15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 04:04 pm
Well, if the supercilious Setanta can prove that my post from the edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica is incorrect or misstated I will apologise to him profusely. On the other hand, if he cannot , he must apologize to me, but since he is convinced that he has the world's wisdom( he does not have even one eleven billionth of it, he will not not do so!!

Again, since it appears that Mr. Setanta is unable to read!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encyclopdia Brittanica--Volume 6 Fifteenth Edition 1989

found under "Israel" P. 423

QUOTE

'THE OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE BY THE ISRAELITES( HEBREWS). TO WHOM THE AREA WAS KNOWN AS CANNAN, WAS PROBABLY COMPLETED BY THE END OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY-BC.

END OF QUOTE
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 04:09 pm
Quote:
Cannan, area variously defined in historical and biblical literature, but always centred on Palestine. Its original pre-Israelite inhabitants were called Canaanites. The names Canaan and Canaanite occur in cuneiform, Egyptian, and Phoenician writings from about the 15th century BC as well as in the Old Testament. In these sources, "Canaan" refers sometimes to an area encompassing all of Palestine and Syria, sometimes only to the land west of the Jordan River, and sometimes just to a strip of coastal land from Acre ('Akko) northward. The Israelites occupied and conquered Palestine, or Canaan, beginning in the late 2nd millennium BC, or perhaps earlier; and the Bible justifies such occupation by identifying Canaan with the Promised Land, the land promised to the Israelites by God.
source: "Canaan." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 22 Aug. 2006 http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9019900.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 04:10 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if the supercilious Setanta can prove that my post from the edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica is incorrect or misstated I will apologise to him profusely. On the other hand, if he cannot , he must apologize to me, but since he is convinced that he has the world's wisdom( he does not have even one eleven billionth of it, he will not not do so!!

Again, since it appears that Mr. Setanta is unable to read!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encyclopdia Brittanica--Volume 6 Fifteenth Edition 1989

found under "Israel" P. 423

QUOTE

'THE OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE BY THE ISRAELITES( HEBREWS). TO WHOM THE AREA WAS KNOWN AS CANNAN, WAS PROBABLY COMPLETED BY THE END OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY-BC.

END OF QUOTE
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 08:15 pm
THE QUESTION IS: WHO GOVERNED/RULED THE REGION WE CALL PALESTINE WHEN? NOT DID THE REGION WE CALL PALESTINE ACTUALLY EXIST!

Here's an abbreviated chronology of the land now called Palestine (all years are approximate). The Encyclopedia Britannica, "Palestine" is the source.

Quote:
7800 BC:First building structures.
7000 BC:First Jerico fortifications.
2000 BC:First Canaanite Culture.
1400 BC:Eqypt conquers Palestine

1300 BC:First Israelite Culture.

1100 BC:First Philistine Culture (Philistra, evolved to the name Palestine).

Jews start ruling part of Palestine

1000 BC:Saul King of Israel (all Palestine except Philistra and Phoenicia).
950 BC:Solomon King of Israel.
721 BC:Israel Destroyed, but Judaea Continued.
516 BC:2nd Temple in Judaea.
333 BC:The Greek, Alexander the Great Conquers Palestine.

Jews stop ruling part of Palestine.


161 BC:Maccabaen Maximum Expansion of Judaea to All Palestine Plus.

Jews start ruling Palestine.

135 BC:Maccabaen Maximum Expansion Ends.
40 BC:The Roman, Herod Conquers Palestine.
73 AD:Fall of Jerusalem and all resistance ceases.

Jews stop ruling part of Palestine.

638 AD:Arabs take Jerusalem.

Arabs start ruling part of Palestine.

1099 AD:Crusaders take Palestine.

Arabs stop ruling part of Palestine.

1187 AD:Saladin Takes Palestine.
1229 AD:Saladin/Crusader Treaty.
1244 AD:Turks Take Palestine.
1516 AD:Ottoman Empire Begins Governing Palestine.
1831 AD:Egypt Conquers Palestine.
1841 AD:Ottoman Empire Again Conquers Palestine.
1915 AD:British Ambassador to Egypt Promises Palestine to Arabs.
1917 AD:British Foreign Minister Balfour Promises Palestine to Zionists.
1918 AD:Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine.
1918 AD:British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.
1920 AD:5 Jews killed 200 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1921 AD:46 Jews killed 146 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1929 AD:133 Jews killed 339 wounded
1929 AD:116 Arabs killed 232 wounded.
1936,38,39 AD:329 Jews killed 857 wounded
1936,38,39 AD:3,112 Arabs killed 1,775 wounded
1936,38,39 AD:135 Brits killed 386 wounded.
1936,38,39 AD:110 Arabs hanged 5,679 jailed.
1944 AD:Jews murdered Lord Moyne.
1947 AD:UN resolution partitions Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab State.
1948 AD:Civil war breaks out between Jews and Arabs.
1948 AD:State of Israel conquers part of Palestine.

Jews start ruling part of Palestine;
Arabs start ruling part of Palestine.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 08:54 pm
Basic reality, there's never been a period of as much as one year during which the people calling themselves "palestinians" now have governed anything, including themselves. Golda Maier had it dead to rights when she said there's no such thing as a "palestinian".
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 08:56 pm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1687741/posts


Many Lebanese fear next conflict will be with Hezbollah
McClatchy Newspapers ^ | 21 Aug 06 | Hannah Allam and Leila Fadel


Many Lebanese fear next conflict will be with Hezbollah

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Glossy new billboards touting Hezbollah's "divine victory" over Israel line Beirut's highways. The capital's famed nightspots are full again with scantily clad students drinking to make up for a month lost to war. Leaders of the country's political dynasties appear nightly on live television, urging their weary constituents to rebuild, forgive and move on.

But this rosy image of resilience, a week after a U.N.-brokered cease-fire brought a halt to Israeli airstrikes, masks a growing realization among Lebanese that the next battle Lebanon faces probably will be among its own.

From beautifully appointed salons in Beirut to the scorched villages of the south, there is blame, aimed at Hezbollah and its Iranian and Syrian patrons as well as Israel and its American backers. There's also concern among Lebanon's disparate ethnic and sectarian groups about Hezbollah's newfound power after the 34-day conflict.

"What's happened in the last month and a half has polarized Lebanon even more and caused people to speak out a little more radically," said Rami Khouri, a political analyst and columnist for the Daily Star, Lebanon's main English-language newspaper. "The war we just had heightened the concerns of people. None of these are new concerns."

Even before Hezbollah provoked the latest conflict by capturing two Israeli soldiers July 12 in a deadly operation, Lebanon had been mired in a thorny national dialogue over putting to rest resentments from its 15-year civil war and divvying up power in the vacuum left last year by Syria's withdrawal. There was excitement over the pro-democracy movement known as the Cedar Revolution and talk of national reconciliation, but both were fizzling long before Hezbollah's raid. Israel's broad attacks finished them off.

In Lebanon's latest war-ravaged landscape, age-old tensions that were never properly addressed are more raw and public than ever. Many Christians grumble aloud that Israel should have "finished the job." Sunni Muslims are caught between satisfaction at seeing Israel taken down a notch and the terror of being sidelined by Hezbollah, an Iranian-bankrolled Shiite Muslim force. Shiites, who form the backbone of Hezbollah's support base, were the conflict's biggest victims, losing relatives, homes and jobs.

Many Lebanese from all backgrounds fear that Hezbollah, now the most powerful political and military force in the country, will inch back to its early goal of establishing Islamic rule over Lebanon.

Misbah Ahdab, a Sunni legislator from the ruling parliamentary bloc, said Hezbollah was creating "a parallel system" instead of making overtures to back the central government. Fear of angering Hezbollah is keeping many politicians silent, he said, even though they fret privately over the future of a country led by a militant Islamist group.

"It's totally ridiculous to begin rebuilding again when it's going to be destroyed in two years," he said. "And people are talking about unity."

Already, the militant Shiites of Hezbollah effectively rule the country: They alone have the power to keep the Lebanese end of the cease-fire, endless piles of dollars for reconstruction and the vast support of regional Arabs, who were so thrilled to see Israel bloodied that they overlooked non-Arab Iran's financing of their triumph.

In Lebanon, many non-Shiites are watching to see how Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah deals with the new power he's been handed. Nasrallah, keenly aware of the concerns over his stature, quickly set about portraying his militia's battlefield success as a point of national pride that transcends Lebanon's strictly drawn ethnic and sectarian lines, but not everyone is persuaded.

"I can understand that people, the fanatics, support Nasrallah," Druze leader Walid Jumblatt said in an interview. "OK, he's saying he did well, and he did well. But will he offer this victory to a Lebanese state or will he offer this victory to himself? I want the state."

The Lebanese state, however, is plagued by infighting and a weak military that one government official privately described as "a bunch of Boy Scouts." Nasrallah, whose televised addresses became more presidential as the fighting raged on, overshadows the embattled Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, best remembered during the conflict for crying on camera during a speech to Arab foreign ministers.

Since the introduction of a fragile truce, Saniora and his allies in the Western-backed ruling bloc known as the March 14 Forces have struggled to reclaim power. The Lebanese military was deployed in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah's heartland, but most acknowledge that its presence is cosmetic. The army is outgunned by Hezbollah militants and doesn't have the authority to search for the militia's weapons.

There's also growing concern that Hezbollah's gloating - on multilingual billboards, in official statements and on Arabic-language satellite TV - not only will invite Israeli retaliation but also will aggravate Lebanon's internal strife. Lebanese don't want another round of Israeli airstrikes and most don't seem to have the stomach for another civil war, though both possibilities can't be discarded as Lebanon faces an uncertain future.

"Hezbollah is claiming victory at halftime," said Hilal Khashan, an expert on Hezbollah who teaches at the American University of Beirut. "The war is not over yet."

Fadel reports for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 09:20 pm
Ican

When Abraham and attendent family and animals arrived in the Levant after travelling up from the Tigris Euphrates delta, who was already living there?
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 12:41 am
Wait until the Isrealis really get angry, Gungasnake!!!!!
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 12:42 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if the supercilious Setanta can prove that my post from the edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica is incorrect or misstated I will apologise to him profusely. On the other hand, if he cannot , he must apologize to me, but since he is convinced that he has the world's wisdom( he does not have even one eleven billionth of it, he will not not do so!!

Again, since it appears that Mr. Setanta is unable to read!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encyclopdia Brittanica--Volume 6 Fifteenth Edition 1989

found under "Israel" P. 423

QUOTE

'THE OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE BY THE ISRAELITES( HEBREWS). TO WHOM THE AREA WAS KNOWN AS CANNAN, WAS PROBABLY COMPLETED BY THE END OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY-BC.

END OF QUOTE
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 01:21 am
Somebody bump the jukebox - seems the needle's stuck.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 01:26 am
The song I was waiting for is called: Setanta Replies---
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 05:22 am
timberlandko wrote:
Somebody bump the jukebox - seems the needle's stuck.


The needle is likely to stay stuck. Personally, i don't intend to grace strawmen of such poor and rudimentary construction with a response.

However, i will note just how frantic the fanatics are to establish some sort of ancient authority for Isreali rule. They have gone off simply because it is pointed out that the use of the term Palestine is ancient. À propos of all of this, in another thread, one of the members posted an email circular full of Israeli propaganda which asserts that Palestine was never called Palestine and that the Palestinians weren't called Palestinians until they left (as opposed to having been driven out) Israel in 1948. Shades of 1984--these jokers are busy rewriting history, and are incensed that any contradictory evidence be provided.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 05:33 am
timberlandko wrote:
Somebody bump the jukebox - seems the needle's stuck.


There's another option here, one I think has been employed a number of times previously, to everyone's benefit. Some cats ain't ever gonna be cool.

By the by, timber and set...any chance either of you might be kicking about NY on or nearabouts election eve? Rumor has it there will be a grand party proximate to our TV and chilled beer storage facility.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 06:19 am
As I recall, the original UN proposal/Resolution was "to create a home for the Jews in Palestine"

So they* must have been content with that description of the land at that time

(*they= the leaders of the Zionist movement and the UN)

and also note the phrase, IN Palestine. (not OF Palestine)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 06:39 am
Good lookin' out, McT.

I don't find that specific language in the resolution; the full text of GA Resolution 181 can be found here, the source being the Yale University Law School. However, the term Palestine and the designation Palestinian is to be fournd in repeatedly in the text of the Resolution. One paragraph which did catch my eye was this:

Quote:
No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.


One of the major greivances of the Palestinians and allegation against the Israelis is that land was grabbed willy-nilly, without either due process or compensation--and that it was most often land which was put to private purposes and not public. Palestinians allege that the Israelis established their collective farms in order to circumvent this provision--Palestinians have long maintained that the kitbbutzim were established on "public" land seized from Palestinians without compensation. The wording of this provision suggests that this allegation by Palestinians may not be without foundation.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 06:57 am
Another stray thought here....

Suppose that in 1938 or therreabouts there had been reason to believe that Churchill, FDR, Stalin, and all other leaders of the allied world were all basically feeble-minded, and Adolf Hitler had hired P.T. Barnum and W.C. Fields (never give a sucker an even break) as consultants......

"Ring, ring, ring....."

"Hello?"

Quote:

"YO, Winston, this is your old buddy Paul (Von Hindenberg) here. Winston, listen, about this lunatic Adolf Hitler and all those a$$hole nazis running around shooting rockets into England, you need to understand that he/they are not the government of Germany, and are basically just an out-of-control militia of sorts, yeah, I know something like 90% of the German people support em, but they're basically just an armed militia and the hell of it they're better armed than the German army and, yeah, I know, but you see we're really just too weak and spineless to do anything about em at this time, you see, and any sort of retaliation is going to injure innocent German civilians and get you guys branded as overreactors and war criminals, yeah I know that sounds funny but that's sort of the way it is....."


You say you can't picture Winston Churchill or FDR taking anything like that seriously? Don't expect anybody in Israel to take it seriously a second time. Seems to me the lebs know they've gotten away with something here, hence the pains the leb govt. seems to be taking to ensure that no more rockets are fired into Israel, by the hezbullies or anybody else.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 07:05 am
In 1938, Hitler had been Chancellor for five years, based on a vote of less than 50% of the electorate, and had passed an enabling act using his right-wing coalition which effectively ended the Weimar Republic--using the excuse of the Reichstag fire, he had suspended the Weimar constitution. Winston Chruchill was a member of Parliament, but held no portfolio in the government, of which Neville Chamberlain was the Prime Minister. The V1 rocket was not launched against England until 1944. Paul von Hindenburg died in 1934.

Once again, Gunga demonstrates the value to him of reading "a lot of history."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 07:10 am
Paul von Hindenburg (I'm not aware of a Paul Von Hindenberg) died in 1934, and had been before president of the German Reich, a representative position ... ...

He studied history a lot, Set!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 07:37 am
Is Israel Good for the Jews?
Norman Birnbaum

American Jewish citizens can be sure that a large number of Jewish organizations will claim to speak in our name--without being asked to do so. We can also be sure that should we dissent from the US Jewish community's central item of faith, that Israel can do no wrong, we will be pilloried. When our gentile fellow citizens express doubt, they are accused of anti-Semitism. Those of us who are Jewish are taxed with self-hatred.

Is it the supreme duty of American Jews to use our considerable influence to align US policy with that of Israel?...
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/is_israel_good_for_the_jews
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 07:49 am
GIVEN the set of circumstances described and assuming ANYBODY were to make such a call to Churchill or FDR or Stalin, is there any reason to think the allied leader would take the idiot making the call seriously?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.43 seconds on 10/09/2024 at 01:31:20