Palestinians barred from Dead Sea beaches

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The idea that conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Israel/Palestine region is a centuries old phenomenon is a widely-held misconception.

Ultra-simplistic history of Jerusalem but reasonably accurate, and shows centuries of conflict between Arab and Jews, as well of course, with Romans, Turks etc. The list goes on, and the area has a history of settlement and conquer by various groups. Without writing a doctoral theses (or two) it is difficult to speak in more than generalities.

http://www.centuryone.com/hstjrslm.html

Centuries of conflict - sure. But I would contend that these conflicts were for the most part a matter of competition between Christian and Muslim imperial powers. While Jewish people always lived in the Israel/Palestine region - there was up until relatively recently - more tolerance toward them in the Arab world than the Christian.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Number 6

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Centuries of conflict - sure. But I would contend that these conflicts were for the most part a matter of competition between Christian and Muslim imperial powers. While Jewish people always lived in the Israel/Palestine region - there was up until relatively recently - more tolerance toward them in the Arab world than the Christian.

Not true.

Caliphs (of 7^TH century AD) specifically required non-Muslims in Holy Land (99.99% would have been Jew or Christian) to identify themselves as dhimmis through the placing of coloured cloth patches on headgear or right sleeve; for Jews, yellow and for Christians, azure--and there was NO tolerance of "uppity" dhimmis!

The Ottoman Empire (1453-1918) was known to be "fair" between non-Turkic peoples (including Jews and Arab Muslims--the "Damascus Blood Libel" case is a good example).

Hal Lindsey, Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, 1996

[HAL 9000 96]

Well the whole centuries of conflict thing is a sad excuse to blend religion with history in an attempt to legitimize the absurd. Its like the Montagues vs the Capulets. Current events are shaped in this case by a little bit more recent circumstances built upon these centuries of unfortunate events.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Centuries of conflict - sure. But I would contend that these conflicts were for the most part a matter of competition between Christian and Muslim imperial powers. While Jewish people always lived in the Israel/Palestine region - there was up until relatively recently - more tolerance toward them in the Arab world than the Christian.

Not true.

Caliphs (of 7^TH century AD) specifically required non-Muslims in Holy Land (99.99% would have been Jew or Christian) to identify themselves as dhimmis through the placing of coloured cloth patches on headgear or right sleeve; for Jews, yellow and for Christians, azure--and there was NO tolerance of "uppity" dhimmis!

The Ottoman Empire (1453-1918) was known to be "fair" between non-Turkic peoples (including Jews and Arab Muslims--the "Damascus Blood Libel" case is a good example).

Hal Lindsey, Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, 1996

Well that's really only one example - which by itself doesn't disprove what I said - given that we're talking about nearly 1500 years of history. There's a more detailed summary of that history here.

But again we're ignoring the Christian element to this - specifically the wholesale massacre of Jews during the Crusades, and the way they were used as scapegoats for pretty much every social problem you could think of during the middle-ages. They were even blamed for the Black Death.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Number 6

[Nagishkaw 510]

Well the whole centuries of conflict thing is a sad excuse to blend religion with history in an attempt to legitimize the absurd. Its like the Montagues vs the Capulets. Current events are shaped in this case by a little bit more recent circumstances built upon these centuries of unfortunate events.

Rebellious subjects, enemies to peace,

Profaners of this neighbour-stained steel,

Will they not hear? What, ho! you men, you beasts,

That quench the fire of your pernicious rage

With purple fountains issuing from your veins,

On pain of torture, from those bloody hands......

[HAL 9000 96]

Well the whole centuries of conflict thing is a sad excuse to blend religion with history in an attempt to legitimize the absurd. Its like the Montagues vs the Capulets. Current events are shaped in this case by a little bit more recent circumstances built upon these centuries of unfortunate events.

Rebellious subjects, enemies to peace,

Profaners of this neighbour-stained steel,

Will they not hear? What, ho! you men, you beasts,

That quench the fire of your pernicious rage

With purple fountains issuing from your veins,

On pain of torture, from those bloody hands......

Here is much to do with hate, but more with love,

Why then, O brawling love, O loving hate,

Of anything, of nothing first create!

O heavy lightness, serious vanity,

Misshapen chaos of well-seeming forms,

Feather of lead, bright-smoke; cold fire, sick health,

Still-waking sleep, that is not what it is!

This love feel I, that feel no love in this.

[Nagishkaw 510]

[mawilson 2,133]

Palestinians had developed a culture and customs unique to them and different from the rest of the Middle East long before Zionists arrived -- from their own distinguishable dialects and expressions, to their traditional clothing and the distinctive tall headdresses that were often worn by women -- these were worn by no other group in all the Middle East.

The exact district a Palestinian woman comes from can be identified -- even down to her village -- from the colors and patterns of embroidery ("tatreez") on her traditional dress -- a style of embroidery that is distinctively Palestinian. Palestinians have always had a rich and vibrant culture that is all their own, long before as well as after Israel’s creation.

How, though, is that any different from the Northern Jordanian tatreez? And the Southern Syrian? Just curious... it was the same way for them-- village specific design.

Don't expect WoM to answer that.

She only selectively answers the posts where she can say

"No, this is absolutely incorrect"

and then continue with 10 pages of anti-Israel hatred.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Palestinians had developed a culture and customs unique to them and different from the rest of the Middle East long before Zionists arrived -- from their own distinguishable dialects and expressions, to their traditional clothing and the distinctive tall headdresses that were often worn by women -- these were worn by no other group in all the Middle East.

The exact district a Palestinian woman comes from can be identified -- even down to her village -- from the colors and patterns of embroidery ("tatreez") on her traditional dress -- a style of embroidery that is distinctively Palestinian. Palestinians have always had a rich and vibrant culture that is all their own, long before as well as after Israel’s creation.

How, though, is that any different from the Northern Jordanian tatreez? And the Southern Syrian? Just curious... it was the same way for them-- village specific design.

Don't expect WoM to answer that.

She only selectively answers the posts where she can say

"No, this is absolutely incorrect"

and then continue with 10 129 pages of anti-Israel hatred.

edited to a more accurate value

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do we really need to tarnish this with personal attacks?

[HAL 9000 96]

He said-she said.

The joys of contributing to a learned discussion.

[Nasturtium 500]

Dont know if this was an isolated incident or not.

However, fwiw, an Israeli guy did write me back on this and he had this to say.

"Jews for Jesus are not actually Jewish. The organization was created by Christians as a ploy to drag Jews from Judaism into Christianity. The state of Israel bases a person's Judaism on a person's parents. If either of a person's parents are Jewish, according to Israel, that person is Jewish. This is not so according to Judaism though. According to Judaism, a person's mother must be Jewish for them to be considered Jewish."

It's not an isolated incedent. And what that person fails to expound upon is according to TORAH, only if your FATHER is Jewish can you be considered Jewish. That rule of inheritence was changed by Rabbis in response to persecution including rape. Jews for Jesus though is exactly that-- it seeks to try to trick Jews out of being Torah-observant by giving the trappings of Judaism but nothing more. It's very sad that Christians are on the whole, so entirely misled and have fallen into the prophecy of Daniel 100%.

You got that wrong. You're Jewish only if your mother, not father, is Jewish.

"They sought their genealogical records, but they were no longer available, and so they were banished from the priesthood. Those immigrants could not state which was their father's house or whether they were of the seed of Yisrael. (Ezra 2:62)"

There are nearly 3,000 genealogies in the Torah. ALL are traced through the male line. If a woman's genealogy needs to be traced, then instead of using the definate article in front of the closet male's name-- either her father or husband-- it is left out, and then they continue to trace the male line of her decent. This is how you have two genealogies for Yeshua-- as definate artilces are done in Greek as well- Matthew (Matatyahu) gives Yosef with its definate article and Luke gives Mariam with her indefinate article.

[Nasturtium 500]

this thread is a zionist plot

BTW, I stand corrected: Syria has oil, but Ammar says they do not export it. They refine it and keep it in Syria.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Dont know if this was an isolated incident or not.

However, fwiw, an Israeli guy did write me back on this and he had this to say.

"Jews for Jesus are not actually Jewish. The organization was created by Christians as a ploy to drag Jews from Judaism into Christianity. The state of Israel bases a person's Judaism on a person's parents. If either of a person's parents are Jewish, according to Israel, that person is Jewish. This is not so according to Judaism though. According to Judaism, a person's mother must be Jewish for them to be considered Jewish."

It's not an isolated incedent. And what that person fails to expound upon is according to TORAH, only if your FATHER is Jewish can you be considered Jewish. That rule of inheritence was changed by Rabbis in response to persecution including rape. Jews for Jesus though is exactly that-- it seeks to try to trick Jews out of being Torah-observant by giving the trappings of Judaism but nothing more. It's very sad that Christians are on the whole, so entirely misled and have fallen into the prophecy of Daniel 100%.

You got that wrong. You're Jewish only if your mother, not father, is Jewish.

"They sought their genealogical records, but they were no longer available, and so they were banished from the priesthood. Those immigrants could not state which was their father's house or whether they were of the seed of Yisrael. (Ezra 2:62)"

There are nearly 3,000 genealogies in the Torah. ALL are traced through the male line. If a woman's genealogy needs to be traced, then instead of using the definate article in front of the closet male's name-- either her father or husband-- it is left out, and then they continue to trace the male line of her decent. This is how you have two genealogies for Yeshua-- as definate artilces are done in Greek as well- Matthew (Matatyahu) gives Yosef with its definate article and Luke gives Mariam with her indefinate article.

In practice, modern (post 33 AD) Jews do use Jewish mum (rather than Jewish dad) as proof of Jewishness--the example of Timothy (his mum Eunice, and grandma Lois were Jewesses; his father a Gentile--rendered as "Greek" in most translations).

[HAL 9000 96]

this thread is a zionist plot

BTW, I stand corrected: Syria has oil, but Ammar says they do not export it. They refine it and keep it in Syria.

They do, however, use foreign labor to drill it.