Jewish Presence is Israel

[GHook93]

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/...Xn-History.htm

The Palestinian claim is that the Jews had no rights to the lands, since they have no ties to it. That it was their's. Many on this board support this thinking. Here is a time-line of the Jewish heritage in Israel.

Israel/Palestine Land Rule:
3600 - 3000 B.C. Jewish rule
3000 - 1000 B.C. Egypt rule --> but strong Jewish presence (remember slavery and parting of the red sea)
1030 - 930 B.C. Jewish Rule
922 - 539 B.C. - Babylonian Rule --> Jews Exciled
539 - 332 B.C. Persian Rule --> Jews return
332 - 164 B.C. Greek Rule --> Very strong Jewish presence
164 - 63 B.C. Jewish rule
63 B.C - 614 A.D. Roman Rule - Strong Jewish Presence. 2 major Jewish revolts. The Roman respond to the second revolt by renaming Israel as Palestine (hence the Roman's created the name Palestine, not the Muslims)
614 - 1060 A.D. Persian Invasion - Persian Rule (they expell the Christians and Jews, hence the reason the Jewish population deceased prior to the 1900s)
1060 - 1240 A.D. The Crusades (Rule shifted between the Muslims and Christians)
1300 - 1917 Ottoman Empire (Arabs - another foreign Arab ruler)
1948 - Israel

[Abdullah]

Oh yeah, Jews that lived there over thousand of years have rights to control land that the Palestinians CURRENTLY occupied when the hoardes of Jews from all over Europe came in. It's unjust to come in and take over land from people who were already living there and then not even let them establish their own state.

BTW the chart should look like this:

Israel/Palestine Land Rule:
3600 - 3000 B.C. Jewish rule
3000 - 1000 B.C. Egypt rule --> but strong Jewish presence (remember slavery and parting of the red sea)
1030 - 930 B.C. Jewish Rule
922 - 539 B.C. - Babylonian Rule --> Jews Exciled
539 - 332 B.C. Persian Rule --> Jews return
332 - 164 B.C. Greek Rule --> Very strong Jewish presence
164 - 63 B.C. Jewish rule
63 B.C - 614 A.D. Roman Rule - Strong Jewish Presence. 2 major Jewish revolts. The Roman respond to the second revolt by renaming Israel as Palestine (hence the Roman's created the name Palestine, not the Muslims)
637 - Ameer ul-Mohmineen , `Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) conquers city of Jerusalem for the Muslims
614 - 1060 A.D. Persian Invasion - Persian Rule (they expell the Christians and Jews, hence the reason the Jewish population deceased prior to the 1900s)
1060 - 1240 A.D. The Crusades (Rule shifted between the Muslims and Christians)
1300 - 1917 Ottoman Empire (Arabs - another foreign Arab ruler)
1948 - Israel

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Abdullah Oh yeah, Jews that lived there over thousand of years have rights to control land that the Palestinians CURRENTLY occupied when the hoardes of Jews from all over Europe came in. It's unjust to come in and take over land from people who were already living there and then not even let them establish their own state.

Well, lets be fair. The Turks owned the land and the Palestinians worked the land on a rent system. The Jews bought most of the land in question well before 1948. So, be mad at the Turks who sold the land they took from someone in 1300 or so. Or, lets forget about who owned what when and just get down to figuring out how people can live together without slaughtering each other. Does it really matter which son Abraham liked best?

[RickSp]

Going back three thousand years to ancient Isrealite kingdoms is hardly convincing. Your timeline seems to argue against any recent claim. It appears that the Israelis are claiming ownership over land that Palestinians have lived on for roughly a thousand years.

[bob60292]

Quote by: GHook93 http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/...Xn-History.htm The Palestinian claim is that the Jews had no rights to the lands, since they have no ties to it. That it was their's. Many on this board support this thinking. Here is a time-line of the Jewish heritage in Israel. Israel/Palestine Land Rule: 3600 - 3000 B.C. Jewish rule 3000 - 1000 B.C. Egypt rule --> but strong Jewish presence (remember slavery and parting of the red sea) 1030 - 930 B.C. Jewish Rule 922 - 539 B.C. - Babylonian Rule --> Jews Exciled 539 - 332 B.C. Persian Rule --> Jews return 332 - 164 B.C. Greek Rule --> Very strong Jewish presence 164 - 63 B.C. Jewish rule 63 B.C - 614 A.D. Roman Rule - Strong Jewish Presence. 2 major Jewish revolts. The Roman respond to the second revolt by renaming Israel as Palestine (hence the Roman's created the name Palestine, not the Muslims) 614 - 1060 A.D. Persian Invasion - Persian Rule (they expell the Christians and Jews, hence the reason the Jewish population deceased prior to the 1900s) 1060 - 1240 A.D. The Crusades (Rule shifted between the Muslims and Christians) 1300 - 1917 Ottoman Empire (Arabs - another foreign Arab ruler) 1948 - Israel

With all due respect, and absolutely no offense intended, I have to ask you a question. If the Native Americans lived on your property for more years than you have , should you not, by your logic, find a Native American to give it to?

[shrike]

1300 - 1917 Ottoman Empire (Arabs - another foreign Arab ruler)

Ottaman are not Arabs but a Turks.

[shield772]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Well, lets be fair. The Turks owned the land and the Palestinians worked the land on a rent system. The Jews bought most of the land in question well before 1948. So, be mad at the Turks who sold the land they took from someone in 1300 or so. Or, lets forget about who owned what when and just get down to figuring out how people can live together without slaughtering each other. Does it really matter which son Abraham liked best?

DITTO !!!!!!

[GHook93]

Quote by: bob60292 With all due respect, and absolutely no offense intended, I have to ask you a question. If the Native Americans lived on your property for more years than you have , should you not, by your logic, find a Native American to give it to?

I wasn't negating a claim by the Palestinians or a superior claim by either party. That is for another discussion. I showing that the Jews have had a long history and presence in Israel, regardless of what anyone claims.

[xyzer]

I am of the impression that its pretty hard to claim any specific areas in and around Palestine and Israel for one specifice anscestrol group. Weren't the ancient people who lived in the area mainly nomadic tribesmen? Several different wandering tribes?

I read that the actual land that should have been partitioned to Israel was inland near Jerusalem? Instead they got the coastal lands? But what does it really matter now? Over 50 years of existence should be left to memory rather than fought over.

I think those that want to change it by force are fools!
Such silliness wastes resources and energy that could be put to more practical purposes..such as bettering the lives of those who live in the area! Its alsway bothered me that the arab Nations that surround this pustule of international friction don't attempt to help the Palestinians? Donate resources to solving the long term refugee problem, leave the Israelis alone..particularly since they have withdrawn from the Gaza and the West Bank?

[Atlas]

Quote by: RickSp Going back three thousand years to ancient Isrealite kingdoms is hardly convincing. Your timeline seems to argue against any recent claim. It appears that the Israelis are claiming ownership over land that Palestinians have lived on for roughly a thousand years.

Almost all of those claim are proved with historical and archaeological facts.
Unlike Jews, Palestinians never were an independent national entity in this land.

Quote by: bob60292 With all due respect, and absolutely no offense intended, I have to ask you a question. If the Native Americans lived on your property for more years than you have , should you not, by your logic, find a Native American to give it to?

If that was to be put into action, all US territory should be evacuated of all those who's ancestors came there from another continent, do you really plan to do so ? I bet the Indians who were resettled further west in the 19th century would love to move their reservation to the middle of New York...

Quote by: xyzer I am of the impression that its pretty hard to claim any specific areas in and around Palestine and Israel for one specifice anscestrol group. Weren't the ancient people who lived in the area mainly nomadic tribesmen? Several different wandering tribes?

Not for most periods in history since Hebrews first settled there.

Quote by: xyzer I read that the actual land that should have been partitioned to Israel was inland near Jerusalem? Instead they got the coastal lands? But what does it really matter now? Over 50 years of existence should be left to memory rather than fought over.

Ironically, the present day area known as the west bank (Judea and Samaria)was the core of all Hebrew and Jewish kingdoms in the land. And no, UN partitioning of the land was according to existing settlements, the Jewish of which were mainly on the coast land, for it was easier to by and settle in, doesn't mean the inland held less value for Jews.

I agree that even that those land are now under Palestinian authority it should be given up for the possibility of peace rather than fought over again, and if you are referring to the existence of Israel that should be put into memory then I explained the Impossibility of the matter to Milton Bradley in the "Problem of Israel" debate all too well.

Quote by: xyzer I think those that want to change it by force are fools! Such silliness wastes resources and energy that could be put to more practical purposes..such as bettering the lives of those who live in the area! Its alsway bothered me that the arab Nations that surround this pustule of international friction don't attempt to help the Palestinians? Donate resources to solving the long term refugee problem, leave the Israelis alone..particularly since they have withdrawn from the Gaza and the West Bank?

Couldn't agree with you more on that.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Atlas Almost all of those claim are proved with historical and archaeological facts. Unlike Jews, Palestinians never were an independent national entity in this land.

The first is questionable and the second is beside the point. The ownership of land is not negated by archeology. The theft of land from its rightful owners cannot by justified by archeological ruins.

[GHook93]

Quote by: RickSp The first is questionable and the second is beside the point. The ownership of land is not negated by archeology. The theft of land from its rightful owners cannot by justified by archeological ruins.

Theft of the Israeli/Palestinian land have be done throughout history. Turks, Arabs, Christians, Roman, Greeks, Persians, Jews have all fought someone for the lands.

However, a great deal of the lands held by the Israelis were purchased legally from the Turks. :eek:

[RickSp]

Quote by: GHook93 Theft of the Israeli/Palestinian land have be done throughout history. Turks, Arabs, Christians, Roman, Greeks, Persians, Jews have all fought someone for the lands. However, a great deal of the lands held by the Israelis were purchased legally from the Turks. :eek:

Theft, throughout history, has been wrong.

Yes, some land was purchased by the Isrealis, but much was appropriated.

[GHook93]

Quote by: RickSp Theft, throughout history, has been wrong. Yes, some land was purchased by the Isrealis, but much was appropriated.

Just like how the Palestinians took the lands they were on.

[RickSp]

Quote by: GHook93 Just like how the Palestinians took the lands they were on.

You mean the families that had lived on and farmed these lands for hundreds of years? You are calling them thieves?

[GHook93]

Quote by: RickSp You mean the families that had lived on and farmed these lands for hundreds of years? You are calling them thieves?

There ancestors took it from someone.

[ise]

Quote by: RickSp You mean the families that had lived on and farmed these lands for hundreds of years? You are calling them thieves?

Maybe this is not the point, RickSp. From the following (thanks to Jose) it strikes me that feudalism met the 20th century head on in Palestine in 1948 with no clear cut right on either side. Maybe our Zionist friends might read this item published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East and comment without prejudice to their normal stance. I certainly learnt a lot.
Jews for Justice

How did land ownership traditionally work in Palestine and when did it change? "[The Ottoman Land Code of 1858] required the registration in the name of individual owners of agricultural land, most of which had never previously been registered and which had formerly been treated according to traditional forms of land tenure, in the hill areas of Palestine generally masha'a, or communal usufruct. The new law meant that for the first time a peasant could be deprived not of title to his land, which he had rarely held before, but rather of the right to live on it, cultivate it and pass it on to his heirs, which had formerly been inalienable...Under the provisions of the 1858 law, communal rights of tenure were often ignored...Instead, members of the upper classes, adept at manipulating or circumventing the legal process, registered large areas of land as theirs...The fellahin [peasants] naturally considered the land to be theirs, and often discovered that they had ceased to be the legal owners only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord...Not only was the land being purchased; its Arab cultivators were being dispossessed and replaced by foreigners who had overt political objectives in Palestine." Rashid Khalidi, "Blaming The Victims," ed. Said and Hitchens Was Arab opposition to the arrival of Zionists based on inherent anti-Semitism or a real sense of danger to their community? "The aim of the [Jewish National] Fund was 'to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people...' As early as 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha'am wrote that the Arabs "understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at...' [Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated] 'We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly...' At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund's request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice." "Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880's ...when [they] purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it." Don Peretz, "The Arab-Israeli Dispute." "[During the Middle Ages,] North Africa and the Arab Middle East became places of refuge and a haven for the persecuted Jews of Spain and elsewhere...In the Holy Land...they lived together in [relative] harmony, a harmony only disrupted when the Zionists began to claim that Palestine was the 'rightful' possession of the 'Jewish people' to the exclusion of its Moslem and Christian inhabitants. " Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest." "Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." Zionist writer Ahad Ha'am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Many conquests only involved changes of the ruling class, not the serfs. The Norman Conquest involved a major change in England but not for the serfs. They continued as before with new masters. They paid more but did better trade. All were happy. In Ireland, with time, the Norman 'invader' became more Irish than the Irish themselves, full integrated.

The much latter Ulster Plantation involved large scale ethnic cleansing. 300 hundred years later the Ulster/Northern Ireland problem is still unsolved. So the Palestine problem is 'young' in comparison. In Palestine in '48 it was not the change of ownership of land that mattered. It was the ethnic cleansing yet the new owner may have felt entitled to evict the previous serfs. Who knows? The lesson of the Americans' experience with its previous inhabitants is one on how not to treat the locals, but then it depends on what you what you wanted in the first place. It seems that Americans have a need for a Boogie man and needs to invent a fear figure..Red Indians, Reds, Muslims...

The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict Published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East