Muzzie Chrissy and Heeb all lived side by side throughout the Middle East no problem until British wankers with pockets full of atheist Zionist Rothchild cash came along.
Israel - The Right to exist as a State?
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
The 33 countries that voted for their creation should pay, they ignored sound advice on the matter. Tourism could start up, maybe get them all to dress in OT garb (for a price and they get all the newest electronic devices)
Use the current laws of the sea to determine rights, everybody starts out at a home port and they have all the rights afforded a vessel on the high seas. That would include protection from all forms of piracy. All property purchased by any associate of Rothschild from 1890 on should be voided and the property rights reverted back to the seller free of all debts.
The Rothchilds and the Morgans and such have a few hundred trillion tucked away that has already been paid for, time for a hefty withdrawal and maybe a change in banks altogether. lol
Yes it's like breaking the cookie jar when you get caught with your hand in it, you pay for the replacement., the taxpayers are supposed to kill the ones in Government when they go bad, it helps the next generation stay on track, especially when your whole family is at stake, literally.
Check out how the rules changed in WWI, suddenly banks had a guarantee that no matter who won/lost all debts to the bank would be honored, with interest. Before that the banks suffered losses is they backed somebody and they lost. Since they still backed both side they were assurred victory, profits just not as high as they could be.
As for your assumption that if Hezbollah stopped attacking Israel that things would become more peaceful, that's hard to say. Israel could take the opportunity for further settlement outside it legal territory or, as you say, would pull back its settlements even more quickly. I don't know the answer to that one but you seem to be making a big assumption here. Any evidence to back you up? I could see it going either way.
Now as for if Israel stopped its attacks, again yo make the assumption that automatically the Palestinian side would become more violent. I'm not disputing your claim entirely (the Palestinian side has been quite aggressive too), but again I could also see the opposite, that the Palestinian side would calm down after awhile.
You do seem to be making one-sided assumptions here. In the end, I think the only real solution on Israel's side would be to withdraw back within its legal boundaries and then defend those boundaries aggressively.
And as for Hezbollah and Hamas, they'd have to guarantee that they will not attack any territory recognized in international law as being part of Israel. This would mean that the Palestinians would have every right to defend territory outside Israel's legal boundaries, but would have no right to attack Israel proper. And Israel would have no right to claim any territory outside its boundaries as legally recognized in international law, but would have the right to defend against any attack on its own legally recognized territory.
That's really the only solution I could see as a fair compromise.
Do you mean the secret covenant? The core blight is fallen angels, men are nothing but pawns used for they enjoyment.
Don't expect to see any of the 'solutions' bear fruit, go back to sleep.
So who was it in proveable written history that exiled the Jews some 2000 years ago leaving them longing desperately for a nation state or the exile of the Jewish people is originally a Christian myth that depicted that event as divine punishment imposed on the Jews for having rejected the Christian gospel?
Typical backstabbers. The nation was born in the blood of Zionist terrorism and that is undeniable history.
It still boils down to what the people who live there want. If they want their olive grove back then that is what they get. It was 'us outsiders' (including Rothschild) deciding how things should be that caused the problem in the first place. Had the people of Palestine been approaced up-front like they might have agreed to some sort of deal. Including that since it is on religious grounds that is the only 'occupation' they will pursue, running the gov is left to others. As longs as the rent is paid and no crimes are being committed life goes on with no real big ups and downs. Who is going to attack a place that is as free of sin as you can find on earth.
This exile is part of the exile that was imposed for killing so many OT Prophets, looking at the total punishment it would not seem to have been their wisest move ever.
For what Christ is going to put the place, being far away is a blessing, if you value your living skin.
As for the 200 year thing, how do we draw that lineage? Some of you might not be aware that though Judaism is not a particularly proselyte religion, it does accept converts none-the-less. So would a 1st generation Jew be entitled to the same privileges as one who traces his family history back to Ancient Israel? And what about the non_Jewish Hebrew? Yes, some of them do adopt alternative Faiths. So would he forfeit that right even if his family traces its origins back to Ancient Israel? If we follow along a bloodline, then all persons of Hebrew descent, regardless of Faith, would be allowed to go back to Israel (though proving that descent might be a challenge in all but a few cases). Or if we define it by Faith, then any professed Jew would be entitled to move to Israel regardless of his family history.
So how will we define that lineage?
So how will we define that lineage?
So then going by new testament they have far more to fear from Jesus wiping them off the map than they do Ahmadinejad?
What are they going to coherse and guilt the US to doing next? Bomb God and heaven from the ISS because he is sending Jesus back? Stuff that prayer in a crack and bob your noggin cuz Jesus is gonna be some pissed when he sees what they did to his house?
While it is true that the Baha'is are prohibited from teaching their faith anywhere off their property on Mount Carmel, or to organize in any way within the State of Israel except on Mount Carmel, this is a condition they accepted of their own choosing in exchange for being allowed to keep their property on Mount Carmel. No, it's a far cry from freedom of religious organization, but bear in mind that this is not unique to the Baha'is. Israel has some quite stringent religious laws, more restrictive than anything you'll find in any Western State today (for example, interfaith marriage is legally proibited in Israel, and non-religious marriages are recognized only if done outside of Israel). However, it's a far cry from religious persecution. Religious suppression? To a degree, though it would be more accurate to say suppression of religious organization, and this certainly does not compare in any way to what the Baha'is face in Iran for example. The worst that could happen to a foreign Baha'i in Israel who violates its laws is that he get expelled from the country or, if he's born and raised in Israel, then for him the worse that could happen is that he will legally not be allowed to marry a Jew.
So yes, their freedom of religious organization is suppressed, but their physical safety is not threatened, at least not legally or in any way sanctioned by the government at any rate.
And not a single Hindu, Pagan, Christian, Arab or Roman or Greek or Canaanite or Assyrian or Egyptian etc etc in the bunch?
Sounds like bul**** to me.
Where is the written proof? Roman magistrate documented everything for Rome diligently. So did Greeks and Egyptians and anyone who did trade in the region. They had international trade laws back then like they do today so where are the records of ships and camel trains full of exiles?
Last edited:
You don't think fear of a Deir Yassin like massacres was a factor?
C'mon Colpy, even the Israelis involved have long acknowledged that "Arabs left at the urging of the Arab brothers" was a myth. I can quote many Israeli leaders who were involved. Ethnic cleansing was one of the chief objectives of Plan Dalet. Its all detailed in Section 3b4:
That plan was drawn up by Ben Guion and implemented by the Haganah, with help from armed thugs and terrorists like the Stern Gang. Those criminals eventual formed the IDF which continues to this day to destroy "villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously." Not much has changed.
And even if it was true that these people left voluntarily, people still have a right to return to their homes after the fighting stops or recieve compensation as per international law. Israel even agreed to allow the refugees to return to their homes or get compensation in return for UN recognition.
About 10,000 Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza got the same treatment more or less as the 800,000 Arabs ethnically cleansed from the Israeli side and are therefore entitled to the same compensation.
Over the next two decades hundreds of thousands of Jews immigrated to Israel from all over the world including Arab countries. Its clear that Jews faced oppression and discrimination in Arab countries, mainly as a direct result of what Israel did to Arabs. I would agree that does not justify their treatment and any Jews who were forced to leave without the ability to sell their property are entitled to compensation. But many Arab Jews chose to leave voluntarily for the same reason tens of thousands of Jews immigrated to Israel from North and South America at the same time.
Since 800,000 or so Jews left Arab/Muslim countries and 90% left willingly, that means that about 10% or about 80,000 are entitled to compensation.
In total about 90,000 Jews were cleansed in one direction in response to 800,000 Arabs having previously been cleansed in the other direction. Meanwhile the Arabs are still getting cleansed to their homes to this day, while tens of thousands of Jews continue to live in Arab/Muslim countries.
History of the Jews in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Same rules as the OT outlined or a flat 70 years. Isn't DNA grouping sort of like a tattoo?
If I'm not mistaken, the OT outlined it by Faith and not ethnicity or race, so DNA would be useless in identifying a Jew, since that's based on Faith. Now if we're dealing with Hebrews on the other hand, that's a different story, but a Hebrew could have adopt any Faith or even none at all, and I'm pretty sure the OT is faith-based in its criteria.