Historical and theological Islam

[nonsumd]

You mean after the Israelites had gone into Egypt?

The Canaanites were the people Abraham found in the land of Canaan long before Joseph invited his family into Egypt during the great famine.

According to Genesis, Abraham’s native land was Ur of the Chaldees (in present-day southern Iraq).

For the most part, Abraham and his clan seems to have coexisted peacefully with the Canaanites – his nephew Lot, who chose to live in a “city of the plain” got along with them rather too well, as we know. Abraham even honored a Canaanite priest and made offering the God through that priest, Melchizedek, the king of Salem (the later Jerusalem).

Indeed, the one major episode when Abraham warred against Canaanites that I can recall is, if I am not mistaken, precisely the same one where he offers sacrifice through the Canaanite priest, Melchizedek (whose priesthood according to our Christian belief is superior to the priesthood of Aaron).

 

[Montalban]

The Canaanites were the people Abraham found in the land of Canaan long before Joseph invited his family into Egypt during the great famine.

According to Genesis, Abraham’s native land was Ur of the Chaldees (in present-day southern Iraq).

For the most part, Abraham and his clan seems to have coexisted peacefully with the Canaanites – his nephew Lot, who chose to live in a “city of the plain” got along with them rather too well, as we know. Abraham even honored a Canaanite priest and made offering the God through that priest, Melchizedek, the king of Salem (the later Jerusalem).

Indeed, the one major episode when Abraham warred against Canaanites that I can recall is, if I am not mistaken, precisely the same one where he offers sacrifice through the Canaanite priest, Melchizedek (whose priesthood according to our Christian belief is superior to the priesthood of Aaron).

If Abraham and his family co-existed, then weren’t they ‘of that place’ then?

 

[nonsumd]

If Abraham and his family co-existed, then weren’t they ‘of that place’ then?

Montalban, are you playing dumb or or are you just biblically illiterate?

Abraham was not a native of Canaan. He was less of that place than the modern-day Israeli Jews whose ancestors left the same land 2000 years ago.

Was that not the whole point of what it means for Abraham to be our “father in faith”? That he dropped his whole previous life, his whole previous world, and settled in a distant and strange land just because God commanded him to?

 

[Montalban]

Montalban, are you playing dumb or or are you just biblically illiterate?

Abraham was not a native of Canaan. He was less of that place than the modern-day Israeli Jews whose ancestors left the same land 2000 years ago.

So what? If his people moved into that area and lived there for many generations are they not then ‘of that land’?

Palestinians who were raised in Tunisia, and Alegria and have never been to Palestine consider themselves Palestinian. They are simply waiting to ‘return’.

I’m sure you’d think that was reasonable. But you don’t, for the Jews!

You gave testimony for my side by saying that they lived peacefully together, in Canaan, so the peoples believed, perhaps, that they had a right to live there.

 

[nonsumd]

So what? If his people moved into that area and lived there for many generations are they not then ‘of that land’?

Palestinians who were raised in Tunisia, and Alegria and have never been to Palestine consider themselves Palestinian. They are simply waiting to ‘return’.

I’m sure you’d think that was reasonable. But you don’t, for the Jews!

You gave testimony for my side by saying that they lived peacefully together, in Canaan, so the peoples believed, perhaps, that they had a right to live there.

Did I ever say that the Jews did or do not have the right to live in ha Eretz? Did I ever?

I just said that they do not have the right to deny others their homeland even if it happens to coincide with ha Eretz.

Logically speaking, your Palestinian born in Palestine yet raised in Tunisia or Alegria (I have never heard of that country – sounds like a cheerful place) has more of a right of return than a Jew whose ancestors left the Roman province of Palestina before the destruction of the Second Temple, wouldn’t you say?

That Palestinian and that Jew could well have the same Jewish contemporary of Jesus as a common ancestor! And it was the Palestinian’s line that was the stay-at-home!

 

[Montalban]

Did I ever say that the Jews did or do not have the right to live in ha Eretz? Did I ever?

Then what’s your objection?

Logically speaking, your Palestinian born in Palestine yet raised in Tunisia or Alegria (I have never heard of that country – sounds like a cheerful place) has more of a right of return than a Jew whose ancestors left the Roman province of Palestina before the destruction of the Second Temple, wouldn’t you say?

Really? What’s the time limit?

So you’re saying that a Palestinan removed a generation has more claim to the area than a Jew who may have had generations there since the Zionist movement in the late 1800s because even further back the Palestinian’s ancestors *were * there? In other words, it doesn’t matter about Palestinians missing generations, but it does the Jews!

That Palestinian and that Jew could well have the same Jewish contemporary of Jesus as a common ancestor! And it was the Palestinian’s line that was the stay-at-home!

Only if the Palestinians of today are the same as those of that era.

Also, the Jews never entirely abandoned the area.

 

[nonsumd]

Then what’s your objection?

I object to those Jews who oppress and dispossess Palestinians. I do not object to Jews who simply wish to settle in Palestine, particularly if they are victims of persecution elsewhere.

So you’re saying that a Palestinan removed a generation has more claim to the area than a Jew who may have had generations there since the Zionist movement in the late 1800s because even further back the Palestinian’s ancestors *were * there? In other words, it doesn’t matter about Palestinians missing generations, but it does the Jews!

Wait a minute – I am not the one saying that one of the groups has no right to the land, it is you who is saying that Palestinians do not have a right to the land.

If you don’t mean that, state so clearly – and while you are at it, state clearly that extermination of all Muslims who do not convert to Christianity is NOT the solution to Muslim extremists’ violence.

Only if the Palestinians of today are the same as those of that era.

This implies that all the Palestinians of today are evil or at any rate not as worthy as the Palestinians of those days. If by the “Palestinians of those days,” you mean primarily the Jews, then inasmuch as there was abundant zealotry justifying violent resistance to alien rule, then the “Palestinians of these days” and the “Palestinians of those days” seem quite the same, down to the murderous factionalism (such as Josephus noted in the defenders of Jerusalem against Titus).

Also, the Jews never entirely abandoned the area.

I never said they all did, while anti-Palestinians peddle falsehoods that Palestinians wandered out of the desert since the advent of Zionism in the late 19th c.

 

[Montalban]

I object to those Jews who oppress and dispossess Palestinians. I do not object to Jews who simply wish to settle in Palestine, particularly if they are victims of persecution elsewhere.

Even to those who left (fled) at the urging of their own leaders?

Wait a minute – I am not the one saying that one of the groups has no right to the land, it is you who is saying that Palestinians do not have a right to the land.

Where did I say that?

If you don’t mean that, state so clearly – and while you are at it, state clearly that extermination of all Muslims who do not convert to Christianity is NOT the solution to Muslim extremists’ violence.

What a ridiculous thing for you to ask me to state. Where have I suggested Moslems should be forcibly converted. I’ve nay even hinted at it.

This implies that all the Palestinians of today are evil or at any rate not as worthy as the Palestinians of those days.

Where do I say this? I fully appreciate that Palestinians include Chrisitans.

I still don’t see you have any point. You wish to introduce some unspecific time-measure that simply works against the Jews.

Then you demand I state about things I’ve never hinted at.

Your posts are becoming more and more confused

 

[nonsumd]

Even to those who left (fled) at the urging of their own leaders?

Were not those who left told to do so by the leaders of the neighboring Arab countries who wanted Palestinians out of harm’s way while Arab and Jewish forces were engaged in combat?

What a ridiculous thing for you to ask me to state. Where have I suggested Moslems should be forcibly converted. I’ve nay even hinted at it.

You go on and on about how Islam is its essence a religion of violence, that a non-extremist Muslim is not a “true” Muslim, etc., a Muslim who is not violent is a fake Muslim, etc.

If I am confusing you with Rodrigo or birdsong or Verisimilitude or a strawman of my own making, I apologise and hope you will clearly state you do not think this way.

If you never said something, then it should be no problem for you to affirm the opposite.

Where do I say this? I fully appreciate that Palestinians include Chrisitans.

Even worse, then you are implying that only Palestinian Christians are worthy.

 

[Montalban]

Were not those who left told to do so by the leaders of the neighboring Arab countries who wanted Palestinians out of harm’s way while Arab and Jewish forces were engaged in combat?

I’m sure some were. I haven’t read on this matter for quite some time, but I do recall that their radio urged them all to flee for their lives.

You go on and on about how Islam is its essence a religion of violence, that a non-extremist Muslim is not a “true” Muslim, etc., a Muslim who is not violent is a fake Muslim, etc.

Yes, I argue the truth.

If I am confusing you with Rodrigo or birdsong or Verisimilitude or a strawman of my own making, I apologise and hope you will clearly state you do not think this way.

I feel NO NEED to do so - take that for what you will. I don’t even judge that a particular person will go to hell (for being non-Orthodox) because we don’t second-guess God.

If you never said something, then it should be no problem for you to affirm the opposite.

The problem is the principle of it.

Even worse, then you are implying that only Palestinian Christians are worthy.

I’m not at all arguing that Palestinian Christians are worthy of land.

I’m saying I differentiate between the two because you’re accusing me of being ‘anti-Moslem’ on this particular issue.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Were not those who left told to do so by the leaders of the neighboring Arab countries who wanted Palestinians out of harm’s way while Arab and Jewish forces were engaged in combat?

At the time of the 1948 war, Arabs in Israel were invited by their fellow Arabs – invited to “leave” while the “invading” Arab armies would purge the land of Jews.1 The invading Arab governments were certain of a quick victory; leaders warned the Arabs in Israel to run for their lives.2
In response, the Jewish Haifa Workers’ Council issued an appeal to the Arab residents of Haifa: [See Official British Police Report ]

For years we have lived together in our city, Haifa… Do not fear: Do not destroy your homes with your own hands … do not bring upon yourself tragedy by unnecessary evacuation and self-imposed burdens… But in this city, yours and ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, and for peace for you and your families."3

Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem
in an irresponsible manner… they have used the Palestine
people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and,
I could say, even criminal.
– King Hussein of Jordan, 1960

Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees… while it is we who made them leave… We brought disaster upon … Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave… We have rendered them dispossessed… We have accustomed them to begging… We have participated in lowering their moral and social level… Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon … men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes … [36]
– Khaled Al-Azm, Syria’s Prime Minister after the 1948 war

After the Arabs’ defeat in the 1948 war, their positions became confused: some Arab leaders demanded the “return” of the “expelled” refugees to their former homes despite the evidence that Arab leaders had called upon Arabs to flee. [Such as President Truman’s International Development Advisory Board Report, March 7, 1951: “Arab leaders summoned Arabs of Palestine to mass evacuation… as the documented facts reveal…”] At the same time, Emile Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Command, called for the prevention of the refugees from “return.” He stated in the Beirut Telegraph on August 6, 1948: “it is inconceivable that the refugees should be sent back to their homes while they are occupied by the Jews… It would serve as a first step toward Arab recognition of the state of Israel and Partition.”

A prominent Arab Palestinian strategist, AI-Haytham Al-Ayubi, analyzed the efficacy of Arab propaganda tactics in 1974, when he wrote:

The image of Israel as a weak nation surrounded by enemies seeking its annihilation evaporated [after 1967], to be replaced by the image of an aggressive nation challenging world opinion.* 17

• As Rosemary Sayigh wrote in the Journal of Palestine Studies, “a strongly defined Palestinian identity did not emerge until 1968, two decades after expulsion.” It had taken twenty years to establish the “myth” prescribed by Musa Alami.18]

eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/refugees2.html#2

 

[nonsumd]

I feel NO NEED to do so - take that for what you will. I don’t even judge that a particular person will go to hell (for being non-Orthodox) because we don’t second-guess God.

I am glad that you do not assume all non-Orthodox will go to hell simply because they are not Orthodox. We Catholics similarly believe being non-Catholic does not automatically condemn a person to hell – we too do not presume to limit God’s mercy.

I’m not at all arguing that Palestinian Christians are worthy of land.

First of all, I did not mean “worthy of the land,” I meant “worthy in general,” not absolutely wicked.

You said, “If only the Palestinians of these days were like the Palestinians of those days,” which sounds to me as if you were saying that the people we refer to by the name “Palestinian” today are morally inferior to some group in the past we call “Palestinian.”

Now, if you are saying that Palestinian Christians do not have the right to the land, then you are saying that people who cannot at all be associated with the influx of Muslims into Palestine since the 7th c., Palestinian Christians whose ancestry can be argued to trace in great part back to pre-Abrahamic times and certainly includes many converts from Judaism.

Are you saying this?

 

[nonsumd]

At the time of the 1948 war, Arabs in Israel were invited by their fellow Arabs – invited to “leave” while the “invading” Arab armies would purge the land of Jews.1 The invading Arab governments were certain of a quick victory; leaders warned the Arabs in Israel to run for their lives.2
In response, the Jewish Haifa Workers’ Council issued an appeal to the Arab residents of Haifa: [See Official British Police Report ]…

…The image of Israel as a weak nation surrounded by enemies seeking its annihilation evaporated [after 1967], to be replaced by the image of an aggressive nation challenging world opinion.* 17

• As Rosemary Sayigh wrote in the Journal of Palestine Studies, “a strongly defined Palestinian identity did not emerge until 1968, two decades after expulsion.” It had taken twenty years to establish the “myth” prescribed by Musa Alami.18]

eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/refugees2.html#2

So if one leaves one’s house, one forfeits one’s right to one’s house? Is that what you are saying?

“The image of Israel as a weak nation surrounded by enemies” was not “evaporated” only after 1967 - it was never the complete truth. The Zionists were formidable in comparison with their Arab neighbors back in 1948 at any rate David was not quite David, and Goliath not quite Goliath. “David” included quite ruthless terrorists such as members of the Stern Gang (which is not to say there were no terrorists on the Arab were – certainly there were).

Now, even if there had been no such thing as a “strongly defined Palestinian national identity” until 1968, what does that have to do with the Palestinians’ right to their homes and homeland?

Aren’t you making an argument akin to those used by colonizers who say that the natives of a place do not have the right to their land because they do not develop it as civilized people do, that the natives have no proper government so we must colonize them and give them a proper goverment?

 

[Montalban]

I am glad that you do not assume all non-Orthodox will go to hell simply because they are not Orthodox. We Catholics similarly believe being non-Catholic does not automatically condemn a person to hell – we too do not presume to limit God’s mercy.

Without wishing to start another argument, I’ve been informed by several Catholics that I’m going to hell by virtue of being an ex-Catholic.

First of all, I did not mean “worthy of the land,” I meant “worthy in general,” not absolutely wicked.

Moslems are, if they follow their faith, wicked. Islam’s as evil as Nazism.
memri.org/bin/opener.cgi?Page=archives&ID=SR01002#IV

You said, “If only the Palestinians of these days were like the Palestinians of those days,” which sounds to me as if you were saying that the people we refer to by the name “Palestinian” today are morally inferior to some group in the past we call “Palestinian.”

No. I meant ‘the same people as…’ by way of parallel, like today’s Macedonians are Slavic, but they weren’t at the time of Alexander, therefore their claims to his legacy are on shaky grounds.

Now, if you are saying that Palestinian Christians do not have the right to the land, then you are saying that people who cannot at all be associated with the influx of Muslims into Palestine since the 7th c., Palestinian Christians whose ancestry can be argued to trace in great part back to pre-Abrahamic times and certainly includes many converts from Judaism.

Are you saying this?

Let me put it another way. Rightly or wrongly Israel own the land now. Many nations do business with them, including Arab ones. They’ve accepted the status quo.

The Palestinians have been largely abandoned by everyone.

It makes no sense to argue that a Palestinian should be restored to the land based on some notion that they may have lived there for 1,000 years, but then left it and lived on the West Bank.

Things then get more complex. If they want the West Bank - what’s the problem, Israel’s given this and Gaza to them.

Let’s look what they’ve been doing with it…
In February 2002 a Muslim mob, including Palestinian Authority Special Forces, burned Christian businesses and attempted to destroy the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches in Ramallah. The attack occurred after a Christian man killed a Muslim while being pursued by a Muslim gang because he refused to pay protection money for safe passage to his home."
palestinefacts.org/pf_current_christians.php

See also
THE BELEAGUERED CHRISTIANS OF THE PALESTINIAN-CONTROLLED AREAS
imra.org.il/story.php3?id=14002
Arafat’s Terrorism Threatens Christians and Christian Sites … Not Just Israel
nljonline.com/February2001/arafat.htm
THE ISLAMIZATION OF BETHLEHEM BY ARAFAT
acpr.org.il/cloakrm/clk117.html
A Not So Merry Christmas in the Holy Land
frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=11477

 

[Montalban]

So if one leaves one’s house, one forfeits one’s right to one’s house? Is that what you are saying?

If one vacates it then rules regard squatters might come into play

“The image of Israel as a weak nation surrounded by enemies” was not “evaporated” only after 1967 - it was never the complete truth. The Zionists were formidable in comparison with their Arab neighbors back in 1948 at any rate David was not quite David, and Goliath not quite Goliath. “David” included quite ruthless terrorists such as members of the Stern Gang (which is not to say there were no terrorists on the Arab were – certainly there were).

The Arabs local to the area had a long-standing military force, the Arab Legion, under the command of Glubb

Now, even if there had been no such thing as a “strongly defined Palestinian national identity” until 1968, what does that have to do with the Palestinians’ right to their homes and homeland?

It’s like saying “We defend your right to have a baby, even if you can’t have babies”.
FRANCIS:
Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN:
I want to be one.

REG:
What?
STAN:
I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’.
REG:
What?!
LORETTA:
It’s my right as a man.

JUDITH:
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA:
I want to have babies.
REG:
You want to have babies?!
LORETTA:
It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But… you can’t have babies.
LORETTA:
Don’t you oppress me.
REG:
I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA:
[crying]
JUDITH:
Here! I-- I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS:
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG:
What’s the point?
FRANCIS:
What?
REG:
What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!
FRANCIS:
It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG:
Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-07.htm

Aren’t you making an argument akin to those used by colonizers who say that the natives of a place do not have the right to their land because they do not develop it as civilized people do, that the natives have no proper government so we must colonize them and give them a proper goverment?

Are you saying that the Arabs were less civilized than the Jews?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-07.htm

That is funny.

 

[Verisimilitude]

So if one leaves one’s house, one forfeits one’s right to one’s house? Is that what you are saying?

Under the conditions in which this particular instance took place…yes.

“The image of Israel as a weak nation surrounded by enemies” was not “evaporated” only after 1967 - it was never the complete truth.

Your view of truth is skewed.

Now, even if there had been no such thing as a “strongly defined Palestinian national identity” until 1968, what does that have to do with the Palestinians’ right to their homes and homeland?

There are consequences to losing wars.

Aren’t you making an argument akin to those used by colonizers who say that the natives of a place do not have the right to their land because they do not develop it as civilized people do, that the natives have no proper government so we must colonize them and give them a proper goverment?

No, as Israel was not a colonizer but a rightful occupant of the land. If you don’t like UNR 181- take it to the UN. Palestine could have declared their State when Israel did- they did not.

 

[nonsumd]

Under the conditions in which this particular instance took place…yes.

This is simply bias.

Your view of truth is skewed.

Thanks for responding exactly how I expected you to respond.

There are consequences to losing wars.

Like losing two wars with the Romans in the century after Jesus’ death?

Christians for most of Christian history have taken it for granted that the Jews lost the exclusive right to the Land (it was the Muslims who, after taking the province of Palestina from the Byzantines, officially permitted the Jews to settle in Jerusalem for the first time since Hadrian built Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of the Jewish city).

No, as Israel was not a colonizer but a rightful occupant of the land. If you don’t like UNR 181- take it to the UN. Palestine could have declared their State when Israel did- they did not.

I do believe that Jews have the right to a nation-state in their ancestral homeland, but I can understand how Palestinians would have been unwilling to give up any part of their homeland to the Jews. The British made promises to the Jews without consulting the Palestinians who were to be directly affected by those promises.

Not a few Jews back then and today believe that Jews have a right to the entire territory of the ancient kingdom of Israel. There is really no comparison between such a way of thinking and that of those Palestinians who want the whole territory of British Palestine… unless one is biased in favor of the Jews.

Though, I repeat, I do believe the Jews have the right to a nation-state in ha Eretz, I suspect the world would have been spared a lot of trouble if the view of many Orthodox Jews at the time had prevailed that a Jewish state could only rightly be established in Palestine by the Messiah Himself – and not by largely secular socialists/nationalists (which is incidentally why the Jewish state-builders got UN support – because the USSR saw the kibbutzniks as fellow socialists – in the late 40’s, the Soviets supported Israel more strongly than the US).

Every colonizing people has argued its right to colonize. Zionists or other Jews are not in the same category as, say, the British, but for the people being colonized or dispossessed by colonialism the effect is the same.

In other cases of colonialism, there is no compromise between the interests of the colonizer and the colonized: the colonizers must leave because they have no right to colonize. The Israeli-Palestinian case, both have rights to the Land and neither should have to leave.

 

[Verisimilitude]

This is simply bias.

No, it is a reasoned position.

Thanks for responding exactly how I expected you to respond.

I am glad I have not disappointed you.

Like losing two wars with the Romans in the century after Jesus’ death?

Christians for most of Christian history have taken it for granted that the Jews lost the exclusive right to the Land (it was the Muslims who, after taking the province of Palestina from the Byzantines, officially permitted the Jews to settle in Jerusalem for the first time since Hadrian built Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of the Jewish city).

You really do like the Moslem way, don’t you?

I do believe that Jews have the right to a nation-state in their ancestral homeland, but I can understand how Palestinians would have been unwilling to give up any part of their homeland to the Jews. The British made promises to the Jews without consulting the Palestinians who were to be directly affected by those promises.

That is simply untrue as consultations were going on before the 1920’s, and if you think the Israel/Palestine is unfair then so is the same body (League of Nations) that established the other Moslem nations such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan…at the same time. Many Jews and Christians lived in those lands as well, and they were expelled, killed, or further subjugated as the dhimmi they had been for centuries. Where is your compassion for them?

Not a few Jews back then and today believe that Jews have a right to the entire territory of the ancient kingdom of Israel. There is really no comparison between such a way of thinking and that of those Palestinians who want the whole territory of British Palestine… unless one is biased in favor of the Jews.

Except that the Jews are correct. Palestinian Moslems can live under Israeli rule just as Iranian Jews can live under Persian rule. Do the Jews have anything similar to the Pact of Umar like the Moslems have regarding non-Moslems living under their dominion? Are the Christians in Egypt treated fairly, or the Jews of the Yemen?

Though, I repeat, I do believe the Jews have the right to a nation-state in ha Eretz, I suspect the world would have been spared a lot of trouble if the view of many Orthodox Jews at the time had prevailed that a Jewish state could only rightly be established in Palestine by the Messiah Himself – and not by largely secular socialists/nationalists (which is incidentally why the Jewish state-builders got UN support – because the USSR saw the kibbutzniks as fellow socialists – in the late 40’s, the Soviets supported Israel more strongly than the US).

Russia exported their Jewish communities for reasons not so noble as you claim. Many wanted to stay in Russia as that was now their home.

Every colonizing people has argued its right to colonize. Zionists or other Jews are not in the same category as, say, the British, but for the people being colonized or dispossessed by colonialism the effect is the same.

The Jews largely invited the Moslems to remain at first, but the Moslems are a all-or-nothing people. They chose nothing…or rather the other Moslem nations chose for them and have kept them destitute to sway world opinion. It is shamefull.

In other cases of colonialism, there is no compromise between the interests of the colonizer and the colonized: the colonizers must leave because they have no right to colonize. The Israeli-Palestinian case, both have rights to the Land and neither should have to leave.

May Israelis are Palestinian if you want to use that term to describe the indiginous. When Jews come from Russia or Yemen or Egypt to populate Israel people like you point to the “fact they are outsiders”, but when any disposed Moslem be it in Jordan or Algeria, or Syria…it is those Moslem governments that refuse to integrate them as other nations do, but fill the ranks of the growing “Palestinan problem”.

 

[Montalban]

That is funny.

Indeed. Let’s fight restospectively for their right to have a nation even though they themsleves didn’t consider themselves a nation - at that time.