Worthy News: Hamas: Olmert must accept less - Jerusalem Post

[amor]

Double post

[Guest shiloh357]

Except what I presented are statistics for what is now Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and exclude Transjordan. Ceck tthem again if you don't believe me You may have spent 20 yeaars in bar room pontification, but the evidence of any attempt at disinterested study is clearly lacking.

No, your article is titled, "The Population of Palestine Prior to 1948." There was no "Israel" prior to 1948. All that existed was Ottoman, and Mandatory Palestine. The statistics in your article cite the Arab population of all of Palestine prior to 1948 which would include the entire region of Palestine East and West of the Jordan. The majority lived East of the Jordan river. What you are trying assert, is that all 650,000 that fled in 1947 were originally from the West side of the Jordan, and that is simply not true. Even in that article it is plain to see that the Arab population West of the Jordan increased steadily with the influx of the Jewish people who came to settle that part of the region. If we were to listen to people like you, the Arab population should have decreased since you ascribe to the empty-headed tripe put forth by loons like Benny Morris that the Jews sought to take the Land from the Arabs already living there. The demographic data simply does not support that ignorant assertion.

I will be the first to admit that I have never had any "disinterested study." My purpose from the beginning has been to study the lies put out by Israel's enemies, and refute them with the truth, a concept that you have a genuine aversion to. Yes, I have nothing close to a "disinterested" study. I come down clearly on Israel's side, because it is the correct position to take. God is pro-Israel, and he has commanded us to be a blessing to Israel. God is a Zionist, and so am I. You have chosen to stand on the opposite side of the line, and as such you are under a curse. YOU are are an enemy of Israel, and as such have put yourself at enmity with God on this issue. I stand with God and Israel. You stand with your "god" and the Palestinians.

You cited a dictionary that actually agreed with my deffinition of "occupation" and then decided that you only accepted the part of that citation that you agreed with.

No, I cited the proper definition and I demonstrated that it did not fit with your liberal, empty-headed, propaganda driven definition. Here it is to refresh your short memory:

Here is a better definition of occupation from the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition:

"Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.

The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory."

That is the definition I cited before, and it completely disagrees with your uneducated definition of "occupation." So, I don't know what post you were reading, but I NEVER posted anything that agrees with blithering, empty-headed, drivel you espouse. There is NOTHING in the entry that I cited that agrees with your misguided perception of what Israel was doing in South Lebanon. The above definition agrees ONLY with the examples I previously used to demonstrate what occupations really look like.

As to the definition above, Israel did not conquer Lebanon; they were not an invasion force. Israel did not control the nation of Lebanon, because Lebanon was already occupied (conquered) by Syria. For Israel to "occupy" Lebanon, both the governments of Lebanon and Syria would have to be toppled, and that did not happen. Israel did not excersise military control over Lebanon. You are trying to assert the liberal, anti-Israel, Arab propagandist's definition of "occupation" and instead of the real world definition.

Israel's presence was limited to S. Lebanon, precluding the possibility of a true "occupation." Presence does not equal occupation. You cannot simply assert that since Israel was there, they were occupying the nation. Israel's only purpose was to route and destroy the terrorist factions of the PLO that were instigating hostilities by constant shelling of Northern Israel.

You cannot "occupy" part of a country, that is not how it works. "Occupation" refers to the total vanquishing of a foreign government and replacing it with the government of the victorious nation. Since that did not happen in Lebanon at the hands of Israel, then it is impossible, at least for intelligent, thinking people to assert that an Israeli occupation of Lebanon or S. Lebanon had taken place.

Again the anti-semite slur, as usual an indication that youhave lost an argument and can only make yourself feel better by spreading lies about other posters, very Christian!

It is not a "slur," it is the truth. If a woman sells her body for sex, and I say she is a harlot, that is not a "slur." That is what she is. If a man drinks himself under a table 5 nights a week and I say he is a drunkard, that is not a "slur." That is what he is. You have demonstrated nothing but complete disregard for truth where this issue is concerned. You are an enemy of Israel and I have no problem telling you. Fact, history, logic, morality are on my side, since I stand on God's side. You can stay out in the darkness if you want.

[amor]

You cited a dictionary that actually agreed with my deffinition of "occupation" and then decided that you only accepted the part of that citation that you agreed with.

No, I cited the proper definition and I demonstrated that it did not fit with your liberal, empty-headed, propaganda driven definition. Here it is to refresh your short memory:

Here is a better definition of occupation from the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition:

"Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.

The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory."

That is the definition I cited before, and it completely disagrees with your uneducated definition of "occupation." So, I don't know what post you were reading, but I NEVER posted anything that agrees with blithering, empty-headed, drivel you espouse. There is NOTHING in the entry that I cited that agrees with your misguided perception of what Israel was doing in South Lebanon. The above definition agrees ONLY with the examples I previously used to demonstrate what occupations really look like.

As to the definition above, Israel did not conquer Lebanon; they were not an invasion force. Israel did not control the nation of Lebanon, because Lebanon was already occupied (conquered) by Syria. For Israel to "occupy" Lebanon, both the governments of Lebanon and Syria would have to be toppled, and that did not happen. Israel did not excersise military control over Lebanon. You are trying to assert the liberal, anti-Israel, Arab propagandist's definition of "occupation" and instead of the real world definition.

Israel's presence was limited to S. Lebanon, precluding the possibility of a true "occupation." Presence does not equal occupation. You cannot simply assert that since Israel was there, they were occupying the nation. Israel's only purpose was to route and destroy the terrorist factions of the PLO that were instigating hostilities by constant shelling of Northern Israel.

You cannot "occupy" part of a country, that is not how it works. "Occupation" refers to the total vanquishing of a foreign government and replacing it with the government of the victorious nation. Since that did not happen in Lebanon at the hands of Israel, then it is impossible, at least for intelligent, thinking people to assert that an Israeli occupation of Lebanon or S. Lebanon had taken place.

Your quotation says country or territory that I think would cover the occupation of South Lebanon. If you are not happy with that then I too have gone to the American Heritage Dictionary and included and highlighted the sections of the definition"Occupation" that you in your duplicitous way have decided to edit out. No doubt you class the lexicogrrapher who had the cheek to disagree with your version of English as as uneducated a definer as you class me.

NOUN: 1a. An activity that serves as one's regular source of livelihood; a vocation. b. An activity engaged in especially as a means of passing time; an avocation. 2a. The act or process of holding or possessing a place. b. The state of being held or possessed. 3a. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces. b. The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.

[amor]

Except what I presented are statistics for what is now Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and exclude Transjordan. Ceck tthem again if you don't believe me You may have spent 20 yeaars in bar room pontification, but the evidence of any attempt at disinterested study is clearly lacking.

No, your article is titled, "The Population of Palestine Prior to 1948." There was no "Israel" prior to 1948. All that existed was Ottoman, and Mandatory Palestine. The statistics in your article cite the Arab population of all of Palestine prior to 1948 which would include the entire region of Palestine East and West of the Jordan. The majority lived East of the Jordan river. What you are trying assert, is that all 650,000 that fled in 1947 were originally from the West side of the Jordan, and that is simply not true. Even in that article it is plain to see that the Arab population West of the Jordan increased steadily with the influx of the Jewish people who came to settle that part of the region. If we were to listen to people like you, the Arab population should have decreased since you ascribe to the empty-headed tripe put forth by loons like Benny Morris that the Jews sought to take the Land from the Arabs already living there. The demographic data simply does not support that ignorant assertion.

Except the data from the article doesn't include Transjordan check it and see rather than spouting of.

[Guest shiloh357]

Your quotation says country or territory that I think would cover the occupation of South Lebanon. If you are not happy with that then I too have gone to the American Heritage Dictionary and included and highlighted the sections of the definition"Occupation" that you in your duplicitous way have decided to edit out. No doubt you class the lexicogrrapher who had the cheek to disagree with your version of English

QUOTE

NOUN: 1a. An activity that serves as one's regular source of livelihood; a vocation. b. An activity engaged in especially as a means of passing time; an avocation. 2a. The act or process of holding or possessing a place. b. The state of being held or possessed. 3a. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces. b. The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.

I quoted the citation that speaks specifically to our argument. The third entry is the military definition of the term, and is the ONLY one germane to the subject. Israel did not possess S. Lebanon. You are trying desperately to deflect attention away from your inability to square your definition of Israel's "occupation" with the numerous occupations that are currently underway all over the world. Israel was only there to route out the terrorists (which I realize is meaningless to you). Also, Israel presence in S. Lebanon was not the result of Israel "taking" it from Lebanon or Syria. Israel did not have to fight either government in order to stay there.

The second entry you think is so important, is simply referring to a place of residence. A person may hold, or posses a house or piece of property. It is not a military term, and is such does not apply to the argument at hand.

The third entry is what applies here, and only applies to military conquest and usurpation of the current government and establishment of governmental control of the victorious nation (as we see in Lebanon/Syria, Tibet/China and Iraq/US).

Really, you are getting nowhere amor. You need to just give up, you don't know beans about this are not qualified intellectually, to argue with me about it.

[Guest shiloh357]

Except what I presented are statistics for what is now Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and exclude Transjordan. Ceck tthem again if you don't believe me You may have spent 20 yeaars in bar room pontification, but the evidence of any attempt at disinterested study is clearly lacking.

No, your article is titled, "The Population of Palestine Prior to 1948." There was no "Israel" prior to 1948. All that existed was Ottoman, and Mandatory Palestine. The statistics in your article cite the Arab population of all of Palestine prior to 1948 which would include the entire region of Palestine East and West of the Jordan. The majority lived East of the Jordan river. What you are trying assert, is that all 650,000 that fled in 1947 were originally from the West side of the Jordan, and that is simply not true. Even in that article it is plain to see that the Arab population West of the Jordan increased steadily with the influx of the Jewish people who came to settle that part of the region. If we were to listen to people like you, the Arab population should have decreased since you ascribe to the empty-headed tripe put forth by loons like Benny Morris that the Jews sought to take the Land from the Arabs already living there. The demographic data simply does not support that ignorant assertion.

Except the data from the article doesn't include Transjordan check it and see rather than spouting of.

Tell you what genius, maybe you ought to actually read the article, yourself. It pretty much torpedoes just about all of the lame, empty-headed drivel you have spouted since have been on these boards.

In the first place, the article demonstrates that Arab immigration into Palestine increased significantly from 1922 onward Here is a quote from your article:

3. Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or dispossess Palestinians. Every indication is that there was net Arab immigration into Palestine in this period, and that the economic situation of Palestinian Arabs improved tremendously under the British Mandate relative to surrounding countries. By 1948, there were approximately 1.35 million Arabs and 650,000 Jews living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, more Arabs than had ever lived in Palestine before, and more Jews than had lived there since Roman times. Analysis of population by subdistricts shows that Arab population tended to increase the most between 1931 and 1948 in the same areas where there were large proportions of Jews. Therefore, Zionist immigration did not displace Arabs.

As article itself demonstrates, the Arab population in connection with the larger populations of Jews. The article you provided also provides a link to a site entitled "Zionism and its Impact." It demonstrates that as Jewish immigration increased so did the standard of living, not to mention Muslim literacy. It torpedoes the lie you spew that Zionism sought to displace or dispossess the Arabs. It agrees with other Arab historical sources (1948-1955) which place the blame for the plight of the Palestinians squarely on the shoulders of the Arab world, where it belongs. You should read more of the source that you cited. It was a big help to me. It only confirmed what I have been trying to tell people like you for years.

The bottom line is that you are wrong. The Arab population West of the Jordan increased with the influx of Jews. It did not begin before that. It was only after the Jews began irrigating deserts, drying up the Malaria infested swamps, and making the land livable that the Arabs had any interest in it, and began living there.

It is well known that the Arabs considered the Land purchased by the Jews from the Sursuks (Absentee Arab Landowners in Lebanon) to be worthless and cursed. It was uninhabitable, and the Sursuks were all too happy to get it off their hands for an extravagant price. Even before that, Mark Twain described the Holy Land he visited as barren, and devoid of any living thing, save some foxes and birds of prey. He considered the Holy Land less than impressive. It was in the towns scattered about such as Jerusalem that he found any appreciable human habitation. Prior to the Jewish re-settlement, the land West of the Jordan river was pretty much desolate.

[O'Dannyboy]

Websters Dictionary

occupy

One entry found for occupy.

Main Entry: oc

[50_Cent's_dog]

A top Hamas leader laughed Tuesday at Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's plans for Israel's final borders, while another Hamas leader said that Jews could be citizens in a Palestinian state.

http://www.worthynews.com/news/jpost-com-s...icle%2FPrinter/

Where did these so called Palestinians come from? Was there ever a Palestine? What was Israel called in Jesus day? It was part of the Roman Empire. What was Israel called when it was part of the Ottoman Empire? I don't think that there was ever a Palestine.

Here is a better answer than you will get from the likes of amor:

Where did these so called Palestinians come from?

When the Jewish people began returning to the Land of Israel in the early part of the 20th century, the Land was barren desert, and Malaria infested swamp. The returning Jews had purchased land West of the Jordan river legally from absentee Arab landowners in Lebanon. They began working the land, drying up the swamps, irrigating the deserts. When word of this reached Arabs living in surrounding areas in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, etc. they began to move into the area to find jobs as migrant workers. The economies of the Arabs in other areas were in shambles, and so many migrant Arab laborers found work helping the Jews build and maintain farms, roads, helping them build homes and so forth. The "Palestinians" are the descendents of those migrant workers.

The term "Palestinian" in reference to any Arab people did not exist prior to 1967, and only came into being after Israel was attacked by, and defeated both Jordan and Egypt. It was a label assigned to the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza. It was designed to give the impression that they were a people dispossessed off of their land. The popular Arab lie is that Israeli Jews from Europe drove the "Palestinians" off of their land and forced them to live as refugees in the West Bank and Gaza. The accusation is that Zionism could not flourish if the Palestinians were allowed to live on the Land that the Jews wanted wholly for themselves. It is funny that this lie was perpetrated only after Israel had defeated the Arabs in 1967. For 19 years, these Arabs lived under Jordanian control in the West Bank and under Egyptian control in Gaza, and there was no talk of a people being dispossessed. That is because until 1967, it was common knowledge that the Arab world was responsible for the Palestinians becoming refugees.

Digress with me for just moment, back to 1947. In the months just prior to Israel officially becoming a nation, the Arab world encouraged these Arabs living among the Jews to leave in advance of a five Arab nation alliance bent upon destroying Israel the moment it was reborn. While Israel begged the Palestinians not to leave, and promised citizenship to those who stayed, approx. 600,000 fled before Israel became a nation. The war was a failure for the Arabs, and the newly born nation Israel was victorious. The Arabs had now created a bunch of refugees they were now responsible for. They brutalized the refugees for 19 years until 1967.

Was there ever a Palestine?

There was never a nation called "Palestine." It was always a region and was so named by the Emporer Hadrian who called it "Syria Palestina" after the Philistines, the ancient enemies of Israel. It was meant to be an insult. There never was a "Palestinian" people. It is label that was applied to these Arabs in 1967.

What was Israel called in Jesus day?

It was called Israel.

What was Israel called when it was part of the Ottoman Empire?

There was no "Israel" during the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans controlled the region. It was inhabited my many different ethnicities represening some 50 different languages. There is no "Palestinian" nation, and never has been. There is no"Palestinian" people mentioned in recorded history until 1967.

Thanks Shiloh. The thing that bothers me now is why in my bible maps it says Palestine in Jesus day. Why doesn't it say Israel in Jesus day?

[O'Dannyboy]

Why doesn't it say Israel in Jesus day?

Even then it was neither Palestine or Israel. In the days that Jesus walked among us it was comprised of smaller territories like Samaria, Judea and Galilee. Its nothing less than disappointing that your Bible calls it Palestine. Its more proof of the unabashed tampering with the word to rewrite history. Such is Satans influence on worldly men.

[Guest shiloh357]

Thanks Shiloh. The thing that bothers me now is why in my bible maps it says Palestine in Jesus day. Why doesn't it say Israel in Jesus day?

It is frustrating. It would like having a map of "San Francisco in the days of St. Paul." There was no Palestine, and the map makers refuse to update their maps.

BTW, it was considered the Land of "Israel" no matter what the kooky map-makers say. The New Testament calls it Israel. For example, please witness the following verses:

But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life. And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

(Matthew 2:19-21)

When Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

(Matthew 8:10)

There is almost no end to the verses I could cite where both the Land and the Jewish people living in the New Testament are called "Israel," or the "House of Israel," and so forth. I will not burden with all of those, but get your concordance and look them up.

It is strange that those who print the maps refuse to acknowledge that the nation of Israel existed in Jesus' day. They prefer to use the name created by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, which he meant as an insult. They prefer to use a name that refers to a region, and not the name of the nation of Israel. It is sad. There really is no good excuse since there was no "Palestine" in the first century.