When did Arab Muslims invade Sudan?, perhaps you mean the Ottomans or the Brits and one more correction, folks who are killing each other all Muslims and Blacks, particularly in reference to Darfur. Elaborate, please…!
I think that the poster was referring to the Arab Baggara tribe that is supporting the government forces by hiring fighters for the Janjaweed (sp?). While you are correct that the majority of those fighting and dying on both sides are both black and muslim. The Baggara are wealthy relatively speaking and so are more visible. So to Western minds it looks like Arabs trying to assert control over the native peoples. This may or may not be completely accurate but I think you can see how it might appear that way.
Dear Lev23, unless my understanding is pathetic, the thread was dealing with a different issue all together but I can clearly read that you are addressing a totally contrary one, perhaps we should have a thread titled……”The Chosen People and the Promised Land”, what do you think.
The concept of a “chosen race” or “chosen people” does exist in the Bible. The Bible is in fact full of it. “Chose race,” however, does not mean “master race”. It does not mean they were chosen to be masters of everyone else. “Chosen race” also does not mean that God loves them more than anybody else. God loves all mankind equally. They were “chosen” to be a blessing to the rest of mankind by bringing the gospel of salvation to them. Here is a typical quote (God addressing Abraham):Furthermore, please take a look at this verse from the bible “In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates”(Genesis 15:18)
Now honest to Go does that sound real serious and scary if some folks come and say all these lands in described should be returned to the Jews…? it’s a real human catastrophe of unprecedented proportion, is not it…?
Unless, the seed of Abraham or Ebrahim(Peace and the blessings of the Almighty God be upon him) includes us too…
but I doubt that is what the context of the verse inverse to.
Ironically, the promise land is not only limited to historical Palestine if one should belive in the bible and I’m lots of folks on this forum believe it beyond ant should of any doubt.
Please think about it.
One very important thing, please do forgive me if my any part of my rebuttal sounded harsh or uncalled for to you in any form.
Thanks for your time and insights.
Theodore Roosevelt’s review of The Foundation of the 19th Century Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919). History as Literature. 1913.
Many Arabs have legal rights to vote and hold office in Israel.
about 170,000 in 1949; and now number more than 1,400,000. They have 12 representatives in the Israeli Parliament, judges sitting on the Israeli courts and on the Israeli Supreme Court benches, and Ph.D’s and tenured professors teaching in Israeli colleges and universities. They are a population that enjoys more freedom, education, and economic opportunity than do any comparable Arab populations anywhere in the Arab world.
With respect, this intereprtation of 242 is unique to a limited number of political organizations in Israel and the United States. You will have a hard time find any other legal comment on 242 to that thinks it doesn’t require a withdrawal.
That is not true. When Gamal Abd al-Nasser, the Egyptian President, closed the al-Aqaba straits (the water lifeline of Israel), that was an act of was. It amounted to a declaration of war. That would be like the old Soviet Union bringing all its warships and submarines to the coasts of the United States, and declaring that the US has no right to trade or use the seas until we say so! That would be an act of war. The US would be entirely justified to use all military means at its disposal to remove the threat. There is no room for negotiation here. That is war.
Too bad! When you start a war, you suffer the consequences. It is not true that the Arabs were taken by surprise. They knew that they had left Israel with no choice but to go to war, and they had prepared for it. The fact that they turned out to be useless fighters, and Israel beat the hell out of them in six days, is too bad for them. That was a victory well deserved.
At that time Gamal Abd al-Nasser had received a lot of arms and weaponry form the Soviet Union, and that had given him a sense of false security. He thought he was invincible. He didn’t think that the Israelis would dare to attack him; or that if they did, he would easily be able to defeat them. He hadn’t counted on getting wiped out in six days. They were on full alert for an Israeli attack.
If memory serves before the attack al-Nasser had put about 100,000 troops and and tanks on the Sinai pinninsula and was calling for other nations particularly Syria (because of their alliance) to take up arms against Isreal. I don’t know about any body else but I’d take that as aggressive.
He had closed the al-Aqaba straits to Israeli shipping unless his demands were met. That was the act of war.
Except that you seem to be quick to rely on those Arab websites, although you haven’t really given any facts to support your last couple of posts. The Jewishvirtual library is an excellent source, IMO, to refute the same old arguments that are continually raised against Israel. The “sound legal principles” argument is a red herring. Arab nations tried to eradicate Israel. they failed. What legal principles are you referring to?
And:
As for the legal status of the territory which Begin calls “liberated homeland” (Gaza-how you “liberate” a homeland full of people who aren’t citizens of your nation escapes me, but he clearly believes that Gaza and the West Bank belong to Israel and not to the residents of Gaza or the West Bank)…Estesbob posted a very good legal source above. It demonstrates how far out of step Israel’s position is with internationla law, and verifies that the overwhelming majority support the Palestinian view on the land.