contemporary source for the history of the Jewish people and Israel. Though the account of the Conquest of Israel is highly controversial, the fact that there do not seem to be any remaining Caananites to speak of today seems to verify that particular part of the story. Simply because there seem to be many unrealistic and impossible events does not mean we can discount the more reasonably realistic parts as a whole.

The jews don't have anymore right to "canaanite" than the palestinians do. You can't just up and leave a region and then return a couple thousand years later and expect the people who've been living there for the past few thousand years to just give it back....

that is like me sitting on a park bench and then returning to that park bench 2 weeks later and then asking the people who were sitting there to move because I sat on it 2 weeks ago.

That's not what the Jews did. First of all, it was more like they were persecuted off the land, then they came back in large numbers, then they retook the land, not asked the Palestinians to leave. The point is that since they were the original inhabitants of the land, they have moral justification in retaking it.

Wrong, the jews originally took the land from the cana'anites. The jews were the original inhabitants of Mesopotamia

This has been discussed. If the Canaanites want to come back from racial extinction and conquer Israel, then that would be justified. The only likely people with a very obscure Canaanite ancestry live in Lebanon, Malta, and the Iberian peninsula, where no group identifies themselves as purely or mainly Canaanite.

Not that it matters, but the Jews were not the original inhabitants of Mesopotamia, they were originally from Mesopotamia.

Oh so because the jews lived there at one time that gives them the right to take it back? Does that mean i can go to the house that i lived in 10 years ago and just start living there no matter whos been living there since i left?

This is not saving a seat or saving a spot in line we're talking about this is so much more.

Oh so because the jews lived there at one time that gives them the right to take it back? Does that mean i can go to the house that i lived in 10 years ago and just start living there no matter whos been living there since i left?

This is not saving a seat or saving a spot in line we're talking about this is so much more.

its a waste of time talking to him,he thinks because it was in the bible (old testament) means that its true and belongs to the jews.

Who wrote the old testament :lightbulb:

Did you buy the house? Did the current occupant or the occupant(s) before him take the house by force? If someone did that, would you just shrug and walk away? The Jews took the land back, fair and square. And it used to belong to them, which gives them proper justification. Which is enhanced by the fact that it was taken from them by force.

The jews weren't forced off their land, nobody made them leave, they left by choice, and because you owned something once does not give you the right to take it back when ever you so feel like. When you have a car that is reposessed I dare you to try that argument, it'll fly like a wet bag of sand.

Most of them left by choice. The remainder was a testament to the fact that they once owned the land. They left because they were persecuted, and came back because they finally had the power to return. I dare you to find any similarity between the takeover of Israel from the Jews and a car being repossessed.

How exactly did the Romans and the Arabs get on to the land? Did the Jews just change their religion and ethnic makeup? No, they took the land by force, which the Jews did, problem solved, if the Muslims can stay then they can stay, if not, that would be an anti-Semetic double standard, right?

Yeah, well you said that Jews were a missing link between men and apes and didn't deserve crap besides a cage in a zoo, if I recall.

Your story is a bit inconsistant...

were they persecuted or were they forced out? If they were forced out did the romans give them a little boat ride to europe? I think we both know they left by choice persecuted or not.

and while we are on the subject do you think the Native American's have the right to take back America? They are the original inhabitants aren't they? They actually were physically forced off their land unlike the jews.

the only difference between a reposessed vehicle and zionism is the fact that the car was physically removed from its owner unlike the jews who left by choice under the influence of persecution. But if we're talking about persecution the jews had it easy compared to other minority beliefs.

where did i say that ? go on quote me :beat:

he thinks because it was in the bible (old testament) means that its true and belongs to the jews.

Quote me where I said that.

were they persecuted or were they forced out? If they were forced out did the romans give them a little boat ride to europe? I think we both know they left by choice persecuted or not.

and while we are on the subject do you think the Native American's have the right to take back America? They are the original inhabitants aren't they? They actually were physically forced off their land unlike the jews.

the only difference between a reposessed vehicle and zionism is the fact that the car was physically removed from its owner unlike the jews who left by choice under the influence of persecution. But if we're talking about persecution the jews had it easy compared to other minority beliefs.

notice the difference between the words:

"Thinks" and "Says"

Well, persecuting them with only the escape of leaving seems like de facto forcing them off the land to me.

Besides that, I don't recall saying they were forced off the land in the post you originally quoted. I said the land was taken by force. And they took it back by force. How exactly should the people who took it be able to keep it if the Jews can take it back? Double standard.

Would I like it? No. Would they have justification? Sure. I'm sure I'd fight to keep my land, but they would indeed be entirely justified if they were to militarily take it over.

We'll raise taxes ridiculously, force you to shelter strangers in your home, basically degrade you and make you a second class citizen subject to any of us in a myriad of creative ways. And see if you want to stay. That's pretty much what the Muslims said to non-Muslims. Convert to Islam or be treated like a dog.

We're talking about a quality of life a couple of steps above animals. Don't sit there at your computer and say that the Jews 'had it easy.' If it was such a walk in the park, sit back and you just might get an opportunity to live the good life like they did.