Israel

[navyrules 1]

I think that Israel has a right to build houses wherever they want... it's their land, they are sovereign, and the international community has no right to critisize them.

What do you think?

disagreement is welcome.

[Muck308 55]

Who do you want to side with? The Hatfields or the McCoys?

[navyrules 1]

I am sorry if I am misinterpreting this but I believe that was in West Virginia

or it might just be a saying

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Palestine Predated Isreal so it would be like saying England had the right to build settlements in the USA in the 19th Century.

[Muck308 55]

Originally posted by: navyrules

I am sorry if I am misinterpreting this but I believe that was in West Virginia

or it might just be a saying quote>

It's a saying.

In all seriousness, this is a touchy subject. What I know about it I have learned from various media sources and as much as I like to believe journalistic integrity still very much remains, I am still skeptical. That said, I can't be sure if the information I hear and read is absolutley true.

Hamas is a terrorist organization, but one that was elected by the people. I think Israel takes such drastic measures to defy Hamas because they don't take them seriously and they certainly don't trust them any farther than they can launch a grenade.

I was under the impression that Israel had a construction freeze, at least in certain parts of Jerusalem. A promise is a promise isn't it?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Wrightguy0 40]

I would just like to take a moment to remind everyone to keep this civil, at the first sign of flaming the instigators will be dealt with, keep it clean, play nice, and so help me if i see one racist comment, from anyone this thread will be locked and the offending parties dealt with.

Good, Clean Discussion shall follow, i hope i'm not being obtuse.

[Jasoncw 11,934]

I don't really understand why they keep building the settlements when it seems so easy to just stop, and to build housing units elsewhere, even just to avoid all of the political and social stress that comes with them. Is there some kind of land shortage?

Maybe someone who's more familiar with this can explain what's going on.

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

Palestine Predated Isreal so it would be like saying England had the right to build settlements in the USA in the 19th Century.quote>

uhm... no.

If you go historic, palestine was never a country but a region.

the israeli and hebrew tribes settled down in canaan after they fled from egypt,  which at this point was inhabitated by lose semite tribes.

2000 b.c. this was all egyptian territory. around 1200 b.c. egypt lost it's influence, about the same time the first israeli settlements are dated.

until 1000 b.c. when the kingdom of david collapsed and split into the northen israel and the southern judah.

the first was conquered by assyrians 722 b.c. and the second by babylon 587 b.c.

then (after a brief reunion and independence following the maccabee revolts) came the romans and the diaspora around 135 a.d.

palestine as a name for this region dates back to the roman emperor hadrian who called this region palestine in memory of the already vanished philistines AND to erase any jewish/israeli links to this region.

it took until 1517 till the first ottomans conquered this land and reigned their until 1918.

but the first alija, when a significant number of jewish people moved back to this region, took place 1882 and from that time on, this region got interesting because prior to this date, it was neglected by pretty much everything and everyone.

if you want, until 1918 when the uk got the mandate for this region, palestine has never been a state. it was the british mandate that sort of cut it out of the middle east and made it possible to turn it into a sovereign state.

so semite tribes living on eygipt territory were first and after israeli and hebrew tribes settled down aswell they mixed up and the kingdom of david formed. except for the time between the diaspora and the 1st alija, this region was inhabited by semites/israelis/hebrews etc.

[quicksilver991 37]

About the construction freeze, there was one, but the Prime Minister repealed it. Not a smart move, considering the peace talks are under way.

[Duke of York 23]

Originally posted by: GMT

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

Palestine Predated Isreal so it would be like saying England had the right to build settlements in the USA in the 19th Century.quote>

uhm... no.

If you go historic, palestine was never a country but a region.

the israeli and hebrew tribes settled down in canaan after they fled from egypt,  which at this point was inhabitated by lose semite tribes.

2000 b.c. this was all egyptian territory. around 1200 b.c. egypt lost it's influence, about the same time the first israeli settlements are dated.

until 1000 b.c. when the kingdom of david collapsed and split into the northen israel and the southern judah.

the first was conquered by assyrians 722 b.c. and the second by babylon 587 b.c.

then (after a brief reunion and independence following the maccabee revolts) came the romans and the diaspora around 135 a.d.

palestine as a name for this region dates back to the roman emperor hadrian who called this region palestine in memory of the already vanished philistines AND to erase any jewish/israeli links to this region.

it took until 1517 till the first ottomans conquered this land and reigned their until 1918.

but the first alija, when a significant number of jewish people moved back to this region, took place 1882 and from that time on, this region got interesting because prior to this date, it was neglected by pretty much everything and everyone.

if you want, until 1918 when the uk got the mandate for this region, palestine has never been a state. it was the british mandate that sort of cut it out of the middle east and made it possible to turn it into a sovereign state.

so semite tribes living on eygipt territory were first and after israeli and hebrew tribes settled down aswell they mixed up and the kingdom of david formed. except for the time between the diaspora and the 1st alija, this region was inhabited by semites/israelis/hebrews etc.

quote>

 Exactly.

[navyrules 1]

I don't trust the media on this either... but I think that the United States and United Nations have no right to critisize Israel... Israel is not subject to the United States... and I dislike how President Obama is ruining our relationship with a great ally

[thepokemaniac 18]

Israel is a good country in my opinion, but most certainly not a great one. In fact, it is my belief that it is far from it. But like all countries, there are good things and bad things. I suppose I'll tell you my opinion on many issues that deal with Israel, and you are free to disagree.

In response to the first post,  I do not believe it is "their land." The land they are building settlements on is Palestinian land, its basically stealing. It is exactly what happened to the native Americans when the Europeans came to the Americas. The treatment of Palestinians is atrocious in the Occupied West Bank, I know from personal experience, having spent a summer there. Checkpoints are a hassle to deal with, and they are also quite intimidating.

Now many people often ask me why Palestinians are fighting Israel, and the reason goes back a long way. After World War II, many European Jews were resettled in Israel. Before this, (remember, it was known as Palestine before) everyone basically lived in peace throughout the land. However, in reponse to the many flocks of immigrants to the newly declared "State of Israel," many Palestinians who had been living there got quite angry. The reason was because in their eyes, these immigrants were coming in and taking the land that the people living there thought was rightfully theirs! It would be like someone from America of English decent going back to England, and claiming land for themselves.

So this conflict goes back a long way, we've established. Now let's move on to the two Palestinian political parties, Fettah and Hamas. In my honest opinion, I feel that both of them are extremely corrupt, and do not represent what the common Palestinian wants, which is peace. The PLO would have done a good job, however they are corrupt as well. It seems as if the common people of the West Bank and Gaza are not properly represented, and that is a sad thing.

On to the topic of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is considered a holy city to Christians, Jews, and Muslims. It is for this reason that so much contraversy has arisen over its status as the capital of Israel. Most Palestinians consider East Jerusalem to be their capital, and many Israelis  consider the whole city to be theirs. It is easy to see the conflict that would arise over this as well! Jerusalem is a spectacular city, filled with all sorts of hidden treasures and adventures. In my opinion, it should be shared among both groups. This would be great, as it would show tremendous tolerance toward one another. Jerusalem is undoubtedly, one of the biggest issues of the conflict between Palestine and Israel.

Many roads in Israel are well paved and maintained. However, this is not true for parts of Palestine. Palestinians are sometimes made to drive on poorly taken care of roadways that are sometimes not even paved! This is quite low for western standards, and this issue should be adressed. Due to the lack of a functioning Palestinian government, it is my belief that Israel should at least provide this basic service to the people of the area that they occupy.

As some of you know, there is currently a construction project that Israel is working on to build a wall around the West Bank. This makes a majority of Palestinians furious. It can be compared to the Berlin wall, and because of this reason has sparked  a lot of international outcry over it. The same thing has happened in Gaza. If this wall were to be completed, it would be catastrophic for a one state shared land solution.

Which brings me to my last point of a solution to this problem. The so called "solution" of two states WILL NOT WORK. Israel is well developed, Palestine is not. You cannot just leave a country to function on its own and be able to work when it has been choked and deprived of basic services for so long. It is my belief that the best solution is a one state solution. The ideal way this would work would be that all walls would be taken down first. Secondly, the city of Jerusalem could be shared among both parties, uniting it under one flag. As far as I'm concerned, you could call it anything you wanted to, as long as there was peace! Thirdly, it would be wonderful for both Palestinian and Israeli children to hold hands, be friends, and attend the same schools. Once this has occurred, it will be clear that peace has been achieved.

Now all this seems very far off and farfetched at this point, but I believe that it is possible. As a Palestinian American, it is my duty to extend the hand of peace to any Israeli who would be willing to take it. I have done it before, and am more than happy to do it again. Several people who attend my school are from Israel, and I have been able to make friends with every single one of them. I dont see them as Israelis, they dont see me as a Palestinian; we both see each other as friends. And that is what needs to happen in Israel/Palestine.

Adam

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[panthersimcity4 162]

Israel (from what I've seen as a visitor earlier this year) is a pretty well developed country. There is alot of infrastructure and industry... particularly in Tel Aviv. I don't think there is much of a need for so much money being sent, it seems economically the country can take care of itself. Then again I'm just a dumb tourist, so what would I know?

[Duke87 1,070]

As I am neither an Israeli nor a Palestinian and stand neither to gain nor lose anything based on the outcome of the matter, I am generally neutral on the whole debate and do not see it as really being any of my business. I would like to see a peaceful resolution (whatever it may be), although I must admit I'm skeptical about the capability of the two groups to peacefully coexist.

As for the "settlements"...yeah, they do seem intrusive and uncalled for - but again, not my business.

[+Guest Gnarologist]

It does seem a bit absurd how heavily invested the United States is in Isreal? Is there any particular reason why we support them so heavily?

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa  Then, in 1967, they seized more land and have yet to give it back.  I hesitate to say it, but it was a blatant land-grab.quote>

you should've hesitated some more. it was the 3rd violent result of a mere 20 yrs of constant threats from all surrounding states. the street of tiran has been closed and just as the unef troops have been called home eygipt sent as little as 1000 tanks and 100 times as many soldiers (pretty much 2/3 of the entire eygiptian army) straight to the israeli border, following their own invasion masterplan for israel. ironically at the same time it made agreements with jordan to stand as a brother in arms. even more irony here, same treaties have been made at more or less the same time with every other arab state bordering israel, except libanon.

and it gets even better: Nasser (the eygiptian president at this time) ordered all his anti-israeli allies to move as many troops as possible to the israeli border (quote) "The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel."(fun thing, following his speaches he has always been very clear about his intentions for israel speaking to arab auditions, speaking to the rest of the world it took him several years more to become more clearly. similar threats came from almost all surrounding states btw.)

and guess what? not a week later there was 250000 soldiers, 2000 tanks and 700 warplanes ready all along the israeli border, par with the israeli force.

now take this military pressure (and the economic pressure from closing one of the main supply routes) on a nation on the brink of the 3rd war in 20 years while the western world ignoring what's going on in and around it's masterpiece creation and let this cattle boil for a few days and you get the ever so slightest chance that this cattle might explode yet again.

If that's a blatant land-grab... omg

[fukuda 351]

I don't have the right to build a house wherever I want. I can't build a house on an illegal terrain or on someone else's property without their consent. Theoretically, no one has a right to do whatever they want. (Armored bulldozers may help though)

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Gnarologist

It does seem a bit absurd how heavily invested the United States is in Isreal? Is there any particular reason why we support them so heavily?quote>

As I understand it (and I'm not claiming that I do), Israel has to exist for the rapture to occur. 

The Unannounced Reason Behind American Fundamentalism's Support for the State of Israel

The Rapture Factor

Why conservative Christians' love of Israel is intertwined with the Battle of Armageddon

Never mind that there is no biblical basis for the rapture.  Millions of people who say they are Christian believe it is going to happen.

But that's a whole 'nother topic.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I do not approve of the settlements but I do not have any authority to say anything.

[quicksilver991 37]

On the subject of whose land is whose, the West Bank should rightfully belong to the Palestinians. Back in World War I, the British made a treaty with the Arabs. If they would fight the Ottoman Empire, then the British would grant them a huge tract of land(including modern day Israel) to be their own country. But, they also promised Israel to the French and Jews. However, they broke all their promises when they were given control of the region by the League of Nations. In the 20 years the Brits controlled it, the managed to stir up more trouble than anybody had ever caused, and caused all parties to hate all other parties involved. The Arabs felt like the British were siding with the Jews, and the Jews felt like the Brits were siding with the Arabs. So really, all of Israel rightfully belongs to Palestinians. However, this will never happen, so they should at least get the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I agree with that.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Foo!  This whole mess is the result of the Brits and the Balfour Declaration.

After the war, those Jews who could, migrated to the Palestine territory, in spite of British controls that said they couldn't.  This is an example of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.  There were a lot of interesting  end-products including many corpses on all sides.

Many of the Arabs were allied with the Axis powers, particularly the NAZIs, who took advantage of the state of civil war that has existed between Jews and Arabs since the days of Abraham.  No Arab, and no Jew of the blood, is ever anti-Semitic because they are both Semites, and descended from Abraham.  The Arabs are on the wrong side of the blanket.

When the Israelites migrated from Egypt to the "promised land", they dispossessed the Canaanites, and in fact, these people were exterminated, which was good policy in those days.  At that time, most of what is now Israel was the Land of Canaan.  They also did in the Moabites and many other peoples that were making a living on this "promised land".  Instead of flowing with milk and honey, it was soaked in the blood of the residents.  Joshua was a very good general.

So this is the historical background.  The Jews lived in this land for a few millennia, baring a few excursions with conquerors.  Then the Romans arrived, and the Maccabees couldn't keep it together, and got themselves in a real mess.  They were defeated, slaughtered, and the Romans, sick of putting up with the "stiff-necked Jews" tore down their cities, and expelled them from the land, lock, stock and barrel.  This is called the diaspora.

Jews spread out over most of Asia and Europe as a result, but always kept to their religion, keeping to the Torah, and holding on to their faith.  As a result of their cohesiveness, they were able to prosper, and, while despised as a class, soon became the world's bankers in the middle ages.

Meanwhile, the Arabic tribes occupied the old Israeli area, which, over time, became known as Palestine.

Generally, because of the Good Friday history, Jews were despised, and rejected in the Christian world.  Many had migrated to the Ukraine and the Russian Steppes.  Whenever the rulers of Russia wanted an object lesson for the people, they would declare Jews to be beyond the pale of civilization and have a pogrom.  Jews were outlawed and you could to anything you liked with them, including kill them by the most brutal means.  The musical Fiddler on the Roof is about this, and it is not a comedy.  The terror in the background was real.

After many decades, centuries even, we come to the Germany of the 1930's and the Holocaust.  Let us draw a kind curtain over this, and come to the period after 1945.  Here is the 1917 text of the Balfour Declaration:

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."quote>

  And here is the Wiki reference.

This is the root of our current troubles, and it came after the Treaty of Versailles and before the declaration of the Third Reich.  The Brits dragged their feet.

Sometime after the war, the United Nations ratified the Balfour Declaration and created the nation of Israel, with well defined boundaries.  Unfortunately, this area was full of Palestinians, many of whom wanted to stay, and are still there.  Others left, and created a schism among the Palestinian people that exists today.

Who is to blame?  The British, no one else.  Their empire-building interference in the affairs of the world into the twentieth century has been unconscionable, considering their present fallen estate.  Having exhausted themselves in the War to End All Wars, they have successfully passed this hot potato to the United States, who, foolishly, accepted it.  Things were all warm and fuzzy when the U. N. was getting off the ground, but things have changed since.

The biggest mistake made by the Palestinians and their Arab allies have been ground attacks on Israel.  The Israeli forces, trained by the Americans, equipped initially by the Americans, have beaten them off, and claimed new Territories by conquest, like the West Bank, which was not an original part of Israel.  By the rule of conquest, it is theirs now.  But there is a lot of argument from bleeding hearts at the UN, and other places, and so the feud continues with brother against brother in this family squabble.

I wash my hands of the whole lot, and wish a plague on both their houses.

[sneakeypete 16]

Yeah, i'm not a fan of the settlements thing. however, to be fair, i never really knew or cared what exactly it was until last week, just happened upon a map of the settlements and the area claimed for it etc and was quite shocked.

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Foo!  This whole mess is the result of the Brits and the Balfour Declaration.

quote>

alongside with austria, but that's yet another problem.

thinking of a solution to this ridiculous (because both sides claim to long for peacefull ends but neither is willing to give but eager to take to achieve an end to this crisis) there's no solution but a 2 state solution.

at least as long as tempers are through the roof, and god knows how through the roof they are after 50+ years of quarrels.

[quicksilver991 37]

On the topic of a two-state solution, the Palestinians really lost out in 1947. The UN came up with a plan that gave Israel 55% of the land in question and Palestine 45%. However, the Palestinians, with their typical stubbornness, rejected the plan. Then, Israel declares itself a country, and during the following war, gains another 22% of the land. So now the Israelis have 77% and the Arabs have 33%. Hmmmm.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, in addition to my Pontius Pilate act earlier, I think that the Jews of the diaspora should have stayed put and weathered the storm in Europe.  There were enough guilt trips to go around, and a gradual migration to the eastern Mediterranean area might have worked over time.  However, we have the UN and the bleeding hearts.  I can assure you that no hearts were bleeding in Egypt, Syria and Jordan, although the Jordanians seem more reasonable.

If the Brits, having crawfished long enough on the Balfour declaration, had withdrawn it, and made the Palestinian region into the country of Palestine, or Phillistia, or whatever, it would have been up to the people living there as to whether they would accept Jewish immigrants.

One of the big debates is over Jerusalem.  Three major religions claim it as a very holy place, namely: Israel, Christianity, and Islam to put it in historical order.  But, let's look at Jerusalem from the time of the Romans.  The Romans, having conquered the area, owned it in fee simple by right of conquest.  Now, there were several insurrections, and they were mostly put down, in the usual Roman brutal fashion with crucifixions all around.  During this time, Christianity got its kick-off, as a Jewish sect. 

Now comes the final blow.  The Maccabees started a full scale insurrection and were relatively nasty guerillas, as these things went.  The Romans were finally cheesed off, and having defeated the Maccabees, laid siege to their fortress.  The Maccabees, seeing that all was hopeless, committed suicide en mass rather than be overrun by the Romans.  (Frankly a knife is friendlier than being hung up on a cross.)  There is no doubt that if the Romans had entered the Maccabean fortress the result would have been to crucify  everyone they could get their hands on, and to kill all the women and children.

Now, the Romans were really upset, and they tore down every city in the Jewish area, and expelled the Jews, many sold into slavery, some escaped.  No professed Jew was any longer allowed to live in the area.

So after this we have the piecemeal rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem by whoever was left.  The Roman Empire was on its last legs, and soon became an owner in absentia.  There was an interregnum in which rebuilding was done by whatever people were left or who managed to return.  After a few hundred years Islam appeared, and became the great force in the Mediterranean.  In fact, the "Moors" built a great empire and flourished in the arts and sciences until the end of the fifteenth century.  Like all empires, it became decadent, and the Christian power was in ascendant.  In Spain, the Moors were expelled from central Spain by 1492, and the Throne of Spain sent our famous Italian navigator across the Atlantic on the proceeds of the Moorish treasury (ever wonder where Isabella got all those jewels?).

By now Mohammed having "ascended" in Jerusalem, Islam has a claim to the city.  Also, Jerusalem had become a rich trading city by then, and a crusade or two ("Deus Vult") had looted it rather thoroughly.  The mythologies are kind of mixed up.  Consider the great Sultan Sulieman the Great.  He's none other than King Soloman.  Everybody gets in the act, you see, and the whole mess is interwoven.

I believe that the Jews can settle any lands they have conquered and made safe for themselves.  The Palestinians have made their bed, and now must lie in it.  As for the city of Jerusalem, it should be declared a UN trust territory, and held on behalf of the three claimant religious groups by a force of devout Buddhists.

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I will take your post as a friendly reply that loses its friendliness in type only.

This is the main reason why I said what I said.  We need to keep in mind how Israel was brought to fruition.  WWII ends, Jews have been persecuted, Europe has a lot of inherent anti-Semitism, the overall message is they are not wanted there, many migrate to British Palestine, are assigned land (and yes, the Palestinians were fools for not accepting the deal), and all of a sudden, a dominantly Palestinian region has a new country that belongs to Jews.  Why wouldn't Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc be a bit ticked off?  I don't buy this idea that "well, they were being pestered endlessly by their neighbors because they were just trying to be a country"  in a heavily Muslim region, well... hopefully, you get my point.

Barbarossa

quote>

oh yeah I didn't mean to by offensive in any way. sorry for that.

It's just that I absolutely don't like the idea of placeing israel in the role if the aggressor while it's been the surrounding states that showed aggressive whereabouts ever since the "world" put israel where it is now, where jews have lived prior to muslims alongside long gone arab tribes that where either conquered or have mixed with whoever tribe they came across, incl. jews.

that's aswell the reason for me why I think that palestinians claiming this land for historic reasons are wrong, IF there's any historically legitimate owner, it's the jews since any older legitimate owner (still speaking from a historic pov) can't be precisely defined anymore.

no questions asked, the "real" problem is the result of balfour and the british mandate. But, without any doubt, this land is considered their homeland by the majority jews for historic reasons and since jews are not just a religious group but a folk in terms of a several thousand years old tribal heritage, I think they should be granted a nation.

badly enough, their homeland by heart is in the middle of the muslim world and since christians and jews are, considering the qaran and the sharia, more likely slaves than equal beings (keyword ahl al-dhimma) and antisemitic strain can't be denied (just take antisemitic statements by iran's head of state, hamas fighters doing the hitler salute and even "better" Nazi-Germany collaborating with arab states to exterminate jews, there's literally billions of pages analysing antisemitism in the muslim world)

as for '67 and the "land-grab" ... I do doubt that all the non-violent intentions (nasser and co claimed they had in mind moving a majority of their troops to the israeli border) are actually true, as it is known that nasser and his allies always tried to put israel in the role of the aggressor, which is at first sight of course true as they did start this war, but at second sight I do come to the conclusion that there was no other choice for israel than to strike first in order to prevent worse to it's civilians.

and this scheme of putting israel in the role of the aggressor is still valid for many people, and true to a certain extent, but there're quite some good reasons behind this that show a typical actio = reactio principle that, unfortunately for this region and it's peace, multiplies.

the REAL "aggressor" (in lack of a better word) tho comes out of this without a scar as it is the rest of the western world that put israel where it is, gave it a bunch of guns and put a tick on the checklist next to "give jews an own state".

deed done, let's move on.

but like I said before, there's no other solution but a 2 state solution (as it has been envisioned plenty times), but even this will fail due to the same reasons a 1 state solution is even more utopic, the unability of both sides to make a step back. both want this land for their own purpose, both claim historical legitimation and both seem to be unable to accept the other one as their neighbor.

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Well, in addition to my Pontius Pilate act earlier, I think that the Jews of the diaspora should have stayed put and weathered the storm in Europe.  There were enough guilt trips to go around, and a gradual migration to the eastern Mediterranean area might have worked over time.  However, we have the UN and the bleeding hearts.  I can assure you that no hearts were bleeding in Egypt, Syria and Jordan, although the Jordanians seem more reasonable.

If the Brits, having crawfished long enough on the Balfour declaration, had withdrawn it, and made the Palestinian region into the country of Palestine, or Phillistia, or whatever, it would have been up to the people living there as to whether they would accept Jewish immigrants.

One of the big debates is over Jerusalem.  Three major religions claim it as a very holy place, namely: Israel, Christianity, and Islam to put it in historical order.  But, let's look at Jerusalem from the time of the Romans.  The Romans, having conquered the area, owned it in fee simple by right of conquest.  Now, there were several insurrections, and they were mostly put down, in the usual Roman brutal fashion with crucifixions all around.  During this time, Christianity got its kick-off, as a Jewish sect. 

Now comes the final blow.  The Maccabees started a full scale insurrection and were relatively nasty guerillas, as these things went.  The Romans were finally cheesed off, and having defeated the Maccabees, laid siege to their fortress.  The Maccabees, seeing that all was hopeless, committed suicide en mass rather than be overrun by the Romans.  (Frankly a knife is friendlier than being hung up on a cross.)  There is no doubt that if the Romans had entered the Maccabean fortress the result would have been to crucify  everyone they could get their hands on, and to kill all the women and children.

Now, the Romans were really upset, and they tore down every city in the Jewish area, and expelled the Jews, many sold into slavery, some escaped.  No professed Jew was any longer allowed to live in the area.

So after this we have the piecemeal rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem by whoever was left.  The Roman Empire was on its last legs, and soon became an owner in absentia.  There was an interregnum in which rebuilding was done by whatever people were left or who managed to return.  After a few hundred years Islam appeared, and became the great force in the Mediterranean.  In fact, the "Moors" built a great empire and flourished in the arts and sciences until the end of the fifteenth century.  Like all empires, it became decadent, and the Christian power was in ascendant.  In Spain, the Moors were expelled from central Spain by 1492, and the Throne of Spain sent our famous Italian navigator across the Atlantic on the proceeds of the Moorish treasury (ever wonder where Isabella got all those jewels?).

By now Mohammed having "ascended" in Jerusalem, Islam has a claim to the city.  Also, Jerusalem had become a rich trading city by then, and a crusade or two ("Deus Vult") had looted it rather thoroughly.  The mythologies are kind of mixed up.  Consider the great Sultan Sulieman the Great.  He's none other than King Soloman.  Everybody gets in the act, you see, and the whole mess is interwoven.

I believe that the Jews can settle any lands they have conquered and made safe for themselves.  The Palestinians have made their bed, and now must lie in it.  As for the city of Jerusalem, it should be declared a UN trust territory, and held on behalf of the three claimant religious groups by a force of devout Buddhists.

quote>

Did i mention already that I love your style of writing?

anyways, the jerusalem idea was planned somewhere around the balfour plan. not with the buddhists but with a sort of UN mandate.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

History aside, only Egyptians, Syrians and others who do not share the Arab ethnic heritage can be called anti-semitic.  Both the lineally descended Arabs and Jews have the genes of Abraham.  Both will admit it, no queston.

We all know of the long standing enmity between the Egyptians and the Jews.  It has been on for three or four millennia.  I am not sure about the Syrians.  Are they not Caucasians, along with the Persians (Iranians and Iraqis)?  I think the only problem these people have is that they are allied with Egypt.  And don't forget that the Greeks (Macedonians) once ruled in Egypt (Cleopatra was a Macedonian), and the Romans got in their act too.

Maybe what we are seeing, after all the millennia that have passed, is the aftermath of the Trojan War.

@GMT:  You are welcome.  I think that a UN mandated trust territory would have failed if run by the UN.  They are almost as bad administrators as the Soviets.  I appreciate it, but I really don't think you needed to quote my whole post verbatim to make your point about Jerusalem.  You can edit these things, you know.