The question of Israel

Status
Not open for further replies.

Muslimwoman

Coexistence insha'Allah
Messages
3,633
Reaction score
52
Points
48
Location
UK
Hi guys, can you help me with an answer to a question that I was asked this morning .. I don't want to take an uneducated guess so thought I would ask you.

It was the usual argument about Israel and who has rights to be on that land.

The analogy put to me is that if someone steals my apartment and gives it to his brother does it belong to his brother?

I argued for ages about the Ottoman Empire, England and France, etc but they always come back to the moral standpoint above.

Why they ask does someone living in US, UK, Russia or wherever think they have a right to up sticks and move to land that was taken from the people that lived there (in fairness they talked about everyone that lived there not just the Muslims).

Also why do people who know an area of land not designated as Israel that has recently been taken and the people moved off and then used as a settlement think it's ok to move there? What moral right do they feel they have, as ordinary human beings, to do that.

I'm a bit stumped for an answer I'm afraid :eek:
 
I argued for ages about the Ottoman Empire, England and France

It will be wrong to compare Israel with Ottoman empire. They had the millet system, which was in no way comparable to the Israeli walls. And there was no ethnic cleansing. Anatolian gene pool is still less than 10% turkic.

Ofcourse I am not saying Ottomans were angels ;)
 
Hi guys, can you help me with an answer to a question that I was asked this morning .. I don't want to take an uneducated guess so thought I would ask you.

It was the usual argument about Israel and who has rights to be on that land.

The analogy put to me is that if someone steals my apartment and gives it to his brother does it belong to his brother?

I argued for ages about the Ottoman Empire, England and France, etc but they always come back to the moral standpoint above.

Why they ask does someone living in US, UK, Russia or wherever think they have a right to up sticks and move to land that was taken from the people that lived there (in fairness they talked about everyone that lived there not just the Muslims).

Also why do people who know an area of land not designated as Israel that has recently been taken and the people moved off and then used as a settlement think it's ok to move there? What moral right do they feel they have, as ordinary human beings, to do that.

I'm a bit stumped for an answer I'm afraid :eek:

should israel be in palestine?

NO

case closed!

look up the root meaning of the word 'megiddo' (the hill, the mount)

also babilu (gateway of the gods) changed to babylon... (to confuse)... the gate is of the 3 ladies (3 abrahamic sects bound to the mount)

what is occuring across the lake is the catalyst to the last few pages of the 'days'

jeruselem is the gate

not a good place to be and if you have loved ones there, they should move

don't care what name they carry......... if you love them, pay for the ticket.

but to directly answer your inquiry

See Devarim - Chapter 18 - Deuteronomy



Devarim - Chapter 18

1. The Levitic kohanim, the entire tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel; the Lord's fire offerings and His inheritance they shall eat.
2. But he shall have no inheritance among his brothers; the Lord is his inheritance, as He spoke to him



the rest of the post is also found within the old works, but many just do not see what is right in front of them

my opinion
 
It will be wrong to compare Israel with Ottoman empire. They had the millet system, which was in no way comparable to the Israeli walls. And there was no ethnic cleansing. Anatolian gene pool is still less than 10% turkic.

Ofcourse I am not saying Ottomans were angels ;)

Sorry Farhan I wasn't comparing them, I was refering to the break up of the Ottoman Empire and the take over of the land by UK and France.
 
Israel as we know it today exists because of military might and conquest.
 
hi sally and good to have you back.

Muslimwoman said:
The analogy put to me is that if someone steals my apartment and gives it to his brother does it belong to his brother? I argued for ages about the Ottoman Empire, England and France, etc but they always come back to the moral standpoint above.
that is because it is based on questionable assumptions, namely:

1. the "apartment" was "stolen". in the vast majority of cases, the land was bought, in most cases from absentee ottoman landlords, who had legal title to the land. where land was conquered in the wake of the declaration of war after israeli independence (remember, the arabs voted against the 1948 partition plan and then invaded when the israelis declared independence) and there was no obvious claimant, it presumably became the state's to make use of as it saw fit. if you are talking, however, about private palestinian land *under israeli law* being sequestered or otherwise used against the will of the rightful owners, then that is a matter for the civil court system, whereby the owner can sue the government. i bet it's not as straightforward as that, incidentally, seeing as how the government in question seems to have a problem enforcing this particular bit of law. this is wrong. but, of course, this analogy isn't about that. it's about "moral" rights, which have very little to do with the practicalities of either wartime population exchanges or private land transactions.

2. it wasn't "my" apartment, it was an apartment that belonged to someone else and they sold it to a new owner, who used to own it many years ago until someone else stole it from him.

3. the "apartment" was "given" to the "thief's brother". of course, in this analysis, it ignores the fact that the "thief's brother" in at least 50% of the cases lived in "my brother's" street, and when "my brother" heard about "me" losing "my apartment", he kicked the "thief's brother out" and they had nowhere else to live. your analogy doesn't take account of that, of course.

4. that possession of "the apartment" conveys moral rights. and, of course, in some cases it does, but that isn't a categorical view.

in short, the assumptions are couched in such a way as to make it impossible for anyone to hold a contrary view, which is, of course, why people feel so self-righteous about this particular issue. for this reason, the analogy is faulty on at least four levels, but it's designed in such a tendentious way that it's effectively not open for discussion. if you want an analogy, try this one:

the chinese invaded tibet, a free, sovereign state, in 1948 and a significant amount of tibetans left to build a diaspora culture. imagine now, two thousand years later in 3948, the dominance of the chinese state is ancient history and the people living in tibet since 2948 (for the sake of argument) are north indians. suppose the tibetans decide, en masse, after two thousand years, to move back to their ancient homeland? suppose the indians don't like that? do the tibetans have a right to return? surely, here, the answer is yes. are the indians there entitled to call it their home? surely, the answer is yes. does the indian state have a right to try and prevent tibetans from returning? surely not. do the tibetans have a right to treat the local indians like crap? surely not.

Why they ask does someone living in US, UK, Russia or wherever think they have a right to up sticks and move to land that was taken from the people that lived there (in fairness they talked about everyone that lived there not just the Muslims).
the question here is whether the jews have a genuine, respectable connection to the land of israel or not. we believe that we do. personally, i pray for the "ingathering of the exiles to zion" three times a day and so has every jew for the last 2895 years since our first exile to babylon. we know its history and its geography, its flora and its fauna. anyone who knows anything about jews knows how attached we are to this place half the size of wales and how we've missed it over the millennia - how we've never given up on it. BUT that does not give us the right to treat anyone else there like crap. of course, it's not as simple as that, is it? but what your friends seem to crave is this simplicity, this idea of "goodies" and "baddies". there's also that rather unpleasant idea that once land has been conquered by muslims that it is "awqaf", by which logic spain is also occupied territory, but i don't often see people protesting the "catholic occupation" - the fact that palestinian christians are an oppressed minority under the rule of the palestinian authority seems to pass most people by. of course, the agenda here is to paint israel as just one more imperialism, no different from the british in india or the germans in tanzania and the difference, to us, is so obvious it's not even worth debating. 2,000 years ago, there was not a 1,000 year-old british state in india. 2,000 years ago, there was not a 1000-year-old german state in tanzania. with israel, there was.

Also why do people who know an area of land not designated as Israel that has recently been taken and the people moved off and then used as a settlement think it's ok to move there? What moral right do they feel they have, as ordinary human beings, to do that.
in some cases, they think that the land has been acquired legally (and like i said earlier, in many cases it has) but in cases where it hasn't, some of them think it's because jews have a G!D-Given right to the land, others think it's "winner takes all", others are simply there because the government gives them tax breaks. it's quite complicated and there are many different types of settlements. as we saw from the gaza disengagement, the government can change its mind. it is the religious attachments that are not so easily dealt with. but then again, are we suggesting that a future state of palestine should not have jewish citizens, or that they should not be allowed to live in hebron? surely that's not a state worth fighting for. in the same way, i would resist any attempt to suggest that non-jews could not be full and equal citizens of israel with a right to live wherever they liked. i'm not a believer in apartheid.

farhan said:
It will be wrong to compare Israel with Ottoman empire. They had the millet system, which was in no way comparable to the Israeli walls. And there was no ethnic cleansing. Anatolian gene pool is still less than 10% turkic.
under the millet system, farhan, each community was governed by its religious leadership which was responsible for paying the community's taxes and also institutionalised the second-class "dhimmi" status of jews, greeks and armenians. israel has nothing comparable in its civil code. it was the C19th challenge to this system known as the "tanzimat reforms", in the name of enlightenment and equality that led to popular discontent with the rule of the sultanate and ultimately the replacement of the empire with the modern turkish republic.

as for "ethnic cleansing", why not look up the turkish word "sürgün", farhan? this was an ottoman policy whereby when politically expedient, large sectors of the population were simply deported by the government to wherever it was convenient for them to be. there are extant documents from, for example, the ottoman governor of rhodes, for an "order" of 200 jewish families, to be useful in the textile trades. this policy was a much used political tool wherever there was unrest or ethnic-turkish dominance was ever in question. and as for the armenian genocide - read some turkish history, mate.

bishadi: as usual, you're not contributing anything useful to this discussion.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
the question here is whether the jews have a genuine, respectable connection to the land of israel or not. we believe that we do.


Hey BB,

A follow-up question: Is it an obligation for all Jews to believe that the
covenant which God made with the Jewish people was eternal and could
not be nullified under any circumstances? What if the Jews violated
their part of the deal?

Also, what is the case with those Jews who are anti-Israel? How do they
justify their Jewish religion with their opposition to the Jewish state of
Israel? They seem to be very religious, one was interviewed in that
recent Bill Maher documentary.

Btw, personally, I think that Jews really should live in Israel, as I do recognize
their connections with the land. However, I think the way this is being accomplished
is unjust. But that is another discussion entirely.
 
see this kind of posting is why some folk will never get along

you just can't handle anything that is against what you believe

Bishadi, you're on the Jewish board. If you are not Jewish, then please do not make claims to be being able to give an authoritative Jewish opinion when people ask for one.
 
Why does this thread appear under Abrahamic religions/Judaism?

The topic seems to be concerned with territorial rights, not with faith or theologically-based morality.

When there is a relationship between religion and morality, it is often obscured by socioeconomic and and political circumstances. Why would the Abrahamic religions/Judaism forum be the place to sort those out?
 
I think it's because a specifically Jewish point of view was requested on the topic, rather than a general point of view.
 
I think it's because a specifically Jewish point of view was requested on the topic, rather than a general point of view.
What I have seen is a tendency to "religionize" political conflicts. Sometimes subtle things like where a thread is plugged in tend to be a cue for that kind of thing. There may be temptation for all sides to try to turn political/economic matters into religious matters without any reason to believe there's even a connection.

There are data that suggest that supposedly religiously motivated acts are almost entirely explainable in terms of socioeconomic privations. The targets of the attacks are invariably people who are more affluent than the attackers. Basically we are looking at economic wars.
 
Bishadi, you're on the Jewish board. If you are not Jewish, then please do not make claims to be being able to give an authoritative Jewish opinion when people ask for one.

brian,

what i posted was based on what is in torah and available knowledge anyone can observe

included were defining terms any can look up as well posted with items from torah regarding land and ownership including their 'brothers'; as what the thread opener was about

it is that i saw well beyond the 'apartment' analogy and shared information many just do not observe but is definitely found within judaism, just not within the few opinion who represent judaism on this site

but you must agree, many folk within judaism do not agree with the others

just because i do not waive a flag, does not mean i am any less a person than another, nor that any person of judaism is of greater knowledge than i...... (i am not contesting judaism against another)

it is a religion of 'interpretations' as i have been educated for my evolution which i learned by this site

some of the posters are rude because of personal opinions conflict with what they read (again i am not pitting one against the other)

this is not my fault as most everything i post is serious and founded in logic, material evidence and compassion

i am not here just to ruffle feathers as i will be quite pointed when i do square up with someone

the time spend is to learn, observe and ask questions as i go along

if i see a place that i can add material evidence and the logic behind it, does not mean i am trying to hurt anyone, it is that i am learning how applicable and comprehensive knowledge really is and often find what some read and what some believe are quite different

you have to admit, from when i started coming here i have learned a bunch about articulating as well patience and 'being nice'...

i am learning
 
Why does this thread appear under Abrahamic religions/Judaism?

The topic seems to be concerned with territorial rights, not with faith or theologically-based morality.

When there is a relationship between religion and morality, it is often obscured by socioeconomic and and political circumstances. Why would the Abrahamic religions/Judaism forum be the place to sort those out?

personally i agree
as i do not see the intent of this thread as anything other than a method of addressing a political concept

my opinion
 
The topic seems to be concerned with territorial rights, not with faith or theologically-based morality.

Salam Netti, as IBrian guessed, I was looking for the Jewish perspective on the issue both moral and religious .. it may become clearer in a moment.

hi sally and good to have you back.

Salam and thanks BB, it's really good to talk with you again and nice to see Mrs BB is still patient enough to let you on the net ;)

Thanks for such a comprehensive answer and lots to think about there (although translating it into Arabic is going to be a challenge hee hee).

I think what I am probably missing is the knowledge of why the Jews left that land in the first place. Were they forced off and if so by whom. Surely Jews still lived on the land right up until the new state was created, so how did they manage to remain yet so many left?

Apologies Jewish history is not a subject I have ever studied.

I have to agree with your analogy about the Tibetans but I am left wondering about the Indians .. yes the Tibetans have a right of return but perhaps the issue is how that is handled and how they are assimilated into the Indian population. I am also not sure I could agree that the Tibetans have a right to then create a Tibetan state .. surely that is a different issue to the right to return to a homeland?
 
If I may answer one of your questions, MW (the one concerning why the Jews left in the first place) it was because the Romans kicked them out (if I recall correctly).

Back then, the Romans ruled what was considered "the world" and a segment of the Jewish population living in ancient Israel tried to send their overlords packing due to several laws that had been passed, one important law being teaching the Torah was punishable by torture (one of the martyrs was wrapped in a Torah scroll and set on fire, which, to put in a perspective you might understand, is the equivalent of wrapping a Muslim emir with a paper copy of the Koran and setting it on fire.)

The Romans also would "have their way" with anybody belonging to any of the ethnic/religious groups living under their rule (read up on Boadecea [?] and the British Isles uprising.)

I could be mistaken on this (bb would be far more knowledgeable on this.)

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
 
Thank you for your input Phyllis .. and ick on the fire experience. Humans are so inventive in their utter cruelty to others. :(

So I wonder if I would be right in assuming that the Jews who managed to remain simply hid their faith and kept their heads down?

Ah yes Boadicea, Queen of the Iceni .. after the Romans raped her and her daughters in front of her husband then killed him .. she kicked Roman butt .. now thats girl power YAY
 
c0de said:
A follow-up question: Is it an obligation for all Jews to believe that the covenant which God made with the Jewish people was eternal and could not be nullified under any circumstances?
it depends what you mean by "obligation". we don't have a systematic theology, as you know, but insofar as we do one of the non-negotiables is our belief that prophecy is true and that the words of our prophets are true. whether we understand them correctly, however, is an entirely different kettle of fish. 'owevair, opinion is pretty undivided in relation to these verses:

I Will Sustain My covenant between Me and between you and your descendants after you throughout their generations, an eternal covenant; I will be G!D to you and to your offspring after you. To you and your offspring I Will Give the land where you are now living as a foreigner. The whole land of Canaan shall be your eternal heritage, and I Will Be G!D to your descendants.' G!D [then] said to Abraham, 'As far as you are concerned, you must keep My covenant - you and your offspring throughout their generations.
- genesis 17:7-9

there are other verses which specify that the covenant goes through isaac, not through ishmael and through jacob, not through esau.

What if the Jews violated their part of the deal?
we did. it was foreseen, this is most of the content of the famous "tochecha" or "admonition" in deuteronomy and most of the content of jeremiah, amos and much of the other prophectic books. nonetheless, G!D Says that Divine anger and punishment will not last forever, for G!D Is Merciful and Compassionate.

Also, what is the case with those Jews who are anti-Israel? How do they justify their Jewish religion with their opposition to the Jewish state of Israel? They seem to be very religious, one was interviewed in that recent Bill Maher documentary.
a lot of the ultra-orthodox (haredim) are anti-zionist, however only two groups are so anti-zionist that they refuse to acknowledge it in any way, shape or form and only one of them, known as "neturei karta" are so extreme as to collaborate with israel's enemies so as to give credence to their attempts to delegitimise it internationally. NK are less than ten thousand strong worldwide, but they are prominent at all anti-israel demonstrations because they are obviously jewish looking, wear the black hats and costumes and make sure they get in all the photos, which obviously suits all the israel-haters that want to make sure that nobody can accuse them of anti-semitism. it's a really twisted point of view and relies on essentially the groups concerned not considering anybody to be actually jewish apart from them. they are of course totally "religious", in rather the same way as the taliban are - basically anything that doesn't conform to their notions of correctness they condemn as satanic, un-jewish and basically demonic. the idea that jews should wear modern clothes, have a democratic government, not keep 100% of all jewish law and govern ourselves in any other way other than according to the very strictest interpretations of the Torah is a source of absolute horror to them and they view everything from terrorism to the Shoah as a punishment for breaking the Divine Law. it's not very nice.

Btw, personally, I think that Jews really should live in Israel
one day, when the messiah comes. the thing is, it isn't at all clear that "israel" means a nation-state with the current borders. as far as i am aware, you can make a very strong argument that you are living in "the land of israel" for the purposes of jewish law as far away as iraq. it's got nothing to do with the nation-state unless you believe (as the national-religious camp do) that the nation-state itself is a religious institution - and that is a *very* controversial thing to believe, because of course, then you can't compromise so easily.

However, I think the way this is being accomplished is unjust. But that is another discussion entirely.
i agree. i cannot see how the messianic age can be brought about by violating such an important Torah precept as "justice, you shall pursue justice". i don't think that the nation-state is *incompatible*, however, but i do think that it is something we need to outgrow - not just us jews, but us humans.

Netti-Netti said:
The topic seems to be concerned with territorial rights, not with faith or theologically-based morality.
they are intertwined, so you have to consider everything.

Muslimwoman said:
I think what I am probably missing is the knowledge of why the Jews left that land in the first place. Were they forced off and if so by whom. Surely Jews still lived on the land right up until the new state was created, so how did they manage to remain yet so many left?
basically, if you see the first scene of "gladiator", where the romans steamroller a force of germans, that's what happened to us. we were running the place under their military protection (they were invited in by one of the more corrupt royal families) and they became more and more powerful until judea was nothing but a roman province under a family of satraps, the herods. there were a series of messianically-inspired rebellions to throw off the roman yoke and set up as an independent country, but these revolts were ruthlessly crushed, culminating in both the destruction of the second Temple in 70CE and the wholesale slaughter and exile of the population following the bar kokhba rebellion in the 130s - look up the "hadrianic persecutions" and the martyrdom of rabbi aqiba. jerusalem was razed and renamed "aelia capitolina" and the name "palestina" was decided upon in order to insult the jews by naming it after our ancient biblical enemies, the philistines (a phoenician people unconnected with the modern palestinian arabs). you need to read flavius josephus' "the jewish war", which is a contemporary, more-or-less-reliable-albeit tendentious account. basically, jews lived all round the roman and persian empire and all the way to china in the east, spain in the west and britain in the north even in roman times. but a small community managed to hold on continuously (there's a village called pekiin which boasts a continuous community, i used to know one of them) - periodically jews used to move to israel with its various rulers, whether persian, byzantine, arab or turk, but we maintained our connection continuously, there was always trade and a means of obtaining the land's agricultural products somehow.

I have to agree with your analogy about the Tibetans but I am left wondering about the Indians .. yes the Tibetans have a right of return but perhaps the issue is how that is handled and how they are assimilated into the Indian population.
well, that's the point really, that was what was going on until both the arabs and jews decided they weren't going to let the british impose a solution, so it was never a real option to do that.

I am also not sure I could agree that the Tibetans have a right to then create a Tibetan state
well, in this scenario, the tibetans have been periodically oppressed to a genocidal degree by, say, the russians (for argument's sake) and there have been periodic pogroms by the indians against them as well, inspired by the russians - it makes the tibetans pretty unsure they want to trust the indians to be responsible for treating them properly. ideally, everyone would just get along. it was C19th nationalism that screwed it all up.

So I wonder if I would be right in assuming that the Jews who managed to remain simply hid their faith and kept their heads down?
we didn't need to hide our faith, we just had to give up any hope of political independence and power - like the kurds under saddam. this state of affairs continued under both christian and to a slightly lesser extent muslim rule for the next 2000 years.

Ah yes Boadicea, Queen of the Iceni .. after the Romans raped her and her daughters in front of her husband then killed him .. she kicked Roman butt .. now thats girl power YAY
well, that's pretty much what we did - and then when the payback came we were all massacred, which is exactly what happened to boudicca. basically, you were an idiot to mess with the romans, but we had our own hotheads and fundamentalists and they had some early successes which went to their heads. the only thing that really saved us was our political and intellectual leadership fleeing to babylon where the romans weren't in charge and there had been a vibrant and powerful community since the C6th BCE.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Thanks BB, I have been googling "martyrdom of rabbi aqiba" but not finding anything :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top