Modern day Israel

Ambrosia,

I think you are being very naive. Inheritance can only stretch a few generations at the most. We are not arguing in a court of law, and I doubt even there you can prove your point, and therefore your well-researched (!?) arguments are pointless. Was it a historical mistake for the world powers in 1947 to have given Jews a homeland in present day Israel? I believe so. Does that mean that today we have to uproot all the Jews in Israel again and send them elsewhere? I don't think that's right either. The state of Israel is a fact of life today, and the best course of action for all those concerned is to accept it and make peace with Israel. There is simply so much at stake for the muslims for all over the middle east to fight idealogical battles over a piece of desert.

Human

this is an example of what I was looking for only I wanted it tied to the pali-israeli conflict.

There is growing, irrefutable evidence, however, that the Crimean Khazars, whose  kingdom extended over what is now the Ukraine to the Caspian Sea, officially converted to pure Mosaic Judaism in 861 under the rule of King Bulan. The Khazars do not appear to have been a people unto themselves, but rather a blend of many races resulting from the heavy trade that was going on at the time. The campaign of the Rus (Russian) Prince Svyatoslav of Kiev effectively broke the back of the Khazarian empire in 965 AD, although Khazar itself continued until at least 1030 AD. Under the growing persecution of Kiev Rus in the 11th and 12th century, the Khazars disappeared as a people. Nonetheless, there is overwhelming evidence that at least a portion of the Jewish Khazars fled to Eastern Europe and north into Poland and Lithuania.

Some people have taken this body of evidence and claim it proves that the Abraham Ashkenazim Eastern European Jews were of the Khazar bloodline, rather than the bloodline. In his book God's Covenant People, evangelist Ted R. Weiland cites mostly third party and circumstantial evidence in a convincing way to conclude the East European Jews were not Semites (blood descendants of Shem and Abraham). "Since they are not Semites, then today's Jews certainly can not be of Abraham's lineage because Abraham was a Semite... descended from Shem, the Son of Noah. Following the same line of reasoning, since today's Jews are not Semites, they can not be Israelites either because Jacob/Israel was also a Semite, a direct descendant of Shem through Abraham." ¹

And by this token it proves that Moslims who are in fact Semites direct descendants of Abraham, and are the ones entitled to what modern day jews claim is theirs from the Nile to the euphrates. I really am hoping for more articles written by someone more historically accurate..

Ambrosia I'm not too up-to-date on the state of Israel and how it
came to be, but I believe part of its history revolves around the
end of WW2. Which after the war millions of displaced Jews
were in fact, placed over in the palestinian areas. This
relocation to my understanding displaced those (palestininas)
who were already there more eastward which those without
homes lived in refugee camps or moved into neighboring
countries. Perhaps part of the creation of Israel was those who
held the extreme view that the land which palestinians
occupied was the land given to them by God which I believe is
the ethnocentic view of extreme Judaism. However this is my
impression fromn what I got from reading up on news articles
but you might want to correct me up on that.

I think the most important thing concerning this argument of who has more right to the land is that first of all, we all(the 3 parties jews christians and muslims) agree it is The Holy Land declared so by The god of Abraham and all of mankind. It should make people think that this land is where the 3 faiths meet, and the reasons of all the problems is because of envy, and each not truely holding to their own GIVEN books and the laws in them. Because if each group obeyed Allah by implemening their respective book there would be peace in the holy land. You might have the notion that if each implemented his own book and with this the laws given to each group by Allah there would be friction and discord but this is not the case. Islam is totally accepting of the laws set by Allah for the people of the book,

In fact there are verses in the koran urging the people of the book to implement the torah and evangel and to judge according to those books. And that those who do not implement His books are upon nothing(without base), and that those who do not judge by what Allah sent down(torah evangel koran) are the perverse.

5 verse 47: "Let the people of the Evangel(gospel) judge by what Allah has sent down therein, and whoever does not judge by what Allah has sent down, those are the perverted."

 5 verse 68" say:"O people of the book(bible comes from the latin word bibleo which means book).O people of the book ye are upon nothing, UNTILL ye make firm(implement) The Torah, the Evangel(gospel), and that which is sent down to you from thy Lord". And that which is sent down to thee from thy Lord increaseth in most of them their arrogance and disbelief, so sorrow thouself not over the (disbelieving) ungrateful people.

Upon nothing means without basis, and how can you stand without a basis? how can you build without basis? so reality will keep on betraying them, because they followed their own whims and conjectures instead of affirming the truth of His books and implementing them.

So people can throw with bible verses and put forward twisted and false arguments, but aslong as they do not implement their given books and implement the words of men instead, there will be discord and mischief.