|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 203 responses total. |
mdw
|
|
response 175 of 203:
| 
May 26 00:40 UTC 2002 |
Propaganda blowing in the wind.
|
russ
|
|
response 176 of 203:
|
May 27 04:08 UTC 2002 |
Re #173: How many National Guard soldiers were sent to defend the
right of a few black children to attend public school in the South,
Brian? Don't the Jews of Hebron have a right to live in their own
homes, where their ancestors lived?
Don't all legitimate civil authorities have an OBLIGATION to protect
that right, and isn't any authority which denies that right illegitimate
by definition?
Shouldn't we be condemning the Muslim anti-semites of Hebron just
as vigorously as Klansmen in the USA, and demanding their prosecution
just as we have prosecuted Klansmen for crimes almost 40 years old?
|
scott
|
|
response 177 of 203:
|
May 27 04:11 UTC 2002 |
Russ, if we were only talking about the direct descendants of Jews "living
continuously" (to use Leeron's term), we'd have a handful of people and not
as many problems.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 178 of 203:
|
May 27 06:46 UTC 2002 |
And we are talking about IDF 'national guardsmen' to protect
the rights of squatters in territory outside the borders of
Israel. This is quite a different kettle of fish (and smells
as sweetly) and russ knows that. (Wonder why russ is sucking
up to leeron? Wanna be his bitch or something?)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 179 of 203:
|
May 27 13:54 UTC 2002 |
Plus, don't the Arabs of Palestine have a right to live in *their* homes,
where their ancestors lived?
|
mdw
|
|
response 180 of 203:
|
May 28 01:16 UTC 2002 |
According to what I understand of what Leeron said, "no" -- "because
those arabs were all 19th/20th century invaders, attracted by the
returning Jews". I can guarantee, however, that my understanding of
what Leeron said will not match what Leeron will claim to believe.
That's the wonderful thing about sock puppets.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 181 of 203:
|
May 28 06:40 UTC 2002 |
The real irony is of course that the askenazim - the europeans who
really run the state of Israel are descendants of the Khazars,
a turkic peoples who converted to judaism in the 8th century.
Yiddish is the modern version of their state language. (Not
to be confused with but similar to Khazakstan today.) Likely
as not their ancestors never lived in the 'thrice promised land'.
Thus the sephardim may be the only ones with 'legitimate' claim
which is why the whole notion of who lived where when is irrelevent.
(Sharon is an askenazim for example, as was Hertzel.)
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 182 of 203:
|
May 28 14:26 UTC 2002 |
#176 That comparisson doesn't exactly apply here, Russ. The National
Guard was there by executive order because the Governor of the state
and the mayor refused to comply with Eisnhower's order.
Secondly, the argument about the ancestral land doesn't completely
wash, since it wasn't the Arabs who destroyed the Jewish state in the
first place. Secondly, who has the arrogance to declare that there
should be a cut-off point? So because there are Arabs in Isreal who
are decended from "19th/20th century invaders", they don't have a right
to live in their ancestral home? The Arabs that came into the area
after Rome and 70 AD forfeit because Jewish decendents were there
first? So that means that all of the "European Invaders" into Africa
and Asia should go home too, then? And what about those of us living
in the Americas? Talk about "invasion."
Nice touch, Leeron, calling them "invaders," by the way, considering in
order to claim the land of Palestine in the first place, the founders
of the original state did exactly the same thing.
|
lk
|
|
response 183 of 203:
|
May 28 17:34 UTC 2002 |
Brian, not only are you regurgitating myths, but you appear to be
out of touch with modern genetic research showing that European
Jews (Ashkenazi) are closely related to Sephardic Jews. The Khazars
are an interesting curiosity, but aren't all that relevant.
bhelliom:
> Nice touch, Leeron, calling them "invaders,"
The name Palestina doesn't mean anything in Arabic (in fact, it is
mispronounced as Filastin), yet in Hebrew (Plishtim) it may be derived from
the root PLSh -- meaning invader, for they invaded the Holy Land from the sea
in the late bronze age.
> considering in order to claim the land of Palestine in the first
> place, the founders of the original state did exactly the same thing.
Not really. If you want to believe the biblical accounts of Joshua, then
you should similarly accept that the biblical accounts of Genesis: Abraham
purchased the lands on which he settled. But there are inaccuracies with
the story of Joshua (e.g. the walls of Jericho fell several hundred years
prior to the return of the Israelites from Egypt, assuming the exodus even
happened). Furthermore, the book of Joshua focuses one the settlement of
just one tribe (Benjamin). Does that mean that the others didn't invade?
One theory sported these days is that the Hebrews did not originate from
Egypt (where there is no record of their enslavement) but were the Habiru
(Apiru) who may have been peasants enslaved by the Canaanites (at a time
that it was under Egyptian dominion) -- in which case the Hebrew/Habiru
may have predated the arrival of the Canaanites and were not "invaders".
> it wasn't the Arabs who destroyed the Jewish state
True but irrelevant. When the Arabs first arrived in the 630s, the Jews
were still living there. When the Arabs were driven out prior to the
first crusade, the Jews were still living there. When the Arabs returned
after the crusades (some as early as the 16th century) the Jews were
still there.
> who has the arrogance to declare that there should be a cut-off point?
Marcus is the one talking about "recent/living memory" and "statue of
limitations".
> Arabs in Israel... don't have a right to live in their ancestral home?
I never said so. It is other Grexers who have argued that the Jews have
no right to live in Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
|
mdw
|
|
response 184 of 203:
|
May 29 01:09 UTC 2002 |
The philistines were in Gaza first - they're actually an interesting
amalgamation of egyptian, aegean and semitic. The semitic part probably
comes from the phoenicians, who aren't actually particularly foreign at
all, but were merely the "native" canaanites who wandered up the coast a
bit, founded Tyre, built ships, and proceeded to trade over much of the
Mediterranean. So, with the philistines, we have 2 local neighbors
interbreeding with one random wandering tribe. The philistines aren't
particularly unusual; nearly everywhere that is anywhere has a similar
tale of wandering neighbors and foreigners intermixing. Palestine and
Arabia, being located at the nexus point of africa & asia, is
particularly prone to this. Except for some tiny fraction of people who
stayed in africa, probably nearly everyone else on the planet has
ancestors who spent time in palestine/arabia, and a lot of those
ancestors passed through long before Abraham.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 185 of 203:
|
May 29 02:05 UTC 2002 |
From an article by Daniel Friedman (note the arabic sounding
name so it *must* be propaganda huh leeron)
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/friedman.html
"The separation between the open diamond (ancestral Jewish
population) and ASH suggest that Ashkenazi Jews have a paternal
component that is distinct from the Med-dominated groups
(both Jewish and non-Jewish) and have something in common with
the Lebanese, Turkish and/or European groups."
"The open diamond (ancestral Jewish population) is again
significantly distant from ASH; the open triangle
(composite of all Middle Eastern Non-Jewish groups) is
almost identical with ASH. "
And from:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/ashkenazim/
"But if they came from the Balkans, even perhaps with some Khazar
ancestry as various people have proposed, or if there were indeed
legitimate large-scale conversions of Slavs to Judaism, no more
than a fraction of the Eastern European Jewish gene pool might be
derived from the Middle East and the ancient Jewish settlement
in Palestine. Jews they would certainly be according to Jewish
religious law even though biologically heterogeneous."
|
lk
|
|
response 186 of 203:
|
May 29 03:33 UTC 2002 |
Brian, that's the question, not the conclusion, of the study. Here's
the very next paragraph:
There simply is not enough historical evidence to decide between
these possibilities and the arguments wax fast and furious among the
protagonists of the various viewpoints. Now there is a new factor:
genetics might enable us to test some of these ideas to see whether
there really was a significant Slavic contribution to modern Jewry;
one might even be able to decide which Slavic groups were the
important ones. Then there is that intriguing question of the
Khazars: were they one of forerunners of the Eastern European Jews
and can one today find unequivocal Khazar descendants with whom to
make comparisons?
In fact, I believe it was this study that concluded that Cohens (not just
a surname but a title), be they Ashkenazi or Sephardi, share genetic traits.
Ergo Ashkenazi Cohens share the same origins as their Sefardi counterparts
and this strongly suggests that contrary to Erich von Daniken-like theories,
Ashkenazi Jews are NOT Khazars or Slavs.
Just two weeks ago an article in the NY Times examined findings of a study
published 2 years ago and of another published just last month:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/14/science/social/14GENE.html
Jewish men from seven communities were related to one another and
to present-day Palestinian and Syrian populations, but not to the
men of their host communities.
The finding suggested that Jewish men who founded the communities
traced their lineage back to the ancestral Mideastern population
of 4,000 years ago from which Arabs, Jews and other people are
descended. It pointed to the genetic unity of widespread Jewish
populations and took issue with ideas that most Jewish communities
were relatively recent converts like the Khazars, a medieval Turkish
tribe that embraced Judaism.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 187 of 203:
|
May 29 04:19 UTC 2002 |
So it is in fact an open issue to this day. And you totally
ignore the genetic study I cited above that finds askenazim
to be different then sephardim. To state that there are
jews who are descended from the original inhabitants is of
course obvious. My point is that there is credible scientific
evidence to suggest that european jews are not. Thus the
question is moo and irrelevent to the discussion of current
situation. The rights of the Israelis and Palestinians is
not to be decided on the question of 'who was there first' -
clearly logically has little or nothing to do with the answer
to the problem.
|
lk
|
|
response 188 of 203:
|
May 29 15:13 UTC 2002 |
Brian, please re-read the first part of #187. You cited the "question",
not the "conclusion" of the study. The conclusion from that study (if it is
the one I think it is) ended up showing the opposite: a close relationship
between all Cohens (both Ashkenazi and Sephardi), a relationship that
would not exist if they did not share a common background.
Another study found that Ashkenazi males are not related to the males in
the European host countries but to middle-eastern men (once again disputing
the Turk/Khazar or Slav theories).
|
bdh3
|
|
response 189 of 203:
|
May 30 01:36 UTC 2002 |
Cite that study. Wouldn't be a bit surprised if it is the
same study that the analysis I cite finds data supporting
the opposite conclusion. Thus my point that the question
of "who was there first" is moo as I said before. It is
irrelevent and really of interest only to historians and
the 'facts' no matter which side you come out on are still
open for further study. I can assure you that you would
not suddenly decide Israel have no right to exist if it
could be absolutely proven that every and all european
jews were descended from a proto-eastern european who was
genetically different from and postdated the arab palastinians.
Just as I expect Arafat wouldn't suddenly change his views
should the opposite be conclusively proven. I doubt palastinian
arabs would feel more 'brotherly' towards the Israelis should
it be conclusively proven they were ethnically related. I doubt
the UN would suddenly decide that Israel has the sovereign right
to the West Bank and Gaza should it be proven they were there
first and genetically identical. I doubt it would stop the
murder bombers. I doubt anything would change politically.
Thus the question of who has legal or moral rights there under
thier own system of legal and moral rights is moo. (And pretty
stupid to keep argueing about as it doesn't advance the ball in
the slightest. Remember the arabs all think that archeological
evidence proves the jews never lived there and the Dome of the Rock
is not the sight of anything other than a mosque. They believe
it just as much as you believe what you believe.)
|
lk
|
|
response 190 of 203:
|
May 30 05:42 UTC 2002 |
I think you'll enjoy reading these in full, but have included excerpts:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familycohanim.html
Genetic studies among Cohanim from all over the world reveal the
truth behind this oral tradition. About 50 percent of Cohanim in
both Sephardic and Ashkenazic populations have an unusual set of
genetic markers on their Y chromosome. What is equally striking
is that this genetic signature of the Cohanim is rarely found
outside of Jewish populations.
The evidence suggests the Cohanim chromosomes coalesce at a date
that corresponds with when the priesthood is thought to have begun.
http://www.mycweb.com/megillah/jul2000/jewish_genes.html
In the first study, as reported in the prestigious British science
journal Nature (January 2, 1997)... A particular genetic marker on the
Y-chromosome, identified as YAP-, was detected in 98.5 percent of the
Cohens, and in a significantly lower percentage of non-Cohens Jews.
In a second study... It was discovered that a particular array of six
chromosomal markers were in 92 percent Cohens tested. This collection
of markers came to be known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) and is
the standard genetic signature of the Jewish priestly family.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 191 of 203:
|
May 30 06:06 UTC 2002 |
So?
|
lk
|
|
response 192 of 203:
|
May 30 06:53 UTC 2002 |
You asked for sources, there you have them.
They debunk your Khazar myth that European Jews were recent converts
and did not really originate from Israel.
|
russ
|
|
response 193 of 203:
|
May 30 12:02 UTC 2002 |
Re #189: It doesn't matter if the Muslims believe that Jews never
lived in Palestine, or Jerusalem. They're as worthy of consideration
as flat-earth cranks and other brainwashed idiots (which they are).
'Sides, the Book, of which they are one People, says otherwise; such
makes them apostates, no?
If belief in such obvious nonsense constitutes a claim, it allows
anyone who can brainwash a sufficiently large group to demand anything
they want. Heck, that logic destroys your own claim to that territory.
"If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
Or a billion.
|
lk
|
|
response 194 of 203:
|
May 30 16:42 UTC 2002 |
A positive view of a disaster:
Restoration of Israeli embassy in France to take two years;
Arab ambassadors call to express sympathy
|
oval
|
|
response 195 of 203:
|
May 31 00:20 UTC 2002 |
moo?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 196 of 203:
|
May 31 04:54 UTC 2002 |
mdw's term. 'moo' is a form of 'moot' and the observation that
the statement that prompts the comment 'moo' is bovine scatology.
|
oval
|
|
response 197 of 203:
|
May 31 06:32 UTC 2002 |
gotcha. ;)
|
lk
|
|
response 198 of 203:
|
May 31 21:04 UTC 2002 |
21:44 Mural of Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov at Moscow museum
vandalized with anti-Semitic slogans
(Sakharov was not Jewish though he was vilified by the USSR as "a Judas".)
|
bdh3
|
|
response 199 of 203:
|
Jun 1 05:36 UTC 2002 |
21:43 IDF troopers kill 'suspicious' arab farmer carrying a 'farm
implement' (aka rake) on his way to his field.
|