Truth and Logistics on Past, Present, and Future Middle Eastern events

[Tristen]

On 5/1/2024 at 9:18 PM, luigi said:

Do your own research, and stop coming to me with lies, how the formation of Israel in 1948 did not come about by evicting the Palestinian peoples, commonly known as Nakba. Below is a Wikipedia site (one of thousands of sites) on the Nakba expulsion of Palestinians from what is now the nation of Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight

The true story of "Nakba".

1- Israel peacefully declared independence. That is, there was no initiation of violence on Israel's part against Arabs directly associated with Israel's declaration of independence.

2- Shortly after Israel's declaration, Arab forces commenced terrorist and military actions against Israel in an attempt to destroy Israel. Many Arabs fled this heated conflict (i.e. the conflict started by the Arab forces).

3- Israel's policy was that Israel was happy for peaceful Arabs to remain in Israel (as many do to this day).

4- Several atrocities were committed by the newly-formed, unprofessional Israel forces (i.e. against the policy of the state). Hearing of these atrocities likely prompted more Arabs to flee the conflict zone.

5- The word "Nakba" (catastrophe) was first used in relation to this conflict by an Arab academic (Constantine Zurayk). The word "Nakba" had been previously used to describe the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Zurayk used the term to criticize the catastrophic military failure of the Arab forces in Israel. That is, "Nakba" was originally intended to slander the Arab forces for the outcomes of the conflict, not Israel. This was the understood meaning of "Nakba" for decades after Israel's declaration of independence.

6- In 1988, the terrorist, Yasser Arafat, started promoting a revisionist meaning of "Nakba" - advancing the false narrative that Israel, unprovoked, drove poor, innocent, Arab civilians out of their homes as part of the process of establishing Israel's independence. This narrative is a "lie".

Nevertheless, this false narrative is the one that has captured the mainstream paradigm. And this is the false narrative you are promoting in your posts.

 

[Vine Abider]

6 minutes ago, Tristen said:

The true story of "Nakba".

1- Israel peacefully declared independence. That is, there was no initiation of violence on Israel's part against Arabs directly associated with Israel's declaration of independence.

2- Shortly after Israel's declaration, Arab forces commenced terrorist and military actions against Israel in an attempt to destroy Israel. Many Arabs fled this heated conflict (i.e. the conflict started by the Arab forces).

3- Israel's policy was that Israel was happy for peaceful Arabs to remain in Israel (as many do to this day).

4- Several atrocities were committed by the newly-formed, unprofessional Israel forces (i.e. against the policy of the state). Hearing of these atrocities likely prompted more Arabs to flee the conflict zone.

5- The word "Nakba" (catastrophe) was first used in relation to this conflict by an Arab academic (Constantine Zurayk). The word "Nakba" had been previously used to describe the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Zurayk used the term to criticize the catastrophic military failure of the Arab forces in Israel. That is, "Nakba" was originally intended to slander the Arab forces for the outcomes of the conflict, not Israel. This was the understood meaning of "Nakba" for decades after Israel's declaration of independence.

6- In 1988, the terrorist, Yasser Arafat, started promoting a revisionist meaning of "Nakba" - advancing the false narrative that Israel, unprovoked, drove poor, innocent, Arab civilians out of their homes as part of the process of establishing Israel's independence. This narrative is a "lie".

Nevertheless, this false narrative is the one that has captured the mainstream paradigm. And this is the false narrative you are promoting in your posts.

 

Thank you.  As I have had a desire, over the past few weeks, to read and study the middle eastern situation, this aligns well with what I have read.  I have been reading and watching video accounts by Israelis, Palestinians, the UN, Al Jezeera, etc., and this fits the basic framework of what you outline.  (this regrettably includes that there were certain independent Israeli paramilitary groups who did horrific atrocities against a number of Arab villages around 1948) 

From my understanding, in 1948 Israelis and Arabs (aka Palestinians) were each invited to form their own nations.  Israel did so, and also invited any Arabs within their borders to be part of their country.  But the Arabs didn't form a nation, as they were offered, and then immediately attacked the Jews.  Is that accurate?

[luigi]

9 hours ago, Neighbor said:

The basis for the presentation or argument seems to be built upon an error, or bluntly a lie followed in error, for one does not covet what is one's own, one cherishes and protects what God has granted one, but not covet.

Regardless, the manifestations of  war around the world, threaten to affect the interests of those that  do control vast sums of money in trusts, supposedly held for common benefit of tax exempt organizations, run by trustees that benefit handsomely. The protests in the USA at university campuses is one such battle, where trustees of massive trust funds exempt from IRS /federal government  taxation invest in stocks mostly common stocks of corporations.

Such investment ( In the USA) is  counter to the legal precedent set in 1964 (IRS vs Western Weymouth) that non profits may not invest in anything that is speculative in that it may lose value (Stocks), that all funds must be invested in US treasury notes.

 The idea that one will have to divest of investments in companies that do business with Israel is a bit of a red herring. One that if looked at closely will result in massive changes in how trustees of trusts invest as well as get compensated and how  all such funds are invested. 

As to the horror of war and civil unrest around the world, now highly focused upon Israel but being fought out most everywhere,  it is camouflage for the "useful idiots" to get excited over, while the very wealthy of this planet earth gather in ever more for themselves. Eventually it is all going to burn, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth.

Till then,  hey it is a tough place to be, this planet, but there is hope certain in Christ Jesus! So "hang  on my child joy comes in the morning". It all is about that simple,- follow the money trail, but place total confidence in the faith of Jesus.

So what you are saying is that Gaza and the West Bank belong to Israel, and so they are not coveting their neighbors lands, when they take these by force. Also, since you see it as such, then Micah 2:1-4 where the people in power in Israel who the Lord clearly describes taking by violence (coveting) their neighbors land, does not apply.

OK, I got it now. Thanks and bye.

[luigi]

34 minutes ago, Tristen said:

The true story of "Nakba".

1- Israel peacefully declared independence. That is, there was no initiation of violence on Israel's part against Arabs directly associated with Israel's declaration of independence.

2- Shortly after Israel's declaration, Arab forces commenced terrorist and military actions against Israel in an attempt to destroy Israel. Many Arabs fled this heated conflict (i.e. the conflict started by the Arab forces).

3- Israel's policy was that Israel was happy for peaceful Arabs to remain in Israel (as many do to this day).

4- Several atrocities were committed by the newly-formed, unprofessional Israel forces (i.e. against the policy of the state). Hearing of these atrocities likely prompted more Arabs to flee the conflict zone.

5- The word "Nakba" (catastrophe) was first used in relation to this conflict by an Arab academic (Constantine Zurayk). The word "Nakba" had been previously used to describe the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Zurayk used the term to criticize the catastrophic military failure of the Arab forces in Israel. That is, "Nakba" was originally intended to slander the Arab forces for the outcomes of the conflict, not Israel. This was the understood meaning of "Nakba" for decades after Israel's declaration of independence.

6- In 1988, the terrorist, Yasser Arafat, started promoting a revisionist meaning of "Nakba" - advancing the false narrative that Israel, unprovoked, drove poor, innocent, Arab civilians out of their homes as part of the process of establishing Israel's independence. This narrative is a "lie".

Nevertheless, this false narrative is the one that has captured the mainstream paradigm. And this is the false narrative you are promoting in your posts.

 

OK, I see what you are saying. I guess it's just Wikipedia and those thousands of other sites describing the Nakba where Israel evicted the Palestinians from what is currently Israel, have got it all wrong. 

[Dennis1209]

On 4/30/2024 at 6:43 AM, Tristen said:

This is not "truth".

When the Arab extremists responded to the declaration of statehood with terrorism, all peaceful Arabs were invited by the Jewish government to stay where they were.

There was no such thing as a "Palestinian" at the time. The "Palestinian" label was later adopted by the Arabs for purely political purposes - i.e. to give the false impression of indigeneity. In reality, the overwhelming majority of Arabs in Israel at the time migrated from the bankrupted Ottoman Empire in the late 1800s, or from Egypt in the 1920s. In the early 1800s, the land (called Palestine by the Romans) was mostly uninhabited.

 

This is a lie. Jews purchased abandoned land from the diminishing Ottoman Empire and cultivated it. Arabs then moved from the north to where there were opportunities. With a few exceptions, Jews and Arabs largely coexisted peacefully in the land for the following few decades.

The "colonial" narrative is antisemitic gaslighting. Only those unfamiliar with the facts would fall for such deception.

 

Jews accepted the two-state solution offered by the United Nations in 1947 (General Assembly Resolution 181). Arabs rejected this plan in favor of terrorism.

Prior to this, Arabs unanimously rejected the Peel Commision partition of the land between Arabs and Jews (1937). In 1993, the Arabs rejected the offering of a separate Arab state in the Oslo Accords. In 1998, the Arabs again rejected an attempt to reestablish the Oslo principles at Wye River. In 2000, Arabs rejected an offer (by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack) to control 10% more land than was currently under Arab authority. In 2008, Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinian Authority near-total withdrawal from the West Bank, as well as the Old City part of Jerusalem. 

In all these instances, the Arabs rejected "a two state nation" in favor of intifada, or Jihad, or some other form of Holy war from this supposed "religion of peace". It is completely disingenuous (a.k.a. a demonstrable lie) to suggest that Israel have been the ones standing in the way of a "two state" solution.

In 2005, Israel forcefully removed its own people from Gaza in order to give the Arabs a mini state under their own authority. Instead of using the opportunity and billions in Aid to establish a thriving state, they used the incoming wealth to turn Gaza into a terror state against Israel.

 

Finally - something true.

 

Yes - it is completely "justifiable".

 

Sadly lacking in these protests is the demand for the Gazans to return Jewish hostages. Thereby demonstrating the innate susceptibility of these protestors to evil lies.

1 John 5:19
We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

 

 

You undoubtedly did your homework, Tristen; good job. Don't you love revisionist historians?

As you are aware, since May 14, 1948, Israel has tried to live in peace. The most significant and only land grant given by God aside. Israel bends over backward, conducting righteous wars far exceeding the 1949 Geneva Conventions. I need not mention the barbaric slaughters and beheading of babies, children, elderly, holocaust survivors, etc. of Islam.

There are only two types of Muslims: those who act on their beliefs and those who support them or sit on their hands, cheering them (such as a few in the US Congress and our brainwashed youth). There is no such thing as radical Islam; sure, there are those Muslims who would like to live in peace. But, if Islam is your religion, the Koran is your holy book, and the teachings of Muhammad (Hadith) are your guide. Killing Jews and Christians is their duty. Jesus died for us; Allah wants his followers to die for him. [quotes from the demonic books available upon request]

These HAMAS supporters, riots, and antisemitism make me sick as a Christian, patriot, veteran, and American.

I will omit what Samuel Clemmons observed of the desolation of people and the desolate land before the Lord restored the early and later rains in preparation for Israel's return.

As the Lord foretold, Israel would return as an undivided nation with no king, the shekel as its currency, Hebrew as their language, etc. They would take control of the mountains of Israel and the control of Jerusalem (1967). The Jews also returned under the Law and their rules of warfare:

Of all Israel's wars and skirmishes, October 7, 2023, is different, and a particular word is glaring, hērem. Israel has vowed to destroy HAMAS (H. violence). What benefit would Israel have if they stopped there? Dealing with terrorist proxy organizations is dealing with only the symptoms, not the root support and cause. The head of the snake must be decapitated.

The half-dark water is now settling and clearing up. It is now understandable to envision Isaiah 17, Jerimiah 49, Ezekiel 38, Psalm 83, etc.  

Deuteronomy 20:1-20 outlines Jewish War. The laws concerning War as outlined in the Old Testament, particularly focusing on the rules and regulations for warfare in ancient Israel. It highlights the concept of holy War, where War was seen as a necessary evil for defending God's people and advancing territorial interests. The text provides guidelines for military service exemptions, strategies for offensive War, and the treatment of enemy cities. It emphasizes the importance of divine authorization for War, the role of the Lord in battle, and the need for unwavering faith in God's protection. hērem, which involved the complete destruction of certain nations viewed as irredeemable. Overall, the Old Testament laws on War reflect a complex interplay between military strategy, religious beliefs, and divine intervention.

What are the odds? As another first, Iran launched 300+ projectiles from its soil (an act of War), and how many hit their intended target. I have been watching the news and listening for anything that mentioned "divine intervention" so far, crickets.

I would suspect the following prophecy in context, along with the overnight destruction of Damascus, Syria, maybe nearing. We shall see.

Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will break the bow of Elam, the chief of their might. (Jeremiah 49:35)

 

[Vine Abider]

22 minutes ago, luigi said:

OK, I see what you are saying. I guess it's just Wikipedia and those thousands of other sites describing the Nakba where Israel evicted the Palestinians from what is currently Israel, have got it all wrong. 

I've read various accounts concerning that period - Arab/Palestinian sources almost always say that Israel forcibly expelled over 700,000.  But not all agree with that number, or that Israel expelled all of them. 

Many reasons are actually given as to why Palestinians left.  Yes, Israel expelled some whole villages, for instance, after various ones from that village allegedly attacked Israeli interests.  (and unfortunately, overt brutality was employed against some of these villages by semi-independent paramilitary groups) And things back then sure sound quite messy, as there was so much conflict, misinformation and finger pointing. So some evidently just left out of fear, real or perceived.  Others stayed, and by the accounts I've read it says that by approximately 1954-55 the population of Israel was about a 50/50 mix - so they didn't all leave.

So I think it's difficult to say for sure exactly what happened, as none of us were there, and accounts widely vary.  I think there were a lot of missteps on both sides that greatly exacerbated things.  And there were extremists working on both sides, that fueled and perpetuated the problem significantly.

I think that perhaps the bottom-line heart of it is whether or not one believes Israel  has the right to exist as laid out in 1948.  Ones that say "no" to that question have been warring with Israel since then.

 

[Vine Abider]

7 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

What are the odds? As another first, Iran launched 300+ projectiles from its soil (an act of War), and how many hit their intended target. I have been watching the news and listening for anything that mentioned "divine intervention" so far, crickets.

 

Did you see that Iran afterwards said it sent missiles to Israel that were designed NOT to hit their targets, as just a small warning of what they were actually capable of?

[tatwo]

14 hours ago, Neighbor said:

We? Got a mouse in your pocket?  LOL

The sons of God...the Body of Christ...led of the Holy Spirit..."we."

We understand why that would require explanation.

Tatwo...:)

[tatwo]

14 hours ago, Neighbor said:

Seems a tad harsh don't ya think? LOL

Depends on the mind defining harsh...to the carnal mind...perhaps...to the spiritual mind no. 

What may be harsh however...is the current and future judgment of the evil that murders...and commits the deeds of the flesh in general. Although they know the ordinance of God...those who practice such things are worthy of death...and for those who support them...who are not only doing the same...but also give hearty approval to those who practice them...it is this Neighbor...which this man will endure that is harsh.

This "man"...the one professing to be wise..."he" becomes a fool...and it is "he"...who draws the unrighteous judgment of "sin and death." We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things and to those who do the same themselves...but here's what's really harsh Neighbor...this "man" believes that he will escape the judgment of God...

Though they smile and laugh today...they do so due to their arrogance and unbelief...yet their account is being charged...they are found wanton..."overdrawn"...if you like...and the debt collector is near. Fear will become their god and they will hide from Lamb who sits upon the throne.

Tatwo...:)

[luigi]

14 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

I've read various accounts concerning that period - Arab/Palestinian sources almost always say that Israel forcibly expelled over 700,000.  But not all agree with that number, or that Israel expelled all of them. 

Many reasons are actually given as to why Palestinians left.  Yes, Israel expelled some whole villages, for instance, after various ones from that village allegedly attacked Israeli interests.  (and unfortunately, overt brutality was employed against some of these villages by semi-independent paramilitary groups) And things back then sure sound quite messy, as there was so much conflict, misinformation and finger pointing. So some evidently just left out of fear, real or perceived.  Others stayed, and by the accounts I've read it says that by approximately 1954-55 the population of Israel was about a 50/50 mix - so they didn't all leave.

So I think it's difficult to say for sure exactly what happened, as none of us were there, and accounts widely vary.  I think there were a lot of missteps on both sides that greatly exacerbated things.  And there were extremists working on both sides, that fueled and perpetuated the problem significantly.

I think that perhaps the bottom-line heart of it is whether or not one believes Israel  has the right to exist as laid out in 1948.  Ones that say "no" to that question have been warring with Israel since then.

 

Good day Vine Abider,

While many believe one way or another on how Israel came to be in regards to the Palestinian Nakba issue; the main focus I laid out in the OP was in regards to what is happening today and how it relates with what the Word says, as in Isaiah 28:18-20, and Micah 2:1-4. As the covenant death and hell makes with Israel in Isaiah 28:18-20, I believe not only correlates with the covenant made with many the Abomination of Desolation (the Antichrist) will form in Daniel 9:27, but also with the 1/4 of the earth, whom the fourth horseman of the Apocalypse is allied with in Revelation 6:8; I then realize that Satan will be here to deceive many into not believing the truth, so that what is written in the Word will remain dark to many. As such, and to smash Satan's false illumination to many; to corroborate His Word in Isaiah 28:18-20, the Lord provides us with the precursor events leading to the Lord changing Israel's favored status with Himself in Micah 5:1-4, by which the Lord then initiates retaliation against Israel for their unjust actions against those who have an aversion to war. This is still forthcoming, as the one who annihilates/desolates the 1/4 of the earth, comprised of Middle Eastern nations is the Abomination of Desolation.

Isaiah 28:15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: 

Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.