OT: For another viewpoint.....

Karen C - California ,in rec.crafts.textiles.needleworkwrote: and entertained us with

You set more value in a comedians point of view than the chief of the NY Times Middle East Bureau ? Odd. Has this comedian spent time there ? Or does he just have an opinion?

I note Snopes doesn't debunk the content of the article, only the identity of the author. The history, and facts, are reasonably accurate.

The simple fact is, this land belonged to the Israelites (a/k/a Hebrews a/k/a Jews) thousands of years ago. The international community (United Nations) agreed to give it back to them after WW2. As the article correctly points out, the Arabs of various flavors own 99%+ of the land in that part of the world, yet they object to the Israelis having a tiny little piece of dirt, which was historically, *their* land in the first place.

In other words, as if Americans would begrudge the Sioux the few square miles of their reservation and try to run them off to "anywhere else but here".

The map in my Bible shows that what the Arabs currently call Lebanon was known as Phoenicia at the time of Christ, yet the name "Israelites", referring to the Jews, appears in the very first book of the Old Testament. No question which name appears first, who was there first, who owned that land first. Simply giving back what was theirs originally.

During their rule, the Romans renamed Judea as Palestine (for the Philistines), but still colloquially known as the land of the Jews.

Most recently, for hundreds of years, that entire section of the Mediterranean coast was owned ... not by the desert Arabs who now claim it, but the Ottoman Empire (Turks), who tolerated the existence of those Jews who stayed. The Arab inhabitants weren't the owners of the land in that time frame; they were themselves subjugated to the Turks.

The eastMed coast was then ceded to Britain after WW1, which agreed in the Balfour Declaration to support a Jewish homeland there, which they referred to as ... Jewish Palestine!

As the article correctly notes, the name "Palestinian" didn't specifically mean Arab until it was adopted by the PLO in the 1960s. There was never a separate Palestinian language, nor did the natives of the area the Romans re-named Palestine prefer to call themselves "Palestinians", which means there was never a people by that name until the PLO was created.

Lebanon did not exist as Lebanon until 1920, the same year that Arab opposition to Jewish immigration turned violent. The British then divided the rest of their holdings into a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state (which the British named Trans-Jordan; just plain Jordan since 1948).

More detailed history of the area at

Obviously, they have a pro-Israel "spin" on their interpretation, but I find the base facts to square with what I learned in History and Political Science classes.

You cannot possibly know that as a FACT

The international community (United

The Bible is a book that has been through many translations, is not an accurate or true book.

I have a friend who is even yet still busy on a translation from ancient Greek to English and she will tell you that the translation she works from could be utterly incorrect and thus her translation has to be incorrect.

She also points out that she has learned her ancient Greek from professors who may have put their slant on how certain expressions, meanings, translate.

So don't quote anything from the Bible as gospel, it is far from accurate and was most likely, never was factual. History all those centuries ago was verbal, passed down as stories, embellished by the tellers.

I am not citing to the Bible as a source. I am citing to a map prepared by the A.W. Clement Company, which happens to appear in the back of my Bible for assistance in understanding what you're reading, since many places do not have the same names on modern maps.

How do you know that the map in the back of your bible is accurate? Do you know how the Isrealites got their land? According to some sources, it was promised to Abraham. He was given the land of Canaan and defeated the Canaanites to secure it. Since modern Palestinians are the descendants of the Canaanites, they claim that they were there first.

It's very easy to take one side and present it as FACT. But the real FACT is that nobody knows the truth for sure and that even archeological digs are a source of political dispute in Israel.

And BTW, the United Nations did NOT agree in 1947 to give Israel the land it occupies today. You should know that but your argument indicates otherwise.

Elizabeth

The modern day Arabs who call themselves Palestinians ARE NOT descendants of the Ancient Canaanites. Many of the modern day Arabs who call themselves Palestinians originally come from Saudia Arabia, +other numads who roam the Deserts, and some are even descendants of the the crusaders who were defeated and minglled with local population.

I have Jewish Israeli colleagues whose Families NEVER left Israel since Before BC .

The Roman Empire had a method of mooving populations around, esp those who rebbeled against them. The historical/ archeological fact is that they produced a COIN in the time of Aspasjanus Ceasar that has the inscription

J U D E A C A P T A not palestina capta .

The name palestina adopted from the HEBREW name Plishtim means INVADERS , after the Greek tribes that used to invade the shores of Israel... Both The Roman Empire and The British Empire used it as an administartive name for a region. [meant also to seprate it from the Jewish connetion].

And last but not least, when you read your New Testament, Jesus went to the TEMPLE in Jerusalem , not to a Mosque.

mirjam

And why doesn`t she try and translate it from the ORIGINAL Hebrew? mirjam

That still leaves it as someones interpretation of where a place was, and that would not necessarily be at all correct. People travelled on foot or if lucky, by horse or donkey, they saw distances very differently.

snipped-for-privacy@actcom.co.il (Mirjam Bruck-Cohen),in rec.crafts.textiles.needleworkwrote: and entertained us with

Because that too would not be an original.

snipped-for-privacy@actcom.co.il (Mirjam Bruck-Cohen),in rec.crafts.textiles.needleworkwrote: and entertained us with

You're getting silly Mirjam - show me where I said you were listening to a concert or a child's drum ?????

It doesn't matter what language the bible was finally written down in, the fact remains that for probably centuries it was a spoken story. We all know what happens if you take two sentences, say it to one person, ask them to repeat it to the next and so on through a dozen people, the thirteenth will never repeat to you what was said originally. So it is with the bible. It's a legend passed down and likely as veritable as some other legends such as King Arthur, with some smattering of truth and much garnishing.

Take that up with the publisher of the book I consulted to be sure my facts were accurate.

Cynicly enough as i read it the Alarms goes again and you tell me the Bible wasn`t written in Hebrew ,,, just like telling me the Noise outside is a concert and the BOOM of the falls is nothing but a little kid`s drum ,,,

\and of course you are an expert about the Bible ,,,, mirjam

To quote my middle daughter "Oh, I see how it is!"

You can attack Karen, and it's ok.

Good to know the rules!

Caryn

How was that an attack? I see it as a question.

>

How about if I take it up with you? How do I know that you are relating your source accurately? The UN drew up a partition plan which gave Israel PART of the land that it now occupies. The Arabs rejected the plan and attacked Israel, which as a result of war came to occupy more land than the UN recommended it be given (remember that General Assembly recommendations are not binding on member countries). If your source claims anything else, you should find a better one. But I suspect that your source and I agree.

Elizabeth

Some people have no idea what the difference is between a disagreement over something someone said and an ad hominem attack on that someone. That's why if you disagree with those people over something they say, they often respond that you just don't like them and are didagreeing with them because you don't like them rather than because you dispute the point that they have made.

Elizabeth

You are correct Brat and Karen knows me well enough to know that I don't dislike her etc etc and will not be going on everytime she speaks about our difference of opinion.

snipped-for-privacy@actcom.co.il (Mirjam Bruck-Cohen),in rec.crafts.textiles.needleworkwrote: and entertained us with

You are the supreme idiot you know. Why would you say that when I said

"I have a friend who is even yet still busy on a translation from ancient Greek to English and she will tell you that the translation she works from could be utterly incorrect and thus her translation has to be incorrect."

My friend has worked on this since we were in school, it's what she likes to do as a brain bag scholar, it's a pleasure to her. Nonetheless, she does not delude herself that her version will be anymore accurate than any other. That would include your version as well.

I could give a piss what language any version was written in, Hebrew is one, there are plenty of others. Just for you I won't edit out my other comment on bibles and the writing of them, it still holds true. Read it slowly and see what I am saying.