Israeli foreign minister: Redraw map to oust Arabs

[EagleKeeper]

A
Arab and Independent Sources Document
That Arab Leaders Urged Palestinians to Leave
"The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."
-- Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph September 6, 1948. (same appeared in The London Telegraph, August 1948)
"The most potent factor [in the flight of Palestinians] was the announcements made over the air by the Arab-Palestinian Higher Executive, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."
-- London Economist October 2, 1948
"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."
-- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949
"Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe."
-- Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, (quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz).
"The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city.... By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."
-- Time Magazine, May 3, 1948, page 25
"The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war."
-- General John Glubb "Pasha," The London Daily Mail, August 12, 1948
"The Arabs of Haifa fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel."
-- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949
Sir John Troutbeck, British Middle East Office in Cairo, noted in cables to superiors (1948-49) that the refugees (in Gaza) have no bitterness against Jews, but harbor intense hatred toward Egyptians:
"They say 'we know who our enemies are (referring to the Egyptians)', declaring that their Arab brethren persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes…I even heard it said that many of the
refugees would give a welcome to the Israelis if they were to come in and take the district over."

"The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees."
-- The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, February 19, 1949.

SOURCE: BIG LIES: Demolishing The Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel, by David Meir-Levi"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
-- The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, October 12, 1963

"Arabs still living in Israel recall being urged to evacuate Haifa by Arab military commanders who wanted to bomb the city."
-- Newsweek, January 20, 1963
"Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states, and Lebanon amongst them, did it."
-- The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, August 19, 1951

"The Arab Exodus …was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by the Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews. …For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy."
-- The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.

"The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."
-- A refugee quoted in Al Difaa (Jordan) September 6, 1954

In listing the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948, Khaled al-Azm (Syrian Prime Minister) notes that "Since 1948, it is we who have demanded the return of the refugees, while it is we who made them leave. We brought disaster upon a million Arab refugees by inviting them and bringing pressure on them to leave. We have accustomed them to begging...we have participated in lowering their morale and social level...Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson and throwing stones
upon men, women and children...all this in the service of political purposes..."
-- Khaled el-Azm, Syrian prime minister after the 1948 War, in his 1972 memoirs, published in 1973.

"The Arab states succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the states of the world did so, and this is regrettable."
-- Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), from the official journal of the PLO, Falastin el-Thawra ("What We Have Learned and What We Should Do"), Beirut, March 1976.
"Abu Mazen Charges that the Arab States Are the Cause of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" (Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2003):

Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) wrote an article in March 1976 in Falastin al-Thawra, the official journal of the PLO in Beirut: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in
Eastern Europe."
SOURCE: BIG LIES: Demolishing The Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel, by David Meir-LeviMahmud Al-Habbash, a regular writer in the official Palestinian Authority paper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida,
indicates in his column “The Pulse of Life” (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December 13, 2006) that the Arabs left Israel in 1948 only after political Arab leaders persuaded them to do so by promising the Arabs a speedy return to their homes in Palestine:
“…The leaders and the elites promised us at the beginning of the “Catastrophe” [the establishment of Israel and the creation of refugee problem] in 1948, that the duration of the exile will not be long, and that it will not last more than a few days or months, and afterwards the refugees will return to their homes, which most of them did not leave only until they put their trust in those “Arkuvian” promises made by the leaders and the political elites. Afterwards, days passed, months, years and decades, and the promises were lost with the strain of the succession of events…" [Term "Arkuvian,” is after Arkuv – a figure from Arab tradition - who was known for breaking his promises and for his lies."] ”
"We heard sounds of explosions and of gunfire at the beginning of the summer in the year of the“Catastrophe” [The establishment of Israel and the expulsion from the land in 1948]. They told us:The Jews attacked our region and it is better to evacuate the village and return, after the battle is over. And indeed there were among us [who fled Israel] those who left a fire burning under the pot,those who left their flock [of sheep] and those who left their money and gold behind, based on theassumption that we would return after a few hours."
-- Asmaa Jabir Balasimah Um Hasan, Woman who fled Israel, Al-Ayyam, May 16, 2006

An Arab viewer called Palestinian Authority TV (PA TV April 30, 1999) and quoted his father and grandfather, complaining that in 1948 the Arab District Officer ordered all Arabs to leave Palestine or be labeled traitors. In response, Arab MK Ibrahim Sarsur, then Head of the Islamic Movement in
Israel, cursed the leaders who ordered Arabs to leave, thus, acknowledging Israel's assertion.
Statement of son and grandson of man who fled:
"Mr. Ibrahim [Sarsur]. I address you as a Muslim. My father and grandfather told me that during the "Catastrophe" [establishment of Israel in 1948 and the expulsion from the land], our district officer issued an order that whoever stays in Palestine and in Majdel [near Ashkelon – Southern Israel] is a traitor, he is a traitor."
Response from Ibrahim Sarsur, Head of the Islamic Movement in Israel:
"The one who gave the order forbidding them to stay there bears guilt for this, in this life and the Afterlife throughout history until Resurrection Day."

Fuad Abu Higla, then a regular columnist in the official PA daily Al Hayat Al Jadida, wrote an article before an Arab Summit (Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah, March 19, 2001), which criticized the Arab leaders for a series of failures. One of the failures he cited, in the name of a prisoner, was that an earlier generation of Arab leaders "forced" them to leave Israel in 1948, again placing the blame for the flight on the Arab leaders.
"I have received a letter from a prisoner in Acre prison, to the Arab summit:
To the [Arab and Muslim] Kings and Presidents, Poverty is killing us, the symptoms are exhausting us and the souls are leaving our body, yet you are still searching for the way to provide aid, like one who is looking for a needle in a haystack or like the armies of your predecessors in the year of 1948, who forced us to leave [Israel], on the pretext of clearing the battlefields of civilians... So what will your summit do now?"

Now I understand that some people here can not read Arabic or do not have a ability to travel back into time; but there are enough English publications cited.

But those publications may be difficult to locate or be altered by the Zionist propaganda groups and will not count.

And because the actual audio recordings are not available; such statements about broadcasts are hearsay.

In other words; excuses can be made up to justify rejection of any source that does not conform with certain concepts - as has been demonstrated multiple times in this forum.


Statements had been made - proof was asked
Links were provided - too much work to find the link and read.
Instructed which link could be looked at - to much work to read through.
Now the contents of one of the said links has been quoted and statements/references bolded.

And the needed excuses are listed above after the quotes; cut and paste them.
Feel free to plagiarize them to your hearts content also

 

[cybrsage]

I overlooked this post erlier:

I can't say I've heard of ancient Hebrew in Egyptian mines, or the seal you mention. In regard to the former, perhaps you mean Proto-Sinaitic? Regardless, none of that posses a problem to my statement about the archeological record suggesting Hebrew culture arose from among the ingenious population rather than though the conquest described in the Bible.

The people were originally from the area (that is why genetics shows such), they traveled to Egypt due to famine, then returned a long time later. This is all documented in the Torah. It should not be a surprise the Isrealites are very similar to the people from that area.

The el-Hôl inscription is faintly carved into a limestone wall on the ancient road between Thebes and Abydos. The inscription could be read “(The) besieger עותי, ‘El’s Trickle.’”1

http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=02&ArticleID=06&Page=0

El is the Hebrew name for God. The Trickle most likely references the idea that God caused good luck by allowing random "drops" of His blessings to fall onto areas, so the person was lamenting a beseiger and begging God for some good luck. Of all the people, the Hewbrews were the only ones to call god El (that I know about).

As for the seals, they first thought they were seals, but now think they are coins. Either way, it basically supports Joseph being in Egypt.

Archeologists have discovered ancient Egyptian coins bearing the name and image of the biblical Joseph, Cairo's Al Ahram newspaper recently reported. Excerpts provided by MEMRI show that the coins were discovered among a multitude of unsorted artifacts stored at the Museum of Egypt. According to the report, the significance of the find is that archeologists have found scientific evidence countering the claim held by some historians that coins were not used for trade in ancient Egypt, and that this was done through barter instead. The period in which Joseph was regarded to have lived in Egypt matches the minting of the coins in the cache, researchers said. "A thorough examination revealed that the coins bore the year in which they were minted and their value, or effigies of the pharaohs [who ruled] at the time of their minting. Some of the coins are from the time when Joseph lived in Egypt, and bear his name and portrait," said the report.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=155966

What are you putting your stock in here exactly, do you have any notable historical examples to support your implication that the situation was less than peaceful? I mean of course minorities were discriminated against in the Ottoman Empire to raving extents throughout it's history, but generally far less than in Europe during the same time span.

I mean the tax that is paid by all people who are not Muslims but simply happen to live in Islamic controlled lands. This tax, at many times, was made so crushingly high you either moved or had to sell yourself into slavery to get food after having to pay your taxes.

Did you know that when Islam controlled Spain they forced Jews to wear yellow shoes and hats (Christians had to wear blue) so you could instantly know who did not have full rights? This is also where the yellow came from for the Yellow Jude Star used by Nazi Germany.

As a whole, Christianity has treated the Jews FAR worse than Islam has, though neither have been very good to them.

 

[kylebisme]

Now I understand that some people here can not read Arabic or do not have a ability to travel back into time; but there are enough English publications cited.

It seems you also understand the difference between people making a claim and actual evidence substantiating the that claim, and realize you've got squat for the latter, eh? After all, why else would you imply that the ability to read Arabic or travel back in time would prove your claim, and then go on to strawman me with arguments of your own invention rather than addressing the ones I presented? I seriously doubt you can read Arabic, let alone have a shred of actual documentation to back your claim, be it written in in Arabic or otherwise, and I'm quite certain you can't travel back in time, so why are you posturing as if such abilities would allow one to prove your claim? You don't have anything more than faith to back the claims you repeat in the face of documentation to the contrary, do you?

That said, I skimmed over the quote from the 1948 Economist article when you first posted the link without putting much thought to it, but your quoting and boding of it reminded me of the first investigation into this claim back in 1961, Erskine Childer's The Other Exodus, in which he provides further information and another quote from that same Economist article:

I decided to turn up the relevant (October 2) 1948 issue of the 'Economist.' The passage that as literally, gone around the world was certainly there, but I had already noticed one curious word in it. This was a description of the massacre at Deir Yassin as an "incident." No impartial observer of Palestine in 1948 calls what happened at this avowedly nonbelligerent, unarmed Arab village in April, 1948, an "incident"-any more than Lidice is called an "incident." Over 250 old men, women and children were deliberately butchered, stripped and mutilated or thrown into a well, by men of the Zionist Irgun Zvai Leumi.

Seen in its place in the full `Economist' article, it was at once clear that Dr. Kohn's quotation was a second-hand account, inserted as that of an eye-witness at Haifa, by the journal's own correspondent who had not been in that city at the time. And in the rest of the same article, written by the Economist correspondent himself, but never quoted by Israel, the second great wave of refugees were described as "all destitute, as the Jewish troops gave them an hour, in which to quit, but simultaneously requisitioned all transport."

Also noted in the 1961 article, and which still holds true today:

As none of the other stock quotations in Israeli propaganda are worth comment, I next decided to test the undocumented charge that the Arab evacuation orders were broadcast by Arab radio-which could be done thoroughly because the BBC monitored all Middle Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948. The records, and companion ones by a U.S. monitoring unit, can be seen at the British Museum.

There was nova single order, or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is repeated monitored record of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put. To select only two examples: on April 4, as the first great wave of flight began, Damascus Radio broadcast an appeal to everyone to stay at their homes and jobs. On April 24, with the exodus now a flood, Palestine Arab leaders warned that:

Certain elements and Jewish agents are spreading defeatist news to create chaos and panic among the peaceful population. Some cowards are deserting their houses, villages or cities. . . Zionist agents and corrupt cowards will be severely punished (Al-Inqaz, the Arab Liberation Radio, at 12.00 hours).

Even Jewish broadcasts (in Hebrew) mentioned such Arab appeals to stay put. Zionist newspapers in Palestine reported the same: none so much as hinted at any Arab evacuation orders.

See that bit quoted within the quote there, that's actual historical documentation, a primary source, of which you and your fellow ideologues over at StandWithUs have absolutely nothing of the sort.

In other words; excuses can be made up to justify rejection of any source that does not conform with certain concepts - as has been demonstrated multiple times in this forum.

Yes, that's basically all you've proven here; your propensity for making up excuses to justify rejecting actual historical documents in favor of vague claims to the contrary which align with certain concepts you hold dear.

 

[kylebisme]

The people were originally from the area (that is why genetics shows such), they traveled to Egypt due to famine, then returned a long time later. This is all documented in the Torah.

The claim the God appeared in a bush and insisted on things like women being stoned to death for not bleeding from penetration on their wedding night is also "documented in the Torah". Do you take that as fact too?

It should not be a surprise the Isrealites are very similar to the people from that area.

What's surprising, when taking Torah as a historical document, is that people who've been digging all over the region since the beginnings of modern archeology keep turning up evidence of slow and steady evolution of culture rather than anything to support the Biblical tale of Joshua's conquest.

I mean the tax that is paid by all people who are not Muslims but simply happen to live in Islamic controlled lands. This tax, at many times, was made so crushingly high you either moved or had to sell yourself into slavery to get food after having to pay your taxes.

I'm aware of some early periods of Muslim rule in which non-Muslims were taxed excessively, but compared to what I've read on the matter, you're characterization appears to be flagrant hyperbole. What are your sources here?

Did you know that when Islam controlled Spain they forced Jews to wear yellow shoes and hats (Christians had to wear blue) so you could instantly know who did not have full rights?

I've seen mention of such religious based dress codes enforced by both Muslim and Christian rulers throughout history, but not the case you mention specifically.

As a whole, Christianity has treated the Jews FAR worse than Islam has, though neither have been very good to them.

Considering the fact that minority groups all over the world and throughout history have been discriminated against: what exactly is your standard for "very good" here? From all I've seen on the matter, my characterization of the indigenous Jewish population of Palestine living peacefully with Christians and Muslims before European Jews came to conquer the region for themselves is accurate, while you've yet to present any specifics to justify your rejection of it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

London Economist October 2, 1948
Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949
Time Magazine, May 3, 1948, page 25
Sir John Troutbeck, British Middle East Office in Cairo, noted in cables to superiors (1948-49)
The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, February 19, 1949.
The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, October 12, 1963
Newsweek, January 20, 1963
The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.

I understand how hard it must be to track down such media confirmation.

Others apparently were able to do so.

 

[kylebisme]

Are you really too stupid to comprehend the difference people making claims iand historical documentation, or just too dishonest to admit your position here is indefensible?

 

[cybrsage]

The claim the God appeared in a bush and insisted on things like women being stoned to death for not bleeding from penetration on their wedding night is also "documented in the Torah". Do you take that as fact too?

Quote please.

What's surprising, when taking Torah as a historical document, is that people who've been digging all over the region since the beginnings of modern archeology keep turning up evidence of slow and steady evolution of culture rather than anything to support the Biblical tale of Joshua's conquest.

Says the man who ignores the Egypt info I already provided. Heck, even Egypt said the Israelites were their slaves and they took a bunch of gold when they left. They sued Israel in the courts of Alexander the Great over wanting their gold back.

I'm aware of some early periods of Muslim rule in which non-Muslims were taxed excessively, but compared to what I've read on the matter, you're characterization appears to be flagrant hyperbole. What are your sources here?

Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye; both derived from Pahlavi and possibly from Aramaic gaziyat[1]) is a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens, who meet certain criteria. The tax is/was to be levied on able bodied adult males of military age and affording power,[2] (but with specific exemptions,[3][4] From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes."[5] In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and the zakat taxes obligatory upon Muslim citizens.[6][7][8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

I've seen mention of such religious based dress codes enforced by both Muslim and Christian rulers throughout history, but not the case you mention specifically.

Yeah, I cannot find it explicitly right now, and am not really bothered to look hard enough to find it. You are aware that there were specific dress codes required of non-Muslims so they could be spotted in a crowd, and that is enough.

Considering the fact that minority groups all over the world and throughout history have been discriminated against: what exactly is your standard for "very good" here? From all I've seen on the matter, my characterization of the indigenous Jewish population of Palestine living peacefully with Christians and Muslims before European Jews came to conquer the region for themselves is accurate, while you've yet to present any specifics to justify your rejection of it.

Very good would be treating them like all other citizens.

 

[kylebisme]

Quote please.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

I'll be back later to respond to the rest.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Be aware that Kyle uses links and the Bible and such such to support his mis-guided stance.

Yet if you use those same links to show how misguided his opinions are..you will be rebuked and or told that you do not understand what is being said or and I repeat or Kyle will try to divert the issue by using such words as "authorized publication" or "historical documentation" as opposed to just documentation......same way he argues for a 9/11 conspiracy..lolol

 

[kylebisme]

Hey Yoda, did you miss this post from earlier in this thread?:

that translation is more accurate than you would care to believe...

So then, am I take it you are familiar with the original source and hence can provide a proper citation giving the name of the book, publisher and date of publication, and the page number for the quote? Or are you just blowing smoke here as you so often tend to do?

Or are just still blowing smoke here?

By the way, it's cybrsage who is using Torah to support his stance here, while I'm arguing against his use of it as a historical document.

Says the man who ignores the Egypt info I already provided.

I replied to that here, and you ignored the question in my reply. More to the point, the archeological finds in Egypt you allude only prove those things happened in Egypt, they don't do anything to prove the Biblical story of Joshua's conquest of Canaan.

Heck, even Egypt said the Israelites were their slaves and they took a bunch of gold when they left. They sued Israel in the courts of Alexander the Great over wanting their gold back.

I know the Bible claims the first part, but not of any other contemporary sources to corroborate it. Do you? As for the second part, what is your source for that?

Very good would be treating them like all other citizens.

You're obviously not considering the fact that minority groups all over the world and throughout history have been discriminated against here, and in failing to do so you are condemning the Ottoman Empire based on unreasonable standards. On the other hand, if one considers the treatment of Christians and Jews under the late Ottoman Empire compared to the treatment of blacks here in the US during that same period, I doubt anyone could make a coherent argument that the former was less than very good.

 

[cybrsage]

Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

I'll be back later to respond to the rest.

You have an odd interpretation of those passages. They are not about stoning a woman to death for not bleeding on her wedding night. They are about punishing a man who takes a virgin wife just to sleep with her, then claim she was not a virgin so he can easily divorce her and move onto the next woman.

She is only stoned to death if the accusation is actually true. You will find that the Torah is very good at punishing both men and women equally for immoral sex. This is one of the reasons Jesus did not find the adulterous woman guilty (the one brought to Him, when He said "He who is without sin cast the first stone."). They only brought the woman, but the Torah clearly says both the adluterous man and the adulterous woman are to be stoned.

 

[cybrsage]

I replied to that here, and you ignored the question in my reply. More to the point, the archeological finds in Egypt you allude only prove those things happened in Egypt, they don't do anything to prove the Biblical story of Joshua's conquest of Canaan.

Well...if the Israelites were in Egypt how did they suddenly get a nation with Jerusalem as its capitol?

I know the Bible claims the first part, but not of any other contemporary sources to corroborate it. Do you? As for the second part, what is your source for that?

I use a bit of common sense. The Israelites were in Egypt as slaves and then they were freed and left for the Judeah/Samaria region. Obviously other people already lived in the area, but these people vanished to be replaced by Israelites. I doubt they all decided to kill themselves.

Can you link to the acheological evidence showing they slowly morphed into a people in that region?

You're obviously not considering the fact that minority groups all over the world and throughout history have been discriminated against here, and in failing to do so you are condemning the Ottoman Empire based on unreasonable standards. On the other hand, if one considers the treatment of Christians and Jews under the late Ottoman Empire compared to the treatment of blacks here in the US during that same period, I doubt anyone could make a coherent argument that the former was less than very good.

I am considering it, but I consider beign treated bad as not being treated very good...regardless of how many other groups were also treated bad or treated very bad.

If you set the bar for "very good" to mean "we did not enslave you", then sure. Personally, I put very good to be above good and I do not consider being enslaved good...but rather I consider it to be very bad. There is a huge gulf between very bad and very good.

Basicaly, you are saying that someone should consider being slapped as being treated very good because they were not punched in the stomache. I disagree.

Very good is being treated like the other citizens in the area.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Are you really too stupid to comprehend the difference people making claims iand historical documentation, or just too dishonest to admit your position here is indefensible?

And how is the difference determined.
Documentation is what someone has written.
How do you write down something that is spoken. That then becomes a claim according to you.

You have leading media from both the Western and Arabic worlds documenting statements/claims and you refuse to accept such.

What is wrong with Newsweek and Time. they not biased enough for you.
Statements from British officials documented in cables. Must be hearsay.

Arab newspapers reporting - they only report what was heard. Must be made up at the time of printing.

Memoirs of a Syrian Minister - you can not read Arabic, so it must be false.


You are not worth wasting electrons on; evidence is presented to you for denial. No more.
At least Ausm, LL and Craig will argue but not deny facts/evidence/links when presented to them

It takes a special person to be a truther -and you are one of the best

 

[kylebisme]

You have an odd interpretation of those passages. They are not about stoning a woman to death for not bleeding on her wedding night.

Every interpretation of those passages I've ever seen agree that "the tokens of the damsel's virginity" is a reference to blood which comes from the ripping of the hymen, as will happen on penetration when the hymen is intact. Where have you found any other interpretation of that, or are you just calling it an "odd interpretation" because it conflicts with one you've invented for yourself?

They are about punishing a man who takes a virgin wife just to sleep with her, then claim she was not a virgin so he can easily divorce her and move onto the next woman.

No the part which does mention publishing a man doesn't make the stipulations about motive which you claim, it seems you've invented that yourself.

She is only stoned to death if the accusation is actually true.

I've very curious to here what "tokens of the damsel's virginity" you are suggesting would prove the accusation isn't true. Please share?

Can you link to the acheological evidence showing they slowly morphed into a people in that region?

Wikipedia proves a reasonable and well sourced overview of what the evidence shows here. What sources would you suggest support your augment to the contrary?

Basicaly, you are saying that someone should consider being slapped as being treated very good because they were not punched in the stomache.

No, I'm basically saying that if societies around the world at some period in time ranged from abusing their minorities by brutally punching them in the gut to lightly slapping them on the shoulder, then the ones who only lightly slapped their minorities on the shoulder treated them very good.

 

[cybrsage]

Every interpretation of those passages I've ever seen agree that "the tokens of the damsel's virginity" is a reference to blood which comes from the ripping of the hymen, as will happen on penetration when the hymen is intact. Where have you found any other interpretation of that, or are you just calling it an "odd interpretation" because it conflicts with one you've invented for yourself?

THis was your claim:

insisted on things like women being stoned to death for not bleeding from penetration on their wedding night is also "documented in the Torah"

This is patently wrong. She is not stoned to death for not bleeding on her wedding night, which is your claim.

No the part which does mention publishing a man doesn't make the stipulations about motive which you claim, it seems you've invented that yourself.

You are not a very good reader of your own link:

18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

I've very curious to here what "tokens of the damsel's virginity" you are suggesting would prove the accusation isn't true. Please share?

I do not know, I do not have the Mishna handy to reference.

Wikipedia proves a reasonable and well sourced overview of what the evidence shows here. What sources would you suggest support your augment to the contrary?

Two authors of books is you well sourced info? Link to an actual archeological or historical site if you want, that very small snippet which cites books I cannot readily read is rather meaningless.

EDIT: As a note, it is suspected that Joshua entered the area around 1400 BC. Naturally, the Israelites would slowly conquer the area, gaining more and more cities, until they were a rather impressive nation. Eventually, 1209 BC would come around and the Isarelite nation would be there for Egypt to claim to have destroyed in war.

No, I'm basically saying that if societies around the world at some period in time ranged from abusing their minorities by brutally punching them in the gut to lightly slapping them on the shoulder, then the ones who only lightly slapped their minorities on the shoulder treated them very good.

I bet you would not have the same view if you were routinely slapped for simply being alive. I surmise you would feel the person slapping you was not treating you very good.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this one. You feel being treated as a lesser and being degraded is to be called being treated very good. I think it is not good at all.

I do have to admit, with such low expectations on what is and is not good, you must be quite happy all the time. Someone steals your car? He is treating you very good. Someone smashes your window? He is treating you very good. I applaud you for being able to see things that way.

 

[kylebisme]

And how is the difference determined.

The Wiki page for primary source has a good overview of that, but I'll answer to your arguments one at a time below.

Documentation is what someone has written.

It's more complicated than that. For instance, I can write the claim "EagleKeeper didn't do well in high school English", but writing that doesn't make it documentation, regardless of how true it might be or otherwise; it's still just a claim. On the other hand, your high school transcript is documentation which would ether support or refute the aforementioned claim.

How do you write down something that is spoken.

When done for the sake of documentation, one does it by quoting the person directly, naming that person and recording the location, time and date of the statement.

That then becomes a claim according to you.

No, again see my "EagleKeeper didn't do well in high school English" above for an example of a claim.

You have leading media from both the Western and Arabic worlds documenting statements/claims and you refuse to accept such.

I've accept the fact that they are claim at the moment I read them, and in the case of many that was before you presented them here.

What is wrong with Newsweek and Time.

Newsweek claims "Arabs still living in Israel recall being urged to evacuate Haifa by Arab military commanders who wanted to bomb the city", but doesn't name any "Arab military commanders" but doesn't quote any such individuals as having gave such orders, let alone list the time and date these statements were purportedly made, and nor does it even provide any names of "Arabs still living in Israel" as sources for this vague claim. Much the same goes for the Time quote which makes vague mention of "order of Arab leaders", but provides no details to substantiate that claim.

Statements from British officials documented in cables. Must be hearsay.

Not necessarily, but in the case you presented of person saying people told him other people said things: yes, that's hearsay.

Arab newspapers reporting - they only report what was heard.

Rather, the quotes from they Arab newspapers you provided make vague claims about what unnamed people supposedly said, without providing any substantiation of those claims, much like the Newsweek and Time articles I addressed above.

Memoirs of a Syrian Minister - you can not read Arabic, so it must be false.

Nonsense. Again, I'm asking you to explain where one can find these memoirs which the quote you presented supposedly from, in Arabic or otherwise. Are you lashing out at me with strawman because you can't meet that request?

You are not worth wasting electrons on; evidence is presented to you for denial.

You spam electrons on vague claims to defend your faith in those claims while is denial of evidence like this:

On April 24, with the exodus now a flood, Palestine Arab leaders warned that:

Certain elements and Jewish agents are spreading defeatist news to create chaos and panic among the peaceful population. Some cowards are deserting their houses, villages or cities. . . Zionist agents and corrupt cowards will be severely punished (Al-Inqaz, the Arab Liberation Radio, at 12.00 hours).

And this:

A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947/- 1/6/1948" was dated June 30, 1948 and became widely known around 1985.

The document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":

1. Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements.
2. The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements...... (... especially -the fall of large neighbouring centers).
3. Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]

...

Now, can't you spare enough electrons to explain why you reject these sources and the many more that can be found throughout the historical documentation in favor of a collection of vague and poorly referenced claims compiled by unabashedly biased individuals such as the people at StandWithUs?

 

[kylebisme]

THis was your claim:

And here is the same explanation from some Biblical scholars (my bolding):

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

...

and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity; the sheet she lay in when she first bedded with her husband, in her parents' possession, and kept by them as a witness of her purity, should there ever be any occasion for it: and which were to be brought

...

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

In such a case the parents of the young woman (הנּער for הנּערה, as in Genesis 24:14, Genesis 24:28, according to the earliest usage of the books of Moses, a virgin, then also a young woman, e.g., Ruth 2:6; Ruth 4:12) were to bring the matter before the elders of the town into the gate (the judicial forum; see Deuteronomy 21:19), and establish the chastity and innocence of their daughter by spreading the bed-clothes before them. It was not necessary to this end that the parents should have taken possession of the spotted bed-clothes directly after the marriage night, as in customarily done by the Bedouins and the lower classes of the Moslem in Egypt and Syria (cf. Niebuhr, Beschr. v. Arab. pp. 35ff.; Arvieux, merkw. Nachr. iii. p. 258; Burckhardt, Beduinen, p. 214, etc.). It was sufficient that the cloth should be kept, in case such a proof might be required.

Granted, they are less explicit about what is being described than I am, but they are effectively referring to the same thing.

This is patently wrong. She is not stoned to death for not bleeding on her wedding night, which is your claim.

Feel free to quote whatever sources you might have to argue the Biblical scholars I've quoted above wrong.

You are not a very good reader of your own link:

Were are you seeing your "who takes a virgin wife just to sleep with her" and "so he can easily divorce her and move onto the next woman" claim of motive in that quote exactly?

I do not know, I do not have the Mishna handy to reference.

An English translation of the entire Babylonian Talmud is available here, please quote whatever portions you might consider relevant to the topic at hand.

Two authors of books is you well sourced info? Link to an actual archeological or historical site if you want, that very small snippet which cites books I cannot readily read is rather meaningless.

Four works are cited, the first contains the work of multiple authors, and all are at least partially available online to anyone who understands how to use the References and Notes and Bibliography sections of the page in question, the relevant portions of the latter reproduced below for easy access:

• Grabbe, Lester L., ed. (2008). Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250–850 B.C.E.). T&T Clark International. ISBN 9780567027269.
• McNutt, Paula (1999). Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 9780664222659.
• Joffe, Alexander H. (2006). The Rise of Secondary States in the Iron Age Levant. University of Arizona Press.
• Davies, Philip R. (1992). In Search of Ancient Israel. Sheffield. ISBN 9781850757375.

If you find any documentation of archeological evidence to support the Biblical narrative of Joshuah's conquest in those sources or anywhere else, please share.

 

[cybrsage]

And here is the same explanation from some Biblical scholars (my bolding):

You are completely pretending you did not say what I quoted you saying. Why are you doing that?

Until you accept what you said, we cannot continue our discussion. Pretending you said something completely different from what you actually said means you do not actually want a real discussion.

Let me know when you admit to what I quoted you saying and will actually discuss what you said, not something completely different.

 

[kylebisme]

I said what you quoted me saying, and that what the Bible scholars I quoted said too. Their "the sheet she lay in when she first bedded with her husband" and "the spotted bed-clothes" are less explicit references to the bleeding on sheets that happens when a woman's hymen is torn during sexual penetration. According to the Bible. God insisted that the parents of a woman accused by here husband of having lost her virginity prior to marrage must produce "the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate" in the form of such bloodied sheets, and:

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die

Googling "the tokens of the damsel's virginity" hymen blood reveals plenty more people who share the same understanding of the verse, while you don't have anything but vacant denial to justify your rejection of it, do you?