25 November, 2020

Blog

Did God Promise Palestine To The Jews?

By Hameed Abdul Karim

Hameed Abdul Karim

Hameed Abdul Karim

For some reason or the other the Sri Lankan print media has, in recent times, taken a very pro-Israel stance. When they carry stories of the Middle East conflict from western agencies like Reuter, AFP or BBC it can be excused because such agencies are heavily biased in favour of Israel. But when editorials and articles by ‘readers’ appear frequently you begin to raise an eyebrow or two. It becomes worst when they papers refuse or deny the reader of a ‘right of reply’. Such is the case with The Island, once a progressive newspaper, but no it has joined the ‘mainstream’ carrying different stories and editorials whilst following the same pro-Israel and pro-establishment theme as other newspapers.

Such was the case with The Island when they ignored a ‘right of reply’ I wrote to an article that heavily promoted Israel and its myths. Here is what I said.

Dr. V.J.M. De Silva in his article titled ‘The Israeli Palestinian Conflict Some Random Thoughts’ (The Island, 12 August, 2014) quotes the Bible in support of Israel. The one that Dr. Silva cites is often quoted by Jewish and Christian Zionists or Evangelical Christians to support the colonial conquest of Palestine by European Jews.  This so called promise to the Prophet Abraham (peace be on him) is found in the book of Genesis.

God’s Promise

The particular verse is found in Genesis 17:8 which says ‘And I will give unto thee (meaning Abraham) and thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan (Palestine) for an everlasting possession and I will be their God’. However, this is the only verse that Dr. Silva quotes like all Zionists. There are other verses in the same Bible that should be taken into account before we can draw any conclusions. This particular verse must be put to test in accordance with the Biblical verse that says ‘And if thou say in your heart, how shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken. When a Prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing the Lord has not spoken, but the Prophet had spoken it presumptuously: thou shall not be afraid of him’. (Deuteronomy Ch. 18: 21-22)

Let’s put Genesis 17:8 to the test with the verses of Deuteronomy quoted above.

Abraham’s Burial

When Abraham passed away his sons Isaac and Ishmael (peace be on them both) buried him in a cave on a land their father had bought from ‘the sons of Heth’ Genesis (25 verse 9-10). This suggests there were other people on the land that God had supposedly promised to Abraham. Wouldn’t it be right to conclude that if the Lord had given the land to Abraham there would have been no need for him (Abraham) to ‘purchase’ a part of the land from Heth?

More Biblical Evidence

The Bible further testifies that God didn’t make any promise of the land of Canaan (Palestine) to Abraham. The book of Hebrews says in chapter 11 verse 13 ‘These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off’.

Perhaps a couple of verses from the book of Acts would end the controversy of the ‘Promised Land’ industry. In Acts chapter 7 verses 3-5 it is reported ‘And God said unto him (Abraham). Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred and come unto the land which I shall show thee’.

Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran and from there when his father was dead he removed him into this land (Palestine) in which you now dwell’.

Here comes the crucial verse.

And he (God) gave him (Abraham) no inheritance in it, NO NOT SO MUCH AS TO SET HIS FOOT UPON, yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession and to his seed after him’. (Acts 7:3-5)

Palestinian Christians

About 20% of the Palestinians are Christians. Has anybody like Dr. De Silva ever bothered to ask them what they think of the Biblical promise that God supposedly made to Abraham? Have Christians who support Israel on the basis of Biblical premise, ever bothered to ask their co-religionists how they feel living as refugees in foreign lands or under perpetual humiliation at the hands of the Israelis in Occupied Palestine? The answer would be in the negative, because somehow the media has projected the Palestinian catastrophe as a Muslim issue and not as a humanitarian one as it certainly is. The media has brainwashed people to believe the conflict in Palestine is between Jews and Muslims. They have subtly left out the Palestinian Christians out of the picture.

Not many Christians know, certainly not in the west where the media is censored on the issue of Palestine, that the first village that was destroyed in Palestine was a Christian village called Deir Yassin. Over 240 Palestinian Christians were lined against the walls of their humble homes and shot dead in cold blood by the Jewish terrorist organisation called the Stern Gang headed by future Prime Minister and later Nobel Laureate, Menachem Begin. Their homes and churches were destroyed and to this day they lie in ruins as mute testimony that struck on that fateful day in 1948.

Indeed there are Palestinian Christians struggling against Israel’s racist policies in Israel as well as Occupied Palestine. Jimmy Carter and Arch Bishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu describe Israel’s policy as Apartheid with the latter going one step further saying ‘it is worse than South Africa’s apartheid under white rule’.

Those interested should read ‘Blood Brothers’ written by Reverend Father Elias Chacour a Palestinian Catholic priest who still is in the forefront of the struggle for Palestinian freedom.

There is a Christian movement in Occupied Palestine called ‘KAIROS’ headed by Rifat Kassis. More than 3000 Palestinian Christians have signed a document appealing to all Christians in the world to support their freedom struggle against the Zionist regime in Israel.

Moreover, there is Hanan Ashrawi is in the forefront of the Palestinian freedom struggle. She is a Palestinian Christian as was the late Edward Said.

Seed of Abraham

Assuming for argument sake that God did indeed promise the land to the Jews, one must carefully read the words that are enshrined in that particular verse in Genesis. It says the promise is made to Abraham and his SEED after him. The SEED includes the Arabs also because they are the children of Ishmael, Abraham’s son. But what Israel wants to do is to complete the purification of Palestine of all Goy (Gentiles: Jews being the ’Chosen People’ and all) and convert the whole of Palestine into a ‘pure’ Jewish state. This is Zionist fascism no different to Hitler’s Hein Rasse (Superior Race).

Paradoxically if the famous verse in Genesis in the Bible were to be applied it would automatically disqualify the present day ruling class in Israel because they are not the SEED of Abraham. Rather they are Khazars who were converts to Judaism as explained by Arthur Koestler in his book ‘The Thirteenth Tribe’. Factually speaking they are Caucasians and are called Ashkenazi to describe their European roots. Till today Israel participates in the Euro Vision Song Contest. As far as I can tell, Israel is not in Europe, but Europeans are occupying Palestine. Israel is a European colony, just as Sri Lanka was a British colony at one time.

Balfour Declaration

To quote Arthur James Balfour to support the creation of Israel is like quoting Winston Churchill to support the perpetuation of Her Majesty’s Empire which included Sri Lanka, then Ceylon. British MP George Galloway puts this aspect of history in his inimitable and acerbic way by asking ‘What right did Balfour have to give one people’s property to another’. If Balfour was so concerned about the harrowing experience the Jews underwent under the Europeans, then it would only be proper to give them a piece of land in

Europe. It was the European Christians who incinerated the Jews and the Palestinians have to pay the price!

Be that as it may, the western powers, under the guise of the UN, partitioned Palestine like as if it were bequeathed to them by their grandfathers thus creating Israel. However, it also ‘rearranged’ Palestine, but today Palestine does not exist. Historical Palestine has been wiped off the map of the world. These are the stark facts that anybody with a little compassion for humanity can see if only they want to look.

Ehud Barak’s Offer of 95% Land

Dr. De Silva claims that Ehud Barak offered 95% of Palestine to Arafat and that Arafat rejected this Israeli ‘generosity’ out of hand. This is such a big fib that even the Israeli spin doctors or apologists cannot use it any longer for fear of being derided. What Ehud Barak really offered was a Palestinian state comprising ‘four cantons or Bantustans on the West Bank, Jericho, the southern canton extending as far as Abu Dis (the new Arab ‘Jerusalem’) a northern canton including the Palestinian cities of Nablus, Jenin and Tulkarem and a central canton including Ramallah’ according to Prof. Noam Chomsky. Elaborating on this he says ‘the cantons would be completely surrounded by territory to be annexed by Israel. The areas of Palestinian population concentration were to be under Palestinian ‘administration’ an adaption of the traditional colonial pattern that is the only sensible outcome as far as Israel and the US are concerned’

Dr. Silva claims that this magnanimous ‘offer’ would connect Gaza to the West Bank. This is not true. ‘The plan for Gaza Strip, a fifth canton was not certain’ Chomsky points out ‘Israel might relinquish it or might maintain the southern coastal region and another salient virtually dividing the Gaza Strip below Gaza City.

Ewen MacAskill diplomatic editor of The Guardian newspaper of 14 April 2001 sheds more light on this myth of Israel’s ‘generous’ offer of 95% of historical Palestine back to its original inhabitants. I quote ‘The Israelis portrayed it as the Palestinians receiving 96% of the West Bank. But the figure is misleading. The Israelis did not include parts of the West Bank they had already appropriated.

The Palestine that would have emerged from such a settlement would not have been viable. It would have been in about half-a-dozen chunks, with huge Jewish settlements in between – a Middle East Bantustan. The Israeli army would also have retained the proposed Palestinian state’s eastern border, the Jordan valley, for six to 10 years and, more significantly, another strip along the Dead Sea coast for an unspecified period: so much for being an independent state.

Alan Dershowitz

Dr. De Silva attempt of putting his faith in Alan Dershowitz in support of the myth of the 95% offer is, I am afraid, grossly misplaced. Dershowitz is an ardent Zionist Jew and he has absolutely no compassion for anybody   who does not sunscribe to his Zionist views.

Paul Finklestein, a controversial Jewish academic, now discredited in the Jewish media for his support for Palestinian rights, called Alan Dershowitz a liar over a plagiarism issue and Prof. Noam Chomsky, also a Jew, has called Dershowitz a ‘Stalinist style thug’. So the less said about Alan Dershowitz the better.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 6
    2

    Hameed Abdul Karim

    Did God Promise Palestine To The Jews? The God Business?

    No. It was Jews who promised themselves.

    Then It was the British, who Promised with the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1915. Read Below.

    Sykes–Picot Agreement

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

    The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2] The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.[3]

    The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence.[4] The terms were negotiated by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and British Sir Mark Sykes. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes–Picot agreement, and when, following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks exposed the agreement, “the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted.”[5]

    Territorial allocations[edit]
    Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the sea and River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and a small area including the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean.[6] France was allocated control of south-eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.[citation needed] Russia was to get Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and the Ottoman Armenian vilayets.[6] The controlling powers were left free to decide on state boundaries within these areas.[6] Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers, including the Sharif of Mecca.[6]
    British–Zionist discussions during the negotiations[edit]
    Following the outbreak of World War I, Zionism was first discussed at a British Cabinet level on 9 November 1914, four days after Britain’s declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire. At a Cabinet meeting David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, “referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine.”[7][8] Lloyd George’s law firm Lloyd George, Roberts and Co had been engaged a decade before by the Zionists to work on the Uganda Scheme.[9] In a discussion after the meeting with fellow Zionist Herbert Samuel, who had a seat in the Cabinet as President of the Local Government Board, Lloyd George assured him that “he was very keen to see a Jewish state established in Palestine.”[7][10] Samuel then outlined the Zionist position more fully in a conversation with Foreign Secretary Edward Grey. He spoke of Zionist aspirations for the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish state, and of the importance of its geographical position to the British Empire. Samuel’s memoirs state: “I mentioned that two things would be essential—that the state should be neutralized, since it could not be large enough to defend itself, and that the free access of Christian pilgrims should be guaranteed. … I also said it would be a great advantage if the remainder of Syria were annexed by France, as it would be far better for the state to have a European power as neighbour than the Turk”[7][11] The same evening, Prime Minister H. H. Asquith announced that the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire had become a war aim in a speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet.[12]

    In January 1915, Samuel submitted a Zionist memorandum entitled The Future of Palestine to the Cabinet after discussions with Weizmann and Lloyd George. On 5 February 1915, Samuel had another discussion with Grey: “When I asked him what his solution was he said it might be possible to neutralize the country under international guarantee … and to vest the government of the country in some kind of Council to be established by the Jews”[13][14] After further conversations with Lloyd George and Grey, Samuel circulated a revised text to the Cabinet in the middle of March 1915.

    Zionism or the Jewish question were not considered by the report of the de Bunsen Committee, prepared to determine British wartime policy toward the Ottoman Empire, submitted in June 1915.[10]

    Prior to the departure of Sykes to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov in Petrograd on 27 February 1916, Sykes was approached with a plan by Samuel. The plan put forward by Samuel was in the form of a memorandum which Sykes thought prudent to commit to memory and destroy.[citation needed] Commenting on it, Sykes wrote to Samuel suggesting that if Belgium should assume the administration of Palestine it might be more acceptable to France as an alternative to the international administration which she wanted and the Zionists did not. Of the boundaries marked on a map attached to the memorandum he wrote:[7]

    “By excluding Hebron and the East of the Jordan there is less to discuss with the Moslems, as the Mosque of Omar then becomes the only matter of vital importance to discuss with them and further does away with any contact with the bedouins, who never cross the river except on business. I imagine that the principal object of Zionism is the realization of the ideal of an existing centre of nationality rather than boundaries or extent of territory. The moment I return I will let you know how things stand at Pd.”[15]

    Conflicting promises

    Main article: The territorial reservations in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence

    Lord Curzon said the Great Powers were still committed to the Reglement Organique Agreement regarding the Lebanon Vilayet of June 1861 and September 1864, and that the rights granted to France in the blue area under the Sykes–Picot Agreement were not compatible with that agreement.[16] The Reglement Organique was an international agreement regarding governance and non-intervention in the affairs of the Maronite, Orthodox Christian, Druze, and Muslim communities.

    In May 1917, W. Ormsby-Gore wrote “French intentions in Syria are surely incompatible with the war aims of the Allies as defined to the Russian Government. If the self-determination of nationalities is to be the principle, the interference of France in the selection of advisers by the Arab Government and the suggestion by France of the Emirs to be selected by the Arabs in Mosul, Aleppo, and Damascus would seem utterly incompatible with our ideas of liberating the Arab nation and of establishing a free and independent Arab State. The British Government, in authorising the letters despatched to King Hussein [Sharif of Mecca] before the outbreak of the revolt by Sir Henry McMahon, would seem to raise a doubt as to whether our pledges to King Hussein as head of the Arab nation are consistent with French intentions to make not only Syria but Upper Mesopotamia another Tunis. If our support of King Hussein and the other Arabian leaders of less distinguished origin and prestige means anything it means that we are prepared to recognise the full sovereign independence of the Arabs of Arabia and Syria. It would seem time to acquaint the French Government with our detailed pledges to King Hussein, and to make it clear to the latter whether he or someone else is to be the ruler of Damascus, which is the one possible capital for an Arab State, which could command the obedience of the other Arabian Emirs.”[17]

    Many sources report that this agreement conflicted with the Hussein–McMahon Correspondence of 1915–1916. It has also been reported that the publication of the Sykes–Picot Agreement caused the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon.[18] However, the Sykes–Picot plan itself stated that France and Great Britain were prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab State, or Confederation of Arab States, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief within the zones marked A. and B. on the map.[19] Nothing in the plan precluded rule through an Arab suzerainty in the remaining areas. The conflicts resulted from the private, post-war, Anglo-French Settlement of 1–4 December 1918. It was negotiated between British Prime Minister Lloyd George and French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau and rendered many of the guarantees in the Hussein–McMahon agreement invalid. That settlement was not part of the Sykes–Picot Agreement.[20] Sykes was not affiliated with the Cairo office that had been corresponding with Sherif Hussein bin Ali, but he and Picot visited the Hedjaz in 1917 to discuss the agreement with Hussein.[21] That same year he and a representative of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs delivered a public address to the Central Syrian Congress in Paris on the non-Turkish elements of the Ottoman Empire, including liberated Jerusalem. He stated that the accomplished fact of the independence of the Hedjaz rendered it almost impossible that an effective and real autonomy should be refused to Syria.[22]

    The greatest source of conflict was the Balfour Declaration, 1917. Lord Balfour wrote a memorandum from the Paris Peace Conference which stated that the other allies had implicitly rejected the Sykes–Picot agreement by adopting the system of mandates. It allowed for no annexations, trade preferences, or other advantages. He also stated that the Allies were committed to Zionism and had no intention of honoring their promises to the Arabs.[23]

    Eighty-five years later, in a 2002 interview with The New Statesman, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw observed “A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence of our colonial past. … The Balfour Declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis—again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one.”[24]

  • 3
    1

    Israeli Apartheid continues in occupied Palestine. Those who were victimised by Hitler and the Nazis have become the prime persecuters and mass murderers of the Palestinian Arabs. An Israeli life is considered worth more than a thousand Palestinian. The chosen people have exceeded the mandate given in the Old Testament.

  • 3
    2

    `Did God Promise Palestine To The Jews?`

    No he really promised the world that is taxed by aggressive Palestinians to make the stupid Aggressive Palestinians into Soylent Green.

    Process is as simple as a trawler that leaves Iceland and returns with canned fish.

    The movie Soylent Green was screened at the majestic back in 1970 go show it to the Palestinian and Muslim women who simply litter without being mindful what their fate would be. Atom/Gas is past tense.

    Less is More- New World Order

  • 4
    1

    Did God promise palastine to the Jews?
    NO, THE US PROMISED ITin return for Isreal being the US
    hired-thug in the area.
    God died LONG AGO, leaving the church fathers to
    practice sodomy and run banks in Italy.

    • 0
      0

      Bedouins/badawī,
      Just like the 10c you threw from the bus window
      for your cap that flew away to return.!

      America is Big Brother in the Sky it does not need thugs on ground.
      Don’t you observe?? It has the mother of all weapons – space plane and if they unleash it even the Russians or Chinese will be fighting with sticks and stones- like Hamas of today. Have you observed the first Defense Shield Europe docked in the South of Spain last December.- Putin is shitting bricks.

      。◕‿◕。

  • 0
    3

    Lankans, particularly the Sinhalese, are well advised to embrace the Israeli model of survival among the teeming millions of Moslem fanatics because that will be there future once the Moslems breed the Sinhalese out and make the Sinhalese a minority in the next 20 years or less.

    Adopt the Israeli strategies, connect closely with Israel. They can show the direction to take for survival. The Tamil speaking Moslems of Lanka, who are ethnically overwhelmingly South Indian low-caste converts to Islam, are now becoming aggressive and are demanding that Sharia be imposed on the country. Halal, Hijab, long unkempt beards will soon lead to full blown fanaticism, and they will start attacking Buddhist, Hindu and Christian places of worship as the current 30-50 year old group of Sinhalese retire and become inactive. They have already declared Jihad by breeding like rats and overwhelming other communities knowing full well that Democracy is the best weapon for the Islamic State. Its time India stepped in and helped Lanka to fight this menace vigorously, before Lanka becomes a Southern Pakistan with full-blown fanatic, Jihadis, storming the southern Indian states with suicide bombers and every known form of terrorism that will deal a deathly blow to India. If necessary India should send in forces to completely neutralize the Moslem fanatics in Eastern Lanka if the Lankan politicians are in-fighting and not taking any action on the looming Moslem threat.

  • 1
    0

    God did not promise Palestine to the Israelis. It is just that the Israelis are behaving badly. Also remember the Hamas buggers are no better than the Israelis either. How many Palestinians have the Hamas buggers executed so far, these are their own people and they are aiding the Israelis in killing their own. Remove the speck from your eyes first before pointing fingers at others.

    • 0
      2

      Hamas was created by Isreali “Shin-Beth” to eliminate Arafat.
      Now they are killing Hamas. It is the same formula like using Lee Oswald to kill Kenndy and then killing off Lee Oswald.
      Kill Bandaranaike using Somarama, and shoot Somarama.
      Or kill Mossadque and kill of the killers.
      Standard CIA technique.

      As for God, he destroyed Sodom and Gommorah, and then probably cut off his own neck like a good Samurai when he realized what a mess he had made in creating this sad world. He did/does nothing when millions of innocent people including children get swept away in Tsunamis and earthquakes and floods Atmoc explosions and what ever you name it.
      God has many names in many religions. But it is the same faulty craftsman who messed it all up.

  • 1
    0

    He did indeed. Time for UN-mandated DNA testing to determine the 75%-100% Jewish-DNA for Palestine as per God’s promise.

    • 0
      0

      That means 75% of Israelis are not Jewish at all and must go back to their lands of origin.

  • 1
    0

    What happened in the past is unimportant when it comes to Palestine. The arguments, claims and counter claims will go on an on. Almost every former power can lay claim to the land. It is a bitterly disputed mess over which thousands upon thousands of human beings have lost their lives going back to the time of the crusades. What matters today is a solution which brings relief and hope a people suffering untold hardship in the present day. That suffering is inflicted upon them deliberately and vengefully by an utterly racist state of Israel. The former terrorist leaders were awarded peace prizes. The land they grabbed was legitimized. To this day more and more land on the west bank is being robbed forcefully from the Palestinians who are treated as little better than slaves while the Gaza strip is run as an open air prison. One nation has the power to bring about a solution but steadfastly refuses to do so. With not a semblance of a back bone to stand up to AIPAC lobby the US administration continues to dole out the largest chunk of aid it gives out to any one nation year in and year out no strings attached. The shameful sycophancy of the other oil rich Arab states are also to be blamed for this genocide. An eye for an eye seems to be the Jewish justification. But even that argument fails since it is the German state who should answer for the Holocaust not the Palestinians.

  • 0
    0

    When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt across the Red Sea which the Lord God parted for them, after the crossing, Moses turned LEFT and all of them ended up at the eastern Mediterranean desert shore.

    The Land of Caanan was to the RIGHT – the oilfields of Arabian peninsula.

    Had he turned right, today both Palestinians would be in different locations, and there would be peace.

    • 1
      0

      The Lord God parted for them
      That is a myth. The lord God farted is probably more like the truth.

      • 2
        0

        more like the truth`
        yup, much like Gautama’s big foot.

        Quite a phew from a Bedouin Dog/God return once again??

        The empty pews say a silent I am I.

  • 2
    0

    Mohammed was honest and acknowledged the special relationship of the Jewish people with G-d and the land He gave them:

    [Sura 5:20] Recall that Moses said to his people (the Jews), “O my people, remember GOD’s blessings upon you: He appointed prophets from among you, made you kings, and granted you what He never granted any other people.”

    [Sura 5:21] “O my people, enter the holy land (Israel) that GOD has decreed for you, and do not rebel, lest you become losers.”

    Later in the Koran, in order to make it clear and leave no doubts that the Jewish G-d had given ownership of the land to and set the mission of the Jews, Mohammed took additional time to repeat the writing of the Torah in Sura 7 about the Jews and Moses:

    [Sura 7:137] “We let the oppressed people inherit the land, east and west, and we blessed it. The blessed commands of your Lord were thus fulfilled for the Children of Israel, to reward them for their steadfastness, and we annihilated the works of Pharaoh and his people and everything they harvested.”

    [Sura 7:144] He said, “O Moses, I have chosen you (the Jews), out of all the people, with My messages and by speaking to you. Therefore, take what I have given you and be appreciative.”

  • 1
    0

    When it comes to foreign policy countries are guided – this includes forming and breaking alliances – not by principles, equity, fairness and the like – but purely on naself interest, closely followed by the political interest of those in power. This is what US, UK, Canada, Australia, Russia, China,India…you name it- are doing. Blaming Rajapaksa’s for the stand they take on this issue is futile. Whatever-side they take, there will be blamed – and even take adverse action against the country by some. Hence it becomes a balancing act. That is the reality. The solution lies in electing a political party that aligns with your expectations on this issue. I wish you luck.

  • 0
    0

    To accept the proposition that God promised Palestine to the Jews, you’d first of all have to believe in God. Then, you will also have to believe in a God who is selective in the way he makes promises to various races. Can anyone reasonably believe that God would be so discriminating between nations? I find that difficult to accept. We should also not overlook the fact that according to the Scriptures, God made a covenant with the Jewish people. A covenant is an agreement if you like, which imposes mutual obligations on the parties involved. So, if God did indeed promise the land to the Jews, as part of that covenant, such promise will have been on condition that the Jews were faithful to God by observing His commandments. And this, it can be argued, the Jews have failed to do.

    To me, the assertion of an alleged God given right for the Jews to occupy the territory they now occupy, is without logic and is unreasonable. In saying this, I am not necessarily saying that in this conflict, one party is guilty and not the other. All I wish to say is that this claim is untenable and anyway, is irrelevant to the current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians (or maybe, more precisely, between Israel and Hamas).

  • 0
    0

    I looked in the Titles and such but couldnt find any reference to this God character . My guess is he took some one elses identity . This sort of crime is very common.

    Cheers

    Abhaya

  • 0
    0

    Hameed I believe you referred to Professor Norman Finkelstein not Paul Finkelstein

  • 0
    0

    Hammed, I presume you referred to Professor Norman Finkelstein not Paul Finkelstein

  • 1
    0

    The Jews of course were promised a land that is Palestine. But not to change its name as Israel or chase the inhabitants out. The Jews were expected to live with the others peacefully. Palestine is the blessed land for Abraham’s(Ibrahim)sons, Ismail and Isaac and their descendants,the Arabs and and Jewish ( after all the name Jew/s does not represent ethnicity like Arabs- Arabs include Muslims, Christians and others including non-believers). Therefore the Jews misinterpret the scripture. The Westerners have created the so-called Israel for their own purpose,that is to say a precautionary measures to prevent another Ottoman Empire like domination in the region or elsewhere.

  • 0
    0

    Hameed Abdul Karim;

    God does not come into these earthly things. It all comes down to who is best organised, who has the weapons, and are they prepared to use them.

    The Israeli nation was forged in the white-hot heat of objection and resistance. They learned the hard way; and now they will NOT let anyone fuck with them. They will repay any threats and transgressions swiftly and surely. Regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

    And this is what they told MR he should do apropos his local problem.

  • 0
    0

    Abdul Karim is right. The Arabs are also descendants of Abraham So God did not promise Palestine exclusively for the Jews.Further God does not act through violence to keep his promises. The Palestinian Christians suffer as much as the Muslims in the hands of the Israelites.
    The Jews cannot take Palestine as their exclusive possession. The return of the Jews to Palestine is also linked to the acceptance of Jesus as the Son of God.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.