The enitre reason Israel even exists is because the Bible got politicized. Somehow it became a good idea to give back Isaraeli lands some millennia after it last existed as a country. It can only be because of biblical beliefs that they theologically deserved their ancient lands back.

Amerindians owned all of America less than 700 years ago. They had owned and occupied this land for thousands of years. They had their religions that were just as sacred and time honored as any. Compared to Israel that existed for less than 150 years almost 2000 years ago Amerindians have a much greater rights to have their properties handed back to them now. Anyone ready to pack up and move?

Scoot'r-d will be enlightened to know that Jewish connection to the Land of Israel began with Abraham, over 4,000 years ago.

Joshua led the Children of Israel into the Promised Land over 3,200 years ago--after 400 years of slavery in Egypt and 40 years in the wilderness.

King David established a monarchy with capital in Jerusalem in 1006 BCE.

His capital would be destroyed by Babylon in 586 BCE. My math says that period alone was 420 years.

The Kingdom of Judah would be restored in 517 BCE and would last until destroyed by Rome in 70 CE. My math says this period was 587 years.

From that point onwards, there has never been a period during which there was no Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.

From that point in 70 CE until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, there was never a sovereign entity based in the Land of Israel--for all of those 1,878 years, it was ruled from without, by foreigners.

In 1948, the Jewish State of Israel was re-established. Its the only case in the history of mankind that a people, dispersed abroad for so many years, has maintained its religious and national identity, AND its link to its ancient Land, AND has returned to that Land.

IMHO, Scoot'r-d wishes to pervert a discussion of scientific research into a political issue.

Okay fine. I was wrong. The Jewish world of the old testament existed. I do understand that Jewish souls have resided in the Middle East ever since Israel was ended by the Romans. But since Roman times they have largely lived in Arabian countries. Israel, as a country had not existed for nearly some 1,750 years when it was forcefully reinstated in Palestine.

The American Indians also meet or surpass each and every test you have applied to the Israelis (rightly or wrongly). They have existed longer. They were nations more recently. They have remained in the regions they once owned and many retain their historic religious practices Shall we re-instate them all back to their ancient tribal lands using the same logic Israel used to remove Palestinians families from their 700 year old property rights?

So what do you think? Do the American Indians deserve the exact same considerations given the Jewish in 1947?

Scoot'r-d--Sorry, wrong again.

Pagan Rome ruled this area until 325 CE--they were not Arabs.

In 325, Rome became Christian, and we were part of the Byzantine world--not an Arab to be seen.

In 638 CE--568 years later--the first Muslims arrived. But per the point I made earlier, they DID NOT establish a country or a government here--they ruled from without--therefore, this was NOT an Arab country.

In 1099 CE, the Crusaders would arrive, and attempt to wipe-out all of the Arabs. For the next 192 years--until 1291 CE--no Arab country here.

In 1291, we would be overrun by the Mamelukes--Muslims--NOT Arabs.

They remained until 1516--225 years later--when the Ottomans arrived--to stay until 1917. Don't look now--but Turkey is secular-Muslim--NOT Arab.

In 1917--401 years later--Ottoman Turkey was defeated in WWI and the British arrived.

Britain--again, not Arabs--would rule for only 31 years before the State of Israel was created in 1948.

So, I'll again submit that you're trying to take an amateur scientific story and make it into your own image of political history. You fail in that you know not about what you write. But it sounds spectacular--doesn't it--to anyone who doesn't know history??

A very simple question Pal. Do the American Indian Nations merit the same consideration given the Jewish (tribes?) in 1948?

By your own account there was NO CUNTRY OF ISRAEL in the Palestine area for well over 1,700 years. The peoples known as the Palestinians owned lands in the Palestine area while under Turkish rule. They retained title to their lands under British rule. What right did anyone have to take those land rights away from the Palestinians in 1948 and award them to Israelis? It was no more than a politicalization of the Bible. Period.

So what do you say, do we return America to the Indians?

Biblical politics provided the cover and helped with PR. Really, everyone just felt bad about what had happened to the Jews and thought that they needed a place to call their own. I agree with you that forcing Palestinians off of the land they'd occupied for so long was absolutely unjustified. I would have found another arrangement, especially considering that the main concern with leaving them in Europe--that another holocaust would occur--was more or less taken care of with the establishment of the Coal and Steel Union.

Israel must be the first culture in human history to get its ancestral land handed back to it after defeat and diaspora. Usually, being conquered and scattered is a more or less permanent arrangement and nobody really expects to get the kind of 1-UP that the Allies gave the Jews; you're either assimilated, driven forth, enslaved or wiped out--usually some combination of all of them. And that's that in the game of civilizations. Thanks for playing, but your bottlecap is not the lucky winner.

But this all happened decades before my birth and I was not consulted, or even CC'd on the memos. I have to live in the world where this deed was done, and isn't likely to be undone. Since I don't believe in their God, I find it difficult to sympathize with their claims. Still... they've done wonders with the place. Credit where it's due, even if it's thrown a monkey wrench in our foreign policy ever since.

Scoot'r-d: Yes--as far as I'm concerned, you can give America back to the Indians. Pack your bags. Another history lesson, my friend: The term 'Palestine' entered the lexicon under Roman Emperor Hadrian (132-135 CE) in his attempt to eradicate any traces of anything Jewish here. Despite his best efforts, he would fail.
In any case, NEVER was there a country called 'Palestine'. It was, at best, a region that was always ruled from without. NEVER was there a nation of people called 'Palestinians' until post-WWI, and that in response to rising Jewish return to the Land of Israel. Did you know that Jews born here from 1917-1948 hold Palestinian-British ID's? And that Jews who were here all along--even during Turkish times--are ALSO Palestinians? Are they, and their descendants, to be deprived because they are not Arabs? Did you know that The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan constitutes nearly 80% of British-Mandate Palestine? As that kingdom has no Biblical basis (under that name), you can't call that 'politicization of the Bible'. So, what 'name-tag' do you give that? Why aren't you urging the disollution of that kingdom, and its replacement with a 'Palestine'??

Quillsinister: Ah, yes--the Holocaust 'card'. Search-up Britain's Balfour Declaration--2 Nov 1917--to see that a Jewish homeland was promised to the Jewish people 16 years before the Nazi rise to power.

While many view UN181 of 29 Nov 1947 as you suggest--the world's 'conscience'--some experts hold to the opinion that the Holocaust actually DELAYED establishment of a Jewish national homeland in the Land of Israel. Balfour would have brought it sooner, without the sacrifice of six million Jews.

And while that resolution GAVE US THE OPPORTUNITY, it didn't 'hand us our land back'. The Arabs around us started the war, and then went crying to the world that they had lost, and were now 'refugees'.

If they were--and not all of them truly were--then they're one of many peoples in the history of the world. In all other instances--bar-none--a refugee is resettled somewhere, and refugee status ceases. Only here is refugee status handed down from generation-to-generation, like a priceless family heirloom.

Finally, assuming you're a monotheist, you believe in the same God that I do. The only difference between us is the route to reach Him.

My point is that the land wasn't England's to give. Your ancestors left and other people moved in. I guess you could argue that since the Allies were stronger, they had just as much right to push the occupants off to make room for Israel as those occupants had to push the Hebrews off to make room for themselves, but that leaves you open to a "might makes right" mindset which can be a very dangerous thing. Your point about hereditary refugee status is a good one, but I'm not sure how anyone could pick up and move on with their lives living in a "buffer zone".

And while I'm well aware that Christianity and Islam have Abrahamic roots, no, I'm not a theist, mono or otherwise. :-)

Quillsinister: Well, the Brits thought it was. Remember--it was the sunset of Britain's colonial era.

Btw--at the same time, Britain made wholly or partially-contradictory promises to the Hashemite Bedouin--which led to the carving off of nearly 80% of Mandatory Palestine to create the (then) Hashemite Emirate of Transjordan. I don't see anyone questioning the validity of this action. Why not?

But the moment you suggest it wasn't Britain's right to promise anything to the Jews, you must question the world's development throughout history: Dutch, French and British presence in N.America, Spanish and Portugese presence in S.America, Belgian and Italian presence in Africa, British presence in India and Cyprus--to name a few.

The difference is that they go back ~500 years, while Balfour goes back 90 and creation of the modern State of Israel 60.

If European colonialism was 'legal', bringing Europeans to places that weren't even known to man, then the UN's decision to restore the Jewish people to their ancient and historic homeland must be even more-so.

And finally, except in isolated instances, NOBODY pushed the Arabs away to make room for Israel. Read our Declaration of Independence to see. In most cases, those who ran did so at the urging of the Arab states around us--so that their armies could enter, defeat the Jews, and give it all to the Arabs. Sadly for them, it wouldn't play-out that way.

The Palestinian 'refugee' crisis was created by the Arab states around us who, for the most part, refused to take-in and rehabilitate their brothers--cynically leaving them to rot in refugee camps for generations.

At the same time, the infant State of Israel took in several hundred thousand Jews who WERE thrown out of Egypt, Algiers, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen--with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. Those people were quickly made productive members of Israeli society, and their offspring fully-Israeli in every way.

Contrast this to UNRWA policy which hands-down refugee status like a priceless treasure--from generation to generation--when, for 'chump-change' the oil-rich Arab countries could have settled and rehabilitated them 60 years ago.

So lets see. You feel it is acceptable to repatriate the American Indian Nations back to their original land holdings in the same fashion that Israel was returned to its ancient lands. 1st off I like the idea because I'm part Seminole so I'd get something, somewhere.

Here's the deal. If you reside on land to be returned to the Indians pick up and move. Do not expect to receive anywhere near what the value of your property is worth in compensation if you get any at all. You may not take your house with you. Nope, it does not matter that it has been in your family for 6 generations. It belongs to someone else now. Where do you go? Who cares? Just leave. Pissed off are you? Too f*****g bad, move! You say it will bankrupt you and destroy your family. Tough shit, life sucks for you now. Get over it. You're mad are you? Well what are you gonna do about it anyway? Buh bye now.

You also pointed out that in 1946 there were "hundreds of thousands" of Jews living in various Arab Middle Eastern countries. Well that is quite true, if not understated. Jews did reside in Muslim run Arab countries. They worshipped their religion and had their Synagogues. They owned land and had businesses. They had their own communities and towns. But a group of Jewish zealots (you will call them freedom fighters) wanted their own country and they wanted it to be located where their religion had its roots. For whatever reasons they prevailed and after WW1 they wormed their idea into the Western occupation of the Middle East area.

Still in 1946 Jews and Muslims and Christians lived in some degree of peace, together. In 1948 that all ended. Not the fault of the Jewish I hear you grumble. I refer you back to paragraph #2 of this post. Since 1948 the Middle East has been in conflict after conflict. It has spilled over to the rest of the world. Now nuclear armaments are into the equation.

From some semblance of Middle East calm to constant warfare and perhaps an exchange of nuclear weapons because of politicizing the Bible at the behest of the jewish race. For a group once subject to the horrors of the holocaust they seem heel bent to bring holocaust to the entire planet.

Scootr-d: Nothing makes you happy--you keep trying to re-write history in your own vision.

As a Seminole, you probably got the right to open casinos. If you want any or all of N.America too--go for it too! You have my permission.

Btw--In the 1920's and 1930's there were repeated instances of Muslim-Arab massacre of Jews in the Land of Israel. So your picture of Jewish eutopia living amongst Arab Muslims is as falacious as just about every other point you've raised in the course of this dialog.

Before opening mouth and making fool of self, I humbly suggest you check the facts.

Friend the world in a a state of serious chaos primarily because of the Middle East. The Middle East is primarily in chaos because of Israel's foreign policies in forcing it's occupation down the throat of the Palestinians. Israel has made the policy of might makes right the norm and now wonders why others apply it to them. Israel has worked to try and make their case to legitimize its existence. It has failed and has made some very deep and powerful enemies along the way. By our too frequent alignment with Israel we have been drawn into this quagmire. That is our mistake.

I did not say that life was skittles and beer for either the Jewish or the Christians who lived in Muslim run countries. Every religion but Muslim was second class by state policy (and still is for Christians who still live at in these countries). Discrimination was practically legal. Certainly everyone yearns to be free and live under better conditions. The Jewish were not imprisoned in these countries. If persecuted they could have left and moved elsewhere. Many did. Those who chose to stay did so under the same terms they'd understood for centuries (under Turkish rule). How does any of this make it correct to take another persons land?

It is not a matter of making me happy. It is a matter of fact that Israel is at the focus of a major historical flash point. It is too arrogant and too stubborn to even admit it was wrong when it resettled on the private lands of the people called the Palestinians. Your staunch defense on this thread echoes the same illogical arguments and mirrors the same pompous attitude. Try being humble for a change and at least recognize your transgressions. I think that is somewhere in your religion.

Scoot'r-d: The world is in chaos (your words) because of Islamic fundamentalism and fanaticism. They may wish to blame Israel for Bali, London, Madrid--to name a few. Israel might be the excuse--but its hardly the reason.

There was no Israel when WWI began--Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo--by MUSLIMS.

You are right--the Jews were not imprisoned in Arab countries. In fact, they were thrown-out of countries and homes where they had lived for centuries. Home-sweet-home, right??

FYI--Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel began in 1882 with PURCHASE of lands--either from local Arab owners, or from absentee 'effendis'. Nobody was 'thrown off' of their lands. And btw--in many cases, what made them 'their lands' was simply the fact that they were there and SAID that the lands were theirs.

I will humbly (I've used the term before, but you chose to ignore) admit that throughout history, in all parts of the world, errors were made. Some of them may even have been made here; some of those by the Arabs; some by us.

What sets us apart is the fact that you can't recognize error unless you perceive it as ours. So, you may wish to step back and carefully examine your motivations. They're obvious to me, and if anyone else is reading this thread, they're probably obvious to them too.

Lets try this. How would you respond if the world determined that a major part of Israel should belong to the followers of Dianetics. The world showed up in arms and took your lands. No options given.

You see what you perceive as acceptable if done by you would be quite unacceptable if done to you. Jews owned very little land in this area before 1947 and they owned almost all of it by 1949. How would they feel if that were done to them by any other group?

As you crank up the "we had that land first argument" consider this. In 1948 no Jewish family that settled on taken property could trace any family land holdings back to when it was last a country. No one could say this was the land my great (to the 10th) grandfather farmed. There was no title history going back to 350 AD. All it was was Bible history and thus the contention of my original post. It was a politicalization of the Bible. For the Jews their religion was more important than the Muslim religion was to the Palestinians who had lived on those lands for centuries. Thus the progeny of todays radical Muslims thank you very much.

So if your land was taken from you today on some nebulous premise would you find that acceptable?