How much of Support for Israel is based on Biblical Mythology?

The Geneva Coventions aren't sacred writ. They were the attempt by nations to create "Rules of War." I find that intent obscene.

There were at least two, but who cares? If there was one and the Palestinians rejected it, the fault is theirs.

Here's common ground: Palestinians get to have independent sovereignty over Gaza and the West Bank when they acknowledge the right of Israel to exist and they put and end to their attacks.

If there are Jewish settlements within a mutually agreed upon Palestinian state, they must go.

The concept of 'equal human rights' is an idealistic myth having little bearing on Realpolitik. The very act of labelling separate groups...'Israelis versus Palestinians'...which can often imply 'Modern Westerners' versus 'Less Developed Middle Easterners'...brings with it the stereotypical rationality of discriminating between the groups as far as 'respect' is concerned. Distant armchair pundits can be as idealistic as they like. Those actually living in the area are unlikely to be impressed by such idealism and will encourage any support they can get for 'their' side.

You know the answer is yes, why ask?

It looks like there are three things that we disagree about.

1) I support the Geneva Conventions, even more since my son serves in the infantry. War is awful, but the pressure put on major powers to adhere to rules of war makes thigs better for combatants and civilian populaltions. A question, Finn, do you think the war crimes trials in Nuremberg after WWI were valid?

2) We disagree about whether Israel has ever offered reasonable terms for peace. I specified what reasonable means... but this is an area of opinion

And we have an area of agreement.

- Yes, the Palestinians should unilaterally acccept Israel's right to exist and put an end to their attacks. This has nothing to do with the actions of Israel.

Yes Fresco, you are absolutely correct.

However, the concept of equal human rights is also a moral value that is professed by our American democracy and by modern western democracies in general. All moral values are based on "idealistic myths". Yet this one happens to be my moral value, and what I consider an important part of what it means to be American.

That a military dominant ethnic group shouldn't dominate or expell another ethnic group from a land where they both have longstanding historic ties is a moral value that is deeply engrained in my culture. This is a value I embrace.

A big part of the reason that the expansion of the settlements in Israel bothers me (more than injustice in other parts of the world) is that my society bears some of the responsibility.

Israel is being propped up militarily by the United States, so some of this is on me. If the United States was not supporting Israel so much, it would still bother me (the way that Myanmar bothers me), but I wouldn't feel I own it.

Israel is an important partner in the Empire's hegemonic control of the ME. Israel's military aid is spent on American hardware. It's all to do with dominating and subjugating an entire region and propping up the American defence industry.

The Geneva Convention was not set up to create the rules of war. It recognised that war was inevitable but the treatment of wounded, prisoners, non-combatants should be regulated. Weapons used etc are negotiated under other Treaty's.

The sad thing is that these lands belong to no-one, except by conquest.
Over 5,000 years these lands have been occupied by numerous peoples from Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans and now Islamic states.
David was probably a small but powerful tribal 'king' who subjected other tribes to his rule. His rule greatly exaggerated if you study the Bible.
Before him all is myth and stories written in the 7th centuryBCE to give Israel a history.
After him Israel is a small kingdom divided into north and south. The north swept away by Assyria who replaced its occupants with foreigners and the south taken into Babylon. Who/how many actually returned is not known, many fleeing to Asia Minor, Egypt and North Africa as the Babylonians approached, and many remaining in Babylon anyway.
Israel was never God's Chosen People in the sense of being his favourite. They were, according to the Bible, to be the people chosen to show the world how Jahweh wanted his creation to live.
The diaspora was complete when the Romans evicted most Jews from Palestine in 130CE - The diaspora beginning with the Assyrian expulsion of Jews 700 years earlier.
From the Roman Caesars the Jews sometimes gained favour, sometimes not, after this. Then Islam conquered the virtually all the Middle East, etc.
They themselves have constantly been at war with each other.

Only the Jews have kept themselves to themselves. HOWEVER how many Palestinian Arabs have 'diluted' blood in their systems. The Jews removed by the Assyrians must have integrated over the millenia.

Take into account that Zionists and organisations run by them plus other Jewish organisation began buying land in Palestine from the Arabs as far back as the 19th century and into the time of the British Mandate in Palestine, I ask

Who Owns What?

There has to be give and take, but the Arabs have, from the beginning, tried to destroy Israel from the start, when it was at its weakest. And then by using other tricks.

I support the Israelis in their right to independence, just as I support ex USSR states to their independence. But if they want this they must accept that these settlements contravene the Arabs rights.

Of course, in the end it may not matter. The way man is acting Palestine and the rest of the world may be populated and run by ants or chimps, whichever comes out on top. Who knows, they may even come to an agreement to share the earth, something todays intelligent species cannot do.

By the way. I'm English.

How is this different than the United Kingdom, or North America, or Australia, or China, or any other modern country? Look into the history of any land and you will find that the people living there now conquered it from earlier inhabitants.

My question is how modern democracies can now incorporate multiple ethnic groups that have historic ties to the same land. Israel is not the only country that has this question.

In the United States (as in many democracies) we now give multiple ethnic groups equal rights and citizenship. This includes the descendents of indigenous people.

These denials are outrageous even when characterized as an opinion.

What about Israel's peace offers was not reasonable?



There is no reason to think that Israel is even going to expel anyone.

But if they did, the expulsions would be justifiable in light of your outrageous denials of Israel's peace offers.



No injustice. Your outrageous denials of Israel's past peace offers legitimizes all the settlements.

If so, the rule of the Omrides in the northern Israelite kingdom was a fair match to the power the Bible ascribes to David.



There is historical and archaeological evidence supporting the existence of the Israelites as early as 1200 BC. That is some three centuries before David.



If you follow the Bible, his was not a small kingdom.

If you follow archaeology, the northern Israelite kingdom was not a small kingdom, and existed alongside David rather than being a later division of his kingdom.



The converse of Land For Peace means that Israel doen't give up land if they don't get peace.

Only a white American could believe such self-serving sanctimonious horseshit.

By the way, I love the fact that I am interacting with Oralloy and Izzy on the same thread.

They are really the same person... just on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

That's why there's a movement called BLM, because of all the equality.


I'll let you get back to your friend Oralboy. You're exactly alike.

If you attended Hebrew School , then you'd know, that when one states that Jews are the "chosen people of God", ( since I've said this over, and over again on A2K), this means, that God has chosen the Jewish people to receive the Torah. That all that it means...

Sounds to me like you never attended Hebrew School...

I don't believe very many American Christians have attended Hebrew School. My original post was clearly about the beliefs of American Christians.

It's rather hard to compare a semi-mythical being with a known being. The Biblical Kingdom of David is nearly twice the size of the archaeological kingdom of Omri. The Bible is unreliable in many things. The story of David and Solomon is clearly exaggerated if you know how to read it against the time in which it was written. Were David and Solomon given credit for the Omri's reign.
The Mesha stone and Tell Dan inscription give evidence of his existence but the numbers on the inscription are doubtful. Every victor over estimated the enemy to make his victory more of an accomplishment.

-There is historical and archaeological evidence supporting the existence of the Israelites as early as 1200 BC. That is some three centuries before David-

I think we are talking about different interpretations. If you are referring to the Merneptah Stela that is referring to people living in Palestine. I was referring to the people supposed to have exited Egypt (mythical). 'Israel' is down to the interpretation of the Egyptian language


If you follow the Bible, his was not a small kingdom.

'If you follow archaeology, the northern Israelite kingdom was not a small kingdom, and existed alongside David rather than being a later division of his kingdom.'

The Bible exaggerates again. Too many reasons to go into.

-If you follow the Bible, his was not a small kingdom.

If you follow archaeology, the northern Israelite kingdom was not a small kingdom, and existed alongside David rather than being a later division of his kingdom.-

That really depends on what is large. It was certainly larger than the southern kingdom, but then what was a 'kingdom'. Most 'Kingdoms' and even empires of the time were often made up of independent cities with their own 'kings'. Cities in areas were often related with citizens of the same nationality and joined together in times of danger.

-The converse of Land For Peace means that Israel doen't give up land if they don't get peace.-

So you invade your neighbours property/land and won't withdraw without some agreement.


Sorry. Not sure how to enclose quotes on here.

Please don't fight with Oralloy about the authenticity of the Bible on this thread. Oralloy is always right and never concedes a single point, so there is no point in arguing with him.

This thread is about the link between belief in the religious narrative, and political opinions about Israels behavior of the settlements. The argument about whether the religious narrative his historically accurate is for the other thread.

I understand why people support Rules of War, but I still think it is obscene. The parties that are going to abide by such rules are the least likely to start a war or conduct themselves in ways in which they invite wars.

The Nuremberg trials were valid because they were conducted by the victors.

Earlier you acknowledged that Israel offered reasonable terms of peace, one time. Now you are saying never. Which is it?

They will also have to give up the Right of Return and their claim for the whole of Jerusalem. Neither it seems to me is anywhere near important enough to prevent them from gaining an independent sovereign state so I return to my conclusion that their leaders don't actually want one.

If the rest of the world stopped interfering with the process, there would be a settlement within 12 months. It might not be entirely "fair" for the Palestinians, but that isn't driving the interference. We only need to observe the world's apathy concerning much worse situations to realize this is true.

The Palestinians can have peace and their own nation, but they continue to block all chances of it with their demands and their conduct. It is all on them.