Jerusalem for Jews

[JM]

On Apr 29, 8:11 pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:

> Shmendrick, you just don't get it.

Isn't it funny how I'm always saying the same thing with regard to
people who disagree with me? Believe you me, Sheldon, it's not that I
don't 'get' the mindset you're coming from. Quite to the contrary, I
do get it, and reject it on basis of the mindset that I'm coming
from. And from the position of that mindset, I see your reasons as
being anything but a product of objective thought and observation--for
example this . . .

>  A millennium means that the people
> today bear essentially no relation to those ancients -- of whatever
> nation/tribe/etc.

Now you say a thing so shockingly counter-intuitive as that, and it
has the effect of a blackjack to the skull of anyone hearing it. A
great many people will be knocked silly by it, so silly that they will
go away thinking that what you just said there makes sense.
Unfortunately for you, Sheldon, I come prepared with a HELMET on my
head for any battle of wits with a person who thinks like you. I can
still see straight after that crack in the head, my faculties are yet
intact, such that I may answer back as follows . . .

If the people there today, Arabs and Jews "bear no relation" as you
say, "to those ancients"--then in order to bear NO relation, it would
be untrue to call them "Arabs and Jews". For your statement to be
true, there can be NO Arabs and Jews anywhere within the borders of
post 1967 Greater Israel. There can be nobody there speaking Hebrew or
Arabic. But "bear no relation" you say? You can only say that (and
falsely in any case) if by "relation" you mean it only to be taken in
the sense that the term 'relation' or 'relations' must be restricted,
and limited strictly to the case of *relatives*, or which could be to
say "direct descendants". Of course there is a 'relation' between
close relatives and the direct descendants of relatives within any
specific family. We are not talking about the family, here
because . . .

THAT is not the only 'relation' borne between people who are
descendants, among many lines within the ethnic bounds of a shared
heritage for a body of people, such as Arabs and Jews. And time has
absolutely NO EFFECT upon that relation, between people who are
*relatives* one to the other within the larger heritage of "nation/
tribe/etc." to coin your term.

What you're doing here is nothing more than pulling a rhetorical trick
of specious argumentation, where you affirm the *species*, the
particular "relative" as the be-all/end-all of "relation" to the
illogical exclusion of the general, the *genus*. It is logically
disallowed, fallacious to treat the species as though it were the
genus; the idea of "relation" or "relations" to "a relative" or i.e. a
close relative or recent descendant, excluding the self-evident truth
that such relations, by nature, among a particular people, transcend
time. This is basic Logic 101, right out of Aristotle's *Organon*,
from his "Categories" and "Topics".

Not only is your position contrary to logic, it flies in the face of
everything a freshman in Sociology learns in any introductory course
to the discipline. People are not just members of families, that is
only the most basic social structure among any society, people,
"nation/tribe/etc." And there would be no study of sociology, nothing
to bother with at that level of study in social science, if it were
not always being shown, quite scientifically to be the case that bonds
of every sort are formed between people of similar or same interest,
heritage, ethnicity, history, political party, religion, class, social
origin, race, creed, national origin. And "bond" is just another word
for "relation".

>  A millennium means that the people
> today bear essentially no relation to those ancients -- of whatever
> nation/tribe/etc.

When you say that, you can only do so at the expense of everything you
know, as a Jew to the contrary, about the millennium of prayers that
have gone forth from the lips of your people, upward toward heaven,
prayers that have never ceased since the day, in year 139 of this era,
that Rome under Hadrian razed whatever was left of the Temple and
issued the edict that Jerusalem should henceforth be renamed Colonia
Aelia Capitolina, and from that day forward no Jew was to be permitted
to come within so much as eye-sight of that city formerly of their
fathers and mothers. And this is how all the lands formerly known to
the Jews and named by the Jews, Judea, and Samaria and Galilee came
henceforth to be known as "Palestine"-- a name drawn from the hoary
past, designating the former coastal people of "Philistia", the
Philistines, who had long been wiped out by the Assyrians, and lost to
history right along with the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, which
disappeared from the land under the same invasion.

But Judea remained as the tribe of Judah, preserved in Babylonian/
Persian captivity until came the great Return from exile, and hence
the eventual glorious rise of the Jewish Hasmonian Dynasty. In view of
these historical facts, the name "Palestinian" is Roman lie. There is
no such person or heritage left on earth any more than there are any
historically documented descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes. This is
but one reason why there can be no such thing as a "Palestinian" claim
on Jerusalem, let alone any other part of Judea, Samaria or Galilee.

As it would follow from what our good Mr. Fattush has said, the very
Arab presence in Greater Israel, along with their mosques can be
nothing except prima facie anthropological evidence that these are an
Arabic, not native Aramaic speaking people; a tribe from somewhere
else, namely Arabia, and that they are for some reason, not there, but
here! Their very presence is irrefutable proof that they came as a
blood-thirsty invading force, a thieving, raping, slaving band of
Arabian brigands, swinging the scimitar in the name of a megalomaniac
false prophet who was nothing more than an illiterate bandit and
polygamist pedophile with delusions of grandeur, bent on world
conquest. The very existence of the Dome of the Rock built on the site
of the Jewish Temple Mount can say but one thing: ROBBERY. DISRESPECT.
DISHONOR. SUBJUGATION. It says, "I am here to sit on the Jews and make
them eat my dirt." That's what it was put there to say. That is what
it says to this day. It says, the people who built me, stole this
site, and we DO NOT BELONG HERE, because I sit on top of those who do.


> By your reasoning, almost all current Americans,
> Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, etc. have no right to any of the
> land they occupy.

No. That can only be so by YOUR reasoning. My reasoning says that if
Israelis must turn over Judea to a people whose name is not Judah,
totally not "Palestina" but Arabia, then by that logic, the United
States must turn over Texas to a people whose name is not Comanche,
Kiowa, Mescalero or Wichita, but who are called, "Mexico". I know no
other logic concerning this matter than that. It is certainly my view
that nobody sitting in Los Angeles or San Diego has any business
squatting on that formerly Mexican soil, while telling an Israeli to
"return" that land west of Jordan to a people who never had a
legitimate claim to it in the first place--"return" it to whom? To
the Turks? To the British Mandate? To Rome? To the United Nations
General Assembly, from whom those Arabs WOULD NOT TAKE IT on a shish-
kabob stick? Shall it be returned to Jordan who took it by force of
the 1948 war and NEVER "returned" it to the Arabs of the British
Mandate, to those Arabs who were un-landed nomads, herders and peons,
serfs, share-croppers to absentee Turkish and Syrian landlords?

> That belongs to the American Indians, the Australian
> aborigines, etc.  What you say?  After a couple of hundred years it is
> now ours (or Canadians, or Australians, etc.)?  How can you say that and
> say what you said above.

As noted, it is you, Sheldon who say that, not I.

>
> Also, how many Indian burial grounds (sacred sites) have we colonials
> desecrated and destroyed over time?

Plenty! I do not deny it. And since "we" say Israel must bow to a two
state "solution", then so should we! Give this country back to the
Indians, and the Mexicans, and the Eskimos, and the Puerto Ricans and
the Hawaiians. That's my position. What's good for the Obama Goose,
is good for the kosher gander.

>
> There is a time to put the past into the history books and look at the
> present and the future.

Those who fail learn from those books, are condemned to repeat every
sorrow, folly and horror they contain, for all those unlearned
lessons.

> After a number of generations, "ownership" of
> the dispossessed ceases to exist.

That is platitude, not law, not logic, and it is certainly not
political science or sociology.

>
> As for tolerating the desecration of holy sites, please show even one
> sentence where I said or even implied that this was OK.  You can't
> because it is a pure fabrication of your mind.

If you allow that the Dome of the Rock should continue to stand, you
favor desecration of a Jewish holy site.

>
> Are the holy places of all religions better treated under Israeli
> control?  Absolutely.

On that we agree.

> Does that mean that they have any less claim to
> Jerusalem?  Absolutely not -- and THAT was the point I was contesting
> that Fattush put forth.

Platitudes, stated on basis of some misbegotten view of fairness with
no basis in any rational system of ethics or law. Moslems have their
'holy' site it is Mecca. Why should they own a piece of the Jewish
and Christian holy sites, as well? How fair is that? So long as no
Jew shall ever be permitted to walk through the city gates of Mecca,
let alone cross the Saudi Arabian border? Let's TALK about what's
fair, and HONORABLE. Why would you make of Jews a tenant class of
people in this world, with no true, traditional capitol and holy site
to call their OWN?

>They have [some of] their holy sites there as
> well.  They _DO_ have a claim.

So you say, on basis of nothing but platitude and an attitude of devil-
may-care liberality to back it.

> Whether they get anything or not is a
> totally separate matter.

What they should get is what's coming to them, like a one-way ticket
to Mecca--unless they should opt to go to Hebrew school, convert to
Judaism, study to become loyal, law-abiding Israeli citizens. Don't
you "get it," Shelly? ;-) Look at me, a person born of a Jewish
father who has NO claim on automatic Israeli citizenship, and yet any
Jew hating son of an Arab terrorist, if he's sneaky enough, can get
his papers and vote in the next election. How fair is that?

Don't 'get' me wrong, Sheldon. I do get you. IN your view, the
Vatican should be razed to the ground with but one wall left standing
where Catholics can go to pray, while Islam gets to build a Mosque on
the former site of St. Peter's--right? And let the same be done with
Westminster Abbey, and for the Lutheran cathedral at Wurttemberg.
Since Jews must share their holiest ancient site with the Muslims, why
shouldn't everybody else have to do that too?

I DO get you, Sheldon. You are interested in fairness. So let's HAVE
some, eh?
--
Shmendrik