From: kremer@taveng.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Deportation vs. Murder
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:00:08 GMT
Reply-To: kremer@taveng.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: DEC


In article <1il11pINNi24@life.ai.mit.edu>, 
gwydion@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Basalat Ali Raja) writes:

> In article <1993Jan6.210020.8969@rdg.dec.com> 
> 	kremer@taveng.enet.dec.com (Itzha Kremer) writes:
> 
> >	What I meant was that when G-d promises the Land to the 
> >	"children of Abraham", He explicitely mentions Isaac and then
> >	Jacob (Isaac's son). In other words, Ishamael and Esau (Isaac's
..[lines deleted ] 
> we might go around in circles.  Could you post the appropriate verses
> from the Bible, so that we can have something concrete to talk about?

	I'll send it to you by email. I don't see how a discussion of the
	precise Biblical text is appropriate to this newsgroup. 

> >	BTW, I'm happy to hear from an Arab who refers to Ishmael as the
> >	"father of all Arabs". Some propagandists in this newsgroup
> >	claimed that Palestinians are the descendants from the pagan
> >	Caananites and Philistines.  Personally, I thought that was an
> >	insult to the Arab nation. 
> 
> At this point in time, I would say that it is almost impossible for
> most mid-easterners to be able to claim that they are not descended
> from any one particular group of people.  Consider this: at the time
> of the Prophet of Islam there were several Jewish nations that lived
> in Southern Arabia and in what is now Saudi Arabia, for example.
> These were all absorbed into the Muslim empire.  Most Arabs could
> probably find descent from these Jewish tribes.  Consider this: in the
> last thousand years, there have been say, about thirty generations.
> That means that in the last thousand years, you have had about
> 2,000,000,000 ancestors [two billions (not English billions)].  It is
> impossible for these people to all be distinct from each other.  There
> were not anywhere close to two billion people a thousand years ago.
        
       I agree if you're talking about individuals - but we're talking
       here about nations or nationalities.  The Jewish nation prides
       itself on the complete break-away CULTURALLY from the nations from
       which it originated.  We don't want to be identified in any way
       with those pagan tribes.  It is irrelevant to which other nations
       the individuals can trace their lineage. 
        
       When we speak of Abraham as the 'father of the Jews', we don't
       mean that every Jew is biologically descendant from him. We mean
       that Abraham is the founding father of our nation. When a Gentile
       converts to Judaism he recites in his prayers "the G-d of our
       fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"  even though he is not a
       biological descendant from them. 
       
       Likewise, the American nation was born after a distinct and complete
       break-away from its 'ancestral' nation - England.  Americans come
       from diverse backgrounds but still Americans speak about their
       'founding fathers' and have a common American heritage. 

       By the way, how does a non-Arab Moslem relate to Ishmael? Does he
       view Ishmael as his ancestor? 

> This is, of course, an extremely naive analysis, but I am pointing out
> that most Arabs have a fair degree of Jewishness in their ancestry.  It

       I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "a fair degree of
       Jewishness". Since the Jews are not a race, 'Jewishness' cannot be
       measured in genes. If you mean cultural influence, then yes I
       guess most of the civilized world (excluding the Far East) has a
       fair degree of Jewish influence. 

> might not be enough to satisfy the Jewish rabbis, but it seems that it
> would be enough to satisfy the prophecies in the Bible.

	Now you lost me!

> #Then the Jewish settlers should not live in the occupied territories.
> 
> >	The Jewish settlers are willing to suffer the daily acts of
> >	terror and violence from the Palestinians in order to live in
> >	the Land of Israel. However, they expect the police and army to
> >	protect them. In the diaspora, the Jews had to flee from places
> >	where they were not wanted. In Israel, we stopped running away.
> 
> Unfortunately, this "Land of Israel" is already occupied by a few
> million people who have lived there for generations and also refuse
> to run away.
       
       "A few million people who have lived there for generations..." is
       a bit exagerated - don't you think? But since I see no point in
       statistical arguments, I'll just agree that it's unfortunate that
       both people claim the same land.

> >	All this is really not so relevent because if Arafat can refer to
> >	Judea and Samaria as part of the "Arab State of Palestine" then
> >	certainly I can refer to them as part of Israel. What we call the
> >	Land is not the problem. The problem is that 2 nations firmly
> >	believe that the same Land belongs to them and only to them.
> 
> I am afraid it doesn't quite work that way.  If you can refer to the
> "Arab State of Palestine" as containing "Judea and Samaria" then Arafat
> can refer to "Tel Aviv" and "Haifa" as also parts of the "Arab State 
> of Palestine".  If you refer to "Judea and Samaria" as Palestine then
> Arafat has no right to refer to "Tel Aviv" and "Haifa" as anything but
> parts of Israel.  It is as simple as that.

       It's not at all that simple. YOU say Arafat will have no right to
       refer to Tel-Aviv and Haifa as anything but Israel. What
       guarantees can you provide? What will his Hamas brethren say to
       this? What did he himself say in 1966? How come he didn't fight
       for a 'Palestinian State' in Judea and Samaria before 1967 when
       we certainly did not call it 'Israel'? 
       
       Arafat wants it all. The Arabs want it all. This was true in 1947,
       in 1948, in 1967 and today. We won't slice up our Land in order to
       score PR points. 
       
- Itzhak