Did You Know?
Know the Real Terrorists!!
A few things you are not supposed to know about Israel:
· Did you know that Israel have killed more that 8 hundred Palestinian children in the past four years?
· Did you know that Israel has devastated about three hundred houses in just four years thus making thousands of Palestinians homeless?
· Did you know that 90 years ago the Arabs of Palestine owned 97.5% of the land, while Jews (native Palestinians and recent immigrants together) owned only 2.5% of the land? And that now the Jews own more than 80%?
· Did you know that Palestinians have the highest ratio of PhDs per capita in the world?
· Did you know that the former Prime Minister of the Zionist entity, Sharon, is on the list of war criminals for killing thousands of innocent Palestinians?
· Did you know that four prime ministers of Israel, Begin, Shamir, Rabin, and Sharon have taken part in either bomb attacks on civilians, massacres of civilians, or forced expulsions of civilians from their villages?
· Did you know Sharon was held responsible for the massacre of more than 2, 750 Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Chatila. The UN qualified the massacre by Sharon as GENOCIDE.
· Did you know Did you know Sharon's commando unit in 1953 razed the Palestinian village of Qibya killing all its citizens and bombed all the houses, mosque and schools.
· Did you know that non-Jewish Israelis cannot buy or lease land in the Zionist entity?
· Did you know that Palestinian license plates in Zionist entity are color coded to distinguish Jews from non-Jews?
· Did you know that Israel allots 85% of the water resources for Jews and the remaining 15% is divided among all Palestinians in the territories? For example in Hebron, 85% of the water is given to about 400 settlers, while 15% must be divided among Hebron's 120,000 Palestinians?
· Did you know the United States awards the Israel $5 billion in aid each year?
· Did you know that yearly US aid to Israel exceeds the aid the US grants to the whole African continent?
· Did you know that the Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?
· Did you know that the Israel is the only country in the Middle East that refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections from its sites?
· Did you know that Israel currently occupies territories of two sovereign nations (Lebanon and Syria) in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?
· Did you know that Israel has for decades routinely sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies?
· Did you know that high-ranking military officers in the Israeli Defense Forces have admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed by the IDF?
· Did you know that Israel refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?
· Did you know that Israel routinely confiscates bank accounts, businesses, and land and refuses to pay compensation to those who suffer the confiscation?
· Did you know that Israel blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship in international waters, killing 33 and wounding 177 American sailors?
· Did you know that the second most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders, is the Jewish AIPAC?
· Did you know that Israel stands in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council Resolutions?
· Did you know that today's Israel sits on the former sites of more than 400 now-vanished Palestinian villages, and that the Israeli’s re- named almost every physical site in the country to cover up the traces?
· Did you know that it was not until 1988 that Israelis were barred from running "Jews Only" job ads?
· Did you know that the Israeli Foreign Ministry pays two American public relations firms to promote Israel to Americans?
· Did you know that Sharon's coalition government includes a party -- Molodet -- which advocates expelling all Palestinians from the occupied territories?
· Did you know that Israel’s settlement-building increased in the eight years since Oslo?
· Did you know that settlement building under Barak doubled compared to settlement building under Netanyahu?
· Did you know that Israel once dedicated a postage stamp to a man who attacked a civilian Palestinian bus and killed several people?
· Did you know that recently declassified documents indicate that David Ben-Gurion approved of the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948?
· Did you know that torture by Shin Bet interrogators on Palestinian prisoners is more brutal than what happened in Abu Ghreeb in Iraq?
· Did you know that Palestinian refugees make up the largest portion of the refugee population in the world?
· And finally do you know who the real terrorist now is?

"Did you know Arabs lie about Jews all the time, and much of the above list falls into this category?"

Of course you did, but let's have a look at just one hilarious point in the above list:

"Did you know that Palestinians have the highest ratio of PhDs per capita in the world? "

Must be easy to get then...

With all those super-smart Palestinians, it still doesn't explain why there are a mere 12 Million Jews in the entire world yet they have received 169 Nobel Prizes. However, the Muslims number 1.4 BILLION or 117 times the number of Jews!

Based upon this 117:1 Muslim-to-Jewish ratio, one might expect the Muslims to have 22,260 Nobel Laureates. The Muslims however only have SEVEN!

Only seven. Of course One of them [Arafat] was a mass murderer.

So let's have a slow clap for all the PhD wielding Palestinians and hope they can use their easily acquired skills for something more useful than planning new and innovative ways to murder Jews...

error

This list is a load of crap.
A few things you are not supposed to know about Israel:

· Did you know that Israel have killed more that 8 hundred Palestinian children in the past four years?

Did you know that of the Palestinain "children" killed, over 80% were older teenage boys? Maybe the correct term is child soldiers. Maybe instead we should be asking why the PA is encouraging the use of child soldiers?


· Did you know that Israel has devastated about three hundred houses in just four years thus making thousands of Palestinians homeless?

Three hundred homes making thousands homeless.
Do you know that many of these homes were built illegally and without permits? Many of these homes were involved in terrorist and smuggling activities.

· Did you know that 90 years ago the Arabs of Palestine owned 97.5% of the land, while Jews (native Palestinians and recent immigrants together) owned only 2.5% of the land? And that now the Jews own more than 80%?

Forgetting about Jordan, huh? That a big hunk of the mandate. Forgetting that the Jewish returning to Israel BOUGHT the land?

I'm particularly curious about the PhD point- if Israel is really an apartheid state, how could the Palestinians have achieved this level of educational competance? Where are the colleges they are attending? Where is the money coming from? Arguments are made regularly on Indymedia about the "level of desperation" of the Palestinian people- if this statistic is true, it certainly diminishes the poor poor starving desperate Palestinian with no hope and no choice but to become a suicide bomber excuse we've been getting

I could go point by point over this bit of cut and paste propaganda, but I'd rather drink my coffee

"Did you know that 90 years ago the Arabs of Palestine owned 97.5% of the land"

No I didn't, 'cause it's a blatant lie. The local Arabs owned in fact about 3% of the land and the remainder besides the Jewish owned territory was "owned" by the Ottoman crown occupiers.

Well. we can always depend upon the zionist lobby to repuke the same propaganda that 'justifies' the invasion and colonization of Palestine.
Over and over again.
Like a parrot.

We can always count on rabid anti-Zionists to spout some of their tired lies whenever their spam gets outed.

Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home, as defined by the League of Nations, was severed by the British in 1921 and allocated to what became Transjordan. Jewish settlement there was barred. The UN partitioned the remaining 20-odd percent of Palestine into two states. With Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950, and Egypt’s control of Gaza, Arabs controlled more than 80 percent of the territory of the Mandate, while the Jewish State held a bare 17.5 percent.

From JVL

So 'Lord' Rothchild pressured 'Lord' Balfor to give Palestine to the zionists.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Too bad it wasn't his to give away.

This is from Ziff "The Rape of Palestine" (1938):

More from Ziff book:

"the Arabs should feel compelled to free themselves from the despotic and feudal regimes under which all the Arab people suffer. In Arab countries, there is little in the way of liberty. Poverty and ignorance are endemic"

"We should expect to find an exodus of Arabs from lands where Jews are settled. But exactly the opposite is true: it is precisely in the vicinity of those Jewish villages that Arab development is most marked. Arab Haifa, profiting from the Jewish boom grew from 1922 to 1936 by 130%, Jaffa by 80% and Jerusalem by 55%...In the vicinity of the Jewish villages Arab workers earn twice the wage paid in other parts of Palestine.

Once the poorest , sorriest population in this whole section of poverty stricken masses, the Arabs of Palestine are now the richest per capita of their race"


"Fully 75% of the area in Jewish hands morever has not known the plough for centuries. The northern colonies in Galilee were built on land rendered impossible for life since roman times because of marsh and endemic disease. Tel Aviv was erected on sand dunes which were considered without monetary value. The great granary, the valley of Jezreel, now nestling so trim and green in the shining sun, wa sso deserted and pestilential when Jews bought it that it was said any bird trying to cross it would fall dead in its flight."

Dr. W.E. Blackstone, quoting the foremost authorities on international law, pointed out in 1891 that since the Jews never gave up their title to Palestine, the general "law of dereliction" could not hold in in their case; "for they never abandoned the land. They made no treaty; they did not even surrender. They simply succumbed, after the most desperate conflict, to the overwhelming power of the Romans...and were captured or enslaved...Since then, having no sovereign nor political head through whom they could speak, they have disputed the possession of their land by continued protest through their literature and their public and private worship...
Blackstone quotes the outstanding leading legal luminaries of his day, who agree that the Jewish claim was legally, at least, sound that the Jewish claim is legally sound. He points out that according to the logical precedents established by such authorities as Buswell, Wheaton, Clifford, Phillimore and others, "the forcible manner by which Israel has been kept out of the land, with no means of redress, is equivalent in principle to a continued state of war..."
The greatest legal authorities have agreed that according to the foundation principles of international law there is no basis for prescription against Israel... therefore THE JEWS HAVE A VALID CLAIM ON PALESTINE AS LONG AS THERE IS A SINGLE ZIONIST ALIVE"

Read both texts.
Then tell me which one seems to ring true.
It's up to the curious reader.

Changing the subject wont bring them back to life.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/724811.html

7 Palestinian civilians killed when IDF shell hits Gaza beach

By Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents, Haaretz Service and Agencies

Seven Palestinians at a family picnic were killed Friday when an errant Israel Defense Forces artillery shell apparently slammed into a beach in the northern Gaza Strip. Some 40 others were wounded.

A woman and two young children, aged six months and 18 months, as well as a young teenager were among the dead, medical officials said. All of the dead were believed to be related. The IDF apologized for the incident, saying it "regretted the strike on innocents."

In the wake of the shelling, the military wing of the ruling Palestinian Hamas party said that it would renew suicide bombings in Israel, ending the truce that the group declared last year. "The earthquake in the Zionist towns will start again and the aggressors will have no choice but to prepare their coffins or their luggage," Hamas militants declared in a leaflet. "The resistance groups... will choose the proper place and time for the tough, strong and unique response." (Read the entire article at the above link)

BECKY: This tragic accident, which MAY have come from an Israeli missile (investigators have NOT ruled out a "work accident") was followed by the Israeli govt. expressing its deepest regrets, and by offering those injured rapid treatment at the superior Israeli hospitals.

Contrast this with the last Tel Aviv bombing which killed 5 and injured 50. The Palestinians danced in the street and named the suicide bombers "Martyrs for Jihad."

The reason the IDF was firing missiles on the beach was in an attempt to get those who WERE FIRING ROCKETS OVER THE BORDER INTO ISRAEL!!

None of this was mentioned in the lead article. Why not?

The Iron Wall is a revisonist document. The Rape of Palestine is a historical document, written BEFORE Israel became a state. Big difference.
Yes, dear reader. First read the REAL history. Then read the Propaganda.

Lying about the subject won't redeem anti-Zionists.

"The Zionists and Israelis have opened the gates of hell by assassinating Abu Samhadana. The Zionist entity and Zionist settlements near Gaza will not feel security and safety any more. Our rockets will rain into the Zionist entity and our heroes will blow themselves up among their dirty bodies." --- Abu Abir Beit Hanoun,Gaza June 9, 2006

BECKY" According to Haartz, "Abu Samhadana, who also headed the Hamas government's Interior Ministry security force in the Gaza Strip, was killed in an air strike on a Palestinian militants' training camp in Gaza. Abu Samhadana was a key player in rocket attacks on Israel and a suspect in the fatal 2003 bombing of a U.S. convoy in the Gaza Strip."

That 2003 bombing of a U.S. convoy killed people who were on a humanitarian mission to interview student candidates in Gaza for the Rhodes Scholarship program.

Israel has every right, under the written agreements it signed with the Palestinian Authority in 1993, to enter the territories and to capture or even kill known terrorists who are plotting more attacks on innocent Israeli civilians.

The PA has taken no such action, and instead, fete and laud such terrorists. In a situation where the PA is failing to arrest, detain, try, or punish known terrorists, then the IDF as the fallback position, is authorized by law to enter PA territories in order to stop or capture combatants.

Note the "dirty bodies" statement in the above quote. This is pure racism.

error

"-anti-Zionists: liars, thugs and murderers -"
Why must the zionists turn reality into their black is white aspect?
Because of the reality of the brutality. No rhyme intended.
Inversion of the facts on the ground is an essential part of the propaganda from 'Israel', the artificial and imposed by force construct.
The Pirate state.

How can you be sad when you delight in all those lies you and your buddy churn out that never stand up to scrutiny?
You might want to consider launching an Orwell Inversion non-profit.

FROM ABOVE LIST: "· Did you know that Palestinian license plates in Zionist entity are color coded to distinguish Jews from non-Jews?"

BECKY: FALSE!! The license plates are color-coded to show who is a CITIZEN OF ISRAEL and who is not. Israeli Arabs (20% of the population and Muslim) have Israeli plates too. Also, religion is NOT the determining factor. Citizenship is.

Finally, some Palestinians (especially cab drivers and others) can apply to a sticker which allows them to drive on Israeli-only roads. They must fill out a form, clear a security check, and be issued the sticker.

And I understand the average wait-time at the Kalandia checkpoint is 45 seconds.

They learned from their masters:

" . . . when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it." - Joseph Goebbels, 12 January 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel

The anti-zionists learned that tactic from their mentors and masters:

" . . . when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it." - Joseph Goebbels, 12 January 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel

This is Zionism.

What you posted really depicts Palestinism.

The collective punishment of innocent Palestinianis like when the Nazis unleashed the pogrom of Kristallnacht to avenge the murder of a single German by a single Jew.

Duh, slobber, duh.

How is the collective punishment of Palestinians and the collective punishment of of Jews any different?

So Nessie- do you agree with JA about collective punishment?

copied from: http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1724226_comment.php#1724408

add your comments
YO, AVRAM!
by JA Tuesday, Mar. 01, 2005 at 8:01 AM

Personally, I *EXULT* everytime I see an Israeli Jew bit the dust. And the same goes for their American cousins! EVERY SINGLE JEW EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD is a just and appropriate target for anti-colonialist liberation! We need to start targeting *EVERY* synagogue, *EVERY* Jew community center, school and everywhere else that you racist devils preach and propogate your agenda.

BOUT TO MEET YO MAKER, JEWBOY? HA, HA HA!!!!!!!!!!

How is your collective punishment of effectively branding 99.5% of American Jews racists for supporting Israel's existence in some form any different from David Duke's racism other than the 0.5% difference?

I'm not the least bit convinced that JA wrote that. All the other anti-Zionists on Indymedia have their names forged. Why not him?

>your collective punishment of effectively branding 99.5% of American Jews racists

I dodn't say that. Gehrig did. I say, hate all racists, no matter what their ethinicity. so Ineither know nor care how many of them are Jews. A racist is a racist is a racist. Whether they are jews or non jews is irrelevant.

Now answer *my* question:

How is the collective punishment of Palestinians and the collective punishment of of Jews any different?

"I dodn't say that. Gehrig did. I say, hate all racists, no matter what their ethinicity. so Ineither know nor care how many of them are Jews. A racist is a racist is a racist. Whether they are jews or non jews is irrelevant. "

You said it. All I'm asking is for you to come out and admit it.

(1.) No I didn't. In fact, I have questioned gehrig's figuures repeatedly.

(2.) What kind of people, when confronted with evidence of a war crim, try to divert your attention with an ad hominem?

(1.) Yes he did. In fact, he claims he has questioned gehrig's figures repeatedly.

(2.) What kind of person, when confronted with evidence that he's bullshitting, tries to divert your attention?

What kind of people, when confronted with evidence of war crimes, tries to divert your attention with gibberish, lies, forgeries and ad hominems?

I'm not the least bit convinced that JA wrote that. All the other anti-Zionists on Indymedia have their names forged. Why not him?

And the Zionists have had their names forged as well.
Follow the original thread. Was it all a "forgery"? Since JA was participating all along, why didn't he say something about the alleged forgery. And since JA monitors this and all Indymedia sites regularly, he'd say something if this were a forgery.

(1.) That's an unsubstantiated allegation.

(2.) Either way, it's irrelevant

(3.) Notice that they are still trying to change the subject, rather than answer the question:

How is the collective punishment of Palestinians and the collective punishment of of Jews any different?

What kind of people, when confronted with evidence of their malarky, try to divert your attention with gibberish, lies, forgeries, flame wars and ad hominems?

>And the Zionists

(1.) That's a substantiated allegation.

(2.) Either way, it's relevant.

(3.) Notice that he isstill trying to change the subject, rather than do justice for the evidence that JA hasn't distanced himself from the alleged forgery.

this bit:
Palestinians (especially cab drivers and others) can apply to a sticker which allows them to drive on Israeli-only roads.

I like the fact that the 'separate but equal' ( I would laugh except for the misery it creates ) Israeli state now means that the 'equal' which was not normally available, can now by petitioned for special purposes.
And taken away by a whim.
Like the building permits.
Like the homes and lives of any Palestinian.

You rather ignore that the Palestinians are at war with Israel and therefore they think safety precautions must be taken. Jewish lives lost to Palestnian aggressors who had traveled on the same roads to commit an atrocity mean nothing to you.

Yup, we really do need a racist report button, to filter out someone like you.

Or a least they don't want others to see it as it is.
Mr, 'goated 'Jew' has to invert reality making the * Palestinians* the aggressors and invaders when history shows the opposite is true.
So...
"Jewish lives lost to Palestnian aggressors" should read ( in view of the facts ) like this ...
Palestinian lives lost to Zionist aggression.
This little historical reality must be covered over with lies.

If you're really in the know, you should be able to back up your claim that their problem is a bug. Let's see the backup.

As soon as they're done with the work on the server, what happened will be self evident.

Even wonder why/how there happened to be loads of camera crews running on a regular beach at the very time a supposedly stray Israeli missile mistakenly hit it?
Cameras also running to a close up shot of a little girl screaming after her family was killed? Now the numbers of dead have ranged from 3-5-10 depending on which Palestinian source is quoted? That's pretty dam good luck to have a camera crew there waiting? Coincidental or staged? It's not the first time nor the last time as evidence has mounted in Europe and the US about the staged lie of Mohammed Al Durra's death in 2000 due to Israeli snipers... which ingnited the "spontaneous" Intifadah.

Hamas has been searching for a way to curb their own public's growing dislike of their rule - deal with the burgeoning Civil War with Fatah and start up the massive suicide campaign against Israel.

Gaza Beach Bombing: Another Pallywood Hoax?
Evidence is mounting that the explosion on a Gaza beach that killed an indeterminate number of Palestinians was not caused by Israel: Israel denies firing shell that killed Palestinians.
A top Israeli general says the country’s armed forces didn’t cause the explosion that killed eight Palestinians on Friday and ended the fragile ceasefire in the region.

Hamas, which leads the Palestinian Authority parliament, blamed the deaths on Tel Aviv as its military branch resumed attacks on Israel for the first time in 16 months.

But Israeli Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant said Sunday the military can prove it wasn’t Israeli fire that hit the beach in Gaza, killing eight people.

Galant, who commands Israel’s southern command, said Israel stopped firing 15 minutes before the explosion.

The Palestinian Authority has refused to cooperate with Israel’s investigation, and now the Jerusalem Post reports that Hamas has destroyed the evidence at the site of the explosion: Palestinians: Hamas cleared site of Gaza explosion.

WORLDWIDE MEDIA RUSH TO SLAM ISRAEL

Despite suggestions that a single artillery shell was responsible, the (British) Guardian claimed:
"a barrage of Israeli artillery shells rained down on a busy Gaza beach...",
While the (British) Independent, without waiting for confirmation or otherwise, attributed the incident to
"Israeli naval gunboats".
The possibility of a Qassam missile fired from Gaza itself has not yet been discounted and has been made more difficult to ascertain due to Palestinian refusals to cooperate with Israeli investigators.

Qassams (Palestinian Rockets) (coming from Gaza) have rained down on continuously on Sderot, Israel and other areas of the Negev, (Desert) striking (Israeli) residential buildings and schools, it is only due to immense luck that Israel has not already suffered multiple deaths and injuries as a result of such attacks. In the latest missile attacks, carried out by Hamas, an Israeli suffered critical injuries as a Qassam struck a school campus.

These attacks, despite their potential for mass casualties, are described by the BBC's Simon Wilson as "mainly symbolic".

Israel has also offered assistance to the Palestinians, including evacuating the wounded to Israeli hospitals, where a number are now being treated.

As Palestinians have continued to encourage or turn a blind eye to terrorist attacks and murders of Israeli civilians, while celebrating the culture of "martyrdom", Israel genuinely values human life and deeply regrets the deaths of Palestinian civilians.

NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE

When examining the circumstances behind the Gaza beach incident, it is worth looking at the wider context. An editorial in the Jerusalem Post excellently summarizes the Israeli situation:

Firstly, Israel, while confronting an enemy publicly committed to maximizing civilian fatalities, seeks relentlessly to minimize such casualties even as it defends itself. Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists deliberately aim to kill and maim civilians, both in disputed and purportedly non-disputed Israeli-controlled territory, and show little concern for any "collateral" damage such attacks may inflict on their own people. Israel, in absolute contrast, acts concertedly to thwart the terrorists, not to attack the civilians from whose residential areas the terror cells despicably operate.

Secondly, in times of war and conflict, accidents happen. Israel is properly investigating Friday's incident; it genuinely wants to understand what happened to ensure that, if the IDF was responsible, lessons are learned and appropriate preventative steps taken.

Thirdly, and of crucial importance in understanding our often bloody reality, it is a simple and undeniable fact, and one that should go without saying but evidently must be repeated, that Israel would have no interest in, nor any need to be firing artillery shells or any other weaponry into the Gaza Strip were (it not that) Israeli (towns and cities) were coming under incessant (rocket fire) from Gaza.

Qassams (Palestinian Rockets) (coming from Gaza) have rained down on continuously on Sderot, Israel and other areas of the Negev, (Desert) striking (Israeli) residential buildings and schools, it is only due to immense luck that Israel has not already suffered multiple deaths and injuries as a result of such attacks. In the latest missile attacks, carried out by Hamas, an Israeli suffered critical injuries as a Qassam struck a school campus.

These attacks, despite their potential for mass casualties, are described by the BBC's Simon Wilson as "mainly symbolic".

Israel has also offered assistance to the Palestinians, including evacuating the wounded to Israeli hospitals, where a number are now being treated.

As Palestinians have continued to encourage or turn a blind eye to terrorist attacks and murders of Israeli civilians, while celebrating the culture of "martyrdom", Israel genuinely values human life and deeply regrets the deaths of Palestinian civilians.

Only a fool takes Zionists at their word. Zionists are fundamentally dishonest people. Just look how they behave on Indymedia. The sign other people names every day. Sometimes it's blatant and obvious. Other times it's subtle and complex. But either way, a day doesn't go by without it. This is the Zionist mentality. They lie through their teeth as a matter of course. They have to, because the truth is not on their side. There is no honest defense of ethnic cleansing. So they lie and they forge. They also steal and kill. These are not nice people. They break the bones of little children for throwing stones. Would *you* want people like that for neighbors?

SO WHAT WRITES: "Zionists are fundamentally dishonest people....This is the Zionist mentality. They lie through their teeth as a matter of course.....There is no honest defense of ethnic cleansing. So they lie and they forge. They also steal and kill. These are not nice people. They break the bones of little children for throwing stones."

BECKY: At least he didn't say "the Jews" or people would think he/she is a racist. BTW --got any links for that bone-breaking thing? That is a new one.

>That is a new one.

It's new to Becky, maybe, but not to anyone who has been paying attention:

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2004/07/19/ben_cramer/index.html

(snip)

'Break their bones,' was the order to his troops from the sainted Yitzhak Rabin, during the first Intifada -- six years before he became Israel's martyr to peace

(snip)

* * * * *

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

(snip)

During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that ‘23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada.’ Nearly a third of them were aged ten or under. The response to the second intifada has been even more violent . . .

(snip)

* * * * *

http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/intifada-87-pal-isr-primer.html

(snip)

Under the leadership of Minister of Defense Yitzhak Rabin, Israel tried to smash the intifada with "force, power and blows." Army commanders instructed troops to break the bones of demonstrators.

(snip)

* * * * *

Video:

http://www.sphrconcordia.org/videos/breakingbones.wmv

(Don't watch if you're squeamish.)

Only a fool takes anti-Zionists at their word. Anti-Zionists are fundamentally dishonest people. Just look how they behave on Indymedia. The sign other people's names every day. Sometimes it's blatant and obvious. Other times it's subtle and complex. But either way, a day doesn't go by without it. This is the anti-Zionist mentality. They lie through their teeth as a matter of course. They have to, because the truth is not on their side. There is no honest defense of ethnic cleansing of Jews. So they lie and they forge. They also steal and kill. These are not nice people. They break the bones of little Jewish children for defying them. Would *you* want people like that for neighbors?

See:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/163282_comment.php#163391

Jerusalem

No link, no credibility.

You've made lots of frivolous claims with no URL backup, save for the occupation argument that you miserably failed to establish through the UNRWA link.

Mind you, so far your credibility is negative.

Shut your piehole and give us the link, or else be laughed at Zionist troll.

Intelligence officers of *all* countries are notorious liars.

Completely off topic, but I've heard there was another suicide bombing in Israel targetting tourists. Any details yet?

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/hamasterrorgazaisrael48770611.html

Israel New Agency Dot Com.

Imagine that.

The Al Jazeera of Israel.

May as well have cited the National Enquirer.

Guffaw.

The tourists are as guilty as the Zionist entity itself. They bring it money, which is then spent to oppress the other people of Palestine. There is blood on the hands of every tourist. A campaign that targeted tourists would be very effective, because it would dry up this lucrative revenue stream.

It was in al-Jazeera-rah-rah-rah where the fact that Yasser Arafat had embezzled more than $6 billion from aid funds destined to help the Palestinians was exposed. So I'd be careful to make that parallel even if I were anti-Zionist.
Oh, on second thought, I'm sane while you're quite far from sanity.

I recently attended a talk by Alison Weir, a local anti-Israeli speaker . She showed a photo from her trip to the West Bank of Palestinian children, and mentioned there were armed gunmen nearby, but that they prudently did not want to photographed. I asked if that indicated that the gunmen were using the children as human shields.

A friend of mine recently completed his service in the IDF. What he told me was that a mob of children and adults would pass around a single rifle from a rooftop or protected area- they would take turns shooting at Israelis. The Israelis couldn't ignore the assault- but the gun would change hands so rapidly, there was no one single assailent to target. If the Israelis fired on teh group, it would disperse, the gun vanishing with the mob. And anyone left bleeding on the ground would be an "unarmed civilian", perhaps even a "child"

I haven't seen anything in the newsflashes to indicate such a bombing has occurred.

No mention of the fact that these Zionist cite blatant Israeli propaganda to manufacture their bald faced lies that dead women and children picnicking on the beach were actually terrorist bomb makers.

No,its the other way. If the Palestinians are claiming that it was an Israeli shell that hit the beach,prove it. The Palestinians have been caught lying SO many times! Check out this link.

http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php

Say he's right. Say it wasn't our fault. Say we dismiss as irrelevant the fact that five IDF shells landed nearby at the same time, and that the trajectory of the sixth is unaccounted-for.

i bet someone assumed the recent train accident was a terrorist act...
thats how rumors get started.
Always good to investigate on your own before jumping to conclusions.
Good advice for all of us.

Palestinians: Hamas cleared site of Gaza explosion
Palestinians: Hamas cleared site of Gaza explosion
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 11, 2006
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572656052&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A Palestinian security source said Sunday that Hamas operatives had cleared
the debris from the explosion which killed seven Palestinian civilians on
Friday in order to frustrate the IDF's attempts to investigate the incident.

Defense Minister Amir Peretz set up an investigative committee, headed by
Maj.-General Meir Calify of the Ground Forces Command, and ordered that it
present its findings by Tuesday evening at latest.

Peretz also ordered a suspension of all artillery fire until the completion
of the investigation, Israel Radio reported.

So the Hammas came out to the beach and scraped up the bodies and rubble. I suppose they were just supposed to let the body parts and eviscerated carcuses remain scattered about the beach for a week or two until the world undeniably concedes that Israel murdered these people.

You Zionists are mentally disturbed.

That's third hand hearsay, from a biased source.

The zionist side of these stories is just so old and stale. Every time something like this happens, they resort to blaming Palestinians for killing their own people. They seem to think we're all so stupid that we'll believe that the Palestinians are just so incompetent that they routinely turn their guns and missiles on their own people. That's why the zionists have no credibility. They think we're all stupid.

We're thinking you're unadulturatedly evil and a revolting character that ignores the proof.

Seems like the evidence for your racism is mounting, what with concluding your post with "Zionists".

I guess it's not a race until it is a race. Can you classify the Jewish "race" for me so I can know to which group of people I am being racist against? I knew a Jewish boy in high school and he looked pretty white to me. I have darker skin than most of the Jews I've met during my lifetime, so I guess I must be racists against white people in general.

Get it straight Jews. Either you're a race or else you are not. Quit confusing people. Huddle up and get your stories straight! No wonder you Jews are losing the PR war. You're not as bright as you think you are.

For the record, in this forum Jew and Zionist are synonymous. Let's quit splitting hairs. No need to quibble over terms. On LA indymedia: Jew = Zionist

Sorry, Lunchbox. You are sounding like one of "those" anti-semites, now.
Unfortunately, the Palestinains have show a willing to sacrifice their own in their efforts to convince the world of their victimhood.
When you read Indymedia- do you see this?
Soemthing bad happens to Israel- they blame the Israels- black ops, they call it. Something bad happens to the Palestinians- they also blame the Israelis.

"All you Jews ever seem to have is innuendo."

Wow. And only a week ago, you were trying to position yourself as a dispassionate observer, and you turn out to be the kinda guy who can say "All you Jews ever seem to have is..." with a straight face.

@%<

"No wonder you Jews are losing the PR war. "

It just gets better, don't it.

@%<

"Unfortunately, the Palestinains have show a willing to sacrifice their own in their efforts to convince the world of their victimhood. When you read Indymedia- do you see this?"

No. Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't seen anyone that claims to be Palestinian posting comments around here. All I have seen are Zionists using ham fisted propaganda, lies, obfuscations, and infomercials in an effort to discredit the Palestinians and to garner empathy for themselves.

Why is it rude to use the word "Jew"? Someone please explain that. I am an American Indian, and I don't think it is rude to use the word "Indian". I've never met an African American who thought the word "black" was rude. Chinese people are chinese. Arabs are arabs. Why aren't Jews Jews?

It's as if the Jews think the word is above uttering allowed, like the name of G_d or something. They have to convince us that they're so oppressed that it's rude to call them exactly what they claim to be.

It just doesn't make any sense to me. But then again I'm not Jewish. Maybe they'll explain it.

Wasn't this about Israel? When did it become about all Jews? Isn't that revealing?

I'm not in the slightest bit ashamed to be a Jew. But -- like the member of any ethnicity -- I'm going defend my people when it's slandered.

Nobody is attacking you for using the word "Jew" in and of itself. You're being attacked be cause you're stereotyping the Jews with comments like "All you Jews ever seem to have is innuendo."

Can you see the difference? It's the difference between saying "He's an Indian" versus "All Indians are liars."

@%<

Why is it rude to use the word "Jew"? Someone please explain that. I am an American Indian, and I don't think it is rude to use the word "Indian".

If someone came up to you in a bar and said "Got change for a five, Indian?" what would your reaction be? Woould you go up to an African American and say, "Hey, black...I'm looking for directions to....?"

Its ok to speak of Jews- it's not ok to say "you Jews, hey, Jew....".

You know this. You are just playing dumb.

Point taken. I appoligize for being rude.

But in fairness, I was using the word interchangably with Zionist, because I haven't seen anyone here in this forum claiming to be a Zionist who did not also claim to be a Jew. So I didn't think it would offend anyone.

Plus, with the heap of scorn the Zionists in this forum are so quick to dump onto the rest of us, I thought you'd all have thicker skins.

But Gerhig, the innuendo comment stands. The pro-Zionist lot around here are masters at it, and that's all I've seen from them when it comes to debunking pro-Palestinian propaganda.

That's right, I said palestinian "propaganda" and it's no better than yours. I'm impartial, as I have stated many times. If I see something that I believe the "pali-nazis" have gotten wrong, believe me, I will call them on it as well.

I just haven't seen this around here. Yet.

"But Gerhig, the innuendo comment stands. The pro-Zionist lot around here"

If you mean to attack Zionists, say "Zionists." If you mean to attack Jews, say "Jews."

Couldn't be simpler.

@%<

"all I've seen from them [the pro-Zionist lot] when it comes to debunking pro-Palestinian propaganda. "

We've refuted a whole lot of it. You've just refused to notice. You've went within 12 hours from claiming you've become partial in favor of anti-Zionism to being impartial. You must believe everyone are idiots here. Make your bloody mind up. The onus is on you to prove you're really impartial.


" If I see something that I believe the "pali-nazis" have gotten wrong, believe me, I will call them on it as well."

How can that come to pass when you refuse to let the evidence to that effect confuse you? You've played a game whereby you distanced yourself from honestly dealing with most of the evidence you've been shown.

Scapegoat, do you really think I care what your opinions of me are? I'm not here trying to pass off any two bit propaganda as the honest to God truth. That's your ilk trying to do that. I'm not here with any agenda, again that's your lot.

As I've stated, I'm an impartial observer. I call 'em like I see 'em. So far you haven't scored any points with me. But I haven't given up on you yet.

Here's a hint: Try the truth for a change. I'm a sucker for the truth.

However, you spent your credit for coming across as impartial long ago. You'll have to work hard to gain it. I also notice that a non-Zionist (or so I think) has problems with your "impartiality" too. You dismiss Striker as well? Seems like you dismiss any user that leans on you because he or she sees through your BS.

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Hamas suspected of planting a daisy-chain bomb trap on Gaza beach to trap Israeli naval commandos

June 11, 2006, 10:43 PM (GMT+02:00)

Israeli leaders have ordered army commanders to put their counter-missile offensive on hold pending the findings of the military probe into the deaths of seven Palestinians, including children, on Gaza’s beach Friday, June 9. Cooperation between US, Israel, Palestinian Authority and Egyptian intelligence has yielded an initial impression that the blast that caused seven Paletinian deaths on a Gaza beach Friday, june 9, was caused by one of a series of bombs Hamas planted last week on the northern Gazan beach. They were put there as daisy chain traps in case Israeli commandos landed by sea to take Qassam missile launchers in northern Gaza by surprise. The theory gaining ground is that the Palestinian picnickers had the bad luck to detonate one of those bombs.

The day after the mishap, Saturday, dozens of people were sighted combing the scene of the blast and removing the bombs, according to information passed to Israel by Palestinian intelligence, which is engaged in a blood feud with Hamas

To explain this Palestinian helpfulness, DEBKAfile’s sources reveal how the close Abu Mazen associate Muhammed Dahlan was humiliated when he made the gesture of presenting his condolences for the killing of the new Hamas militia commander Jemal Semadhana last week at the official mourners’ tent. Instead of his courtesies being accepted, he was pitched out of the tent by Hamas and Semdhana’s Popular Resistance Committees’ musclemen. He was thus treated to the ultimate insult for a Muslim. Islamic canons enjoin even enemies to be treated with respect in a mourning period. Dahlan was so enraged that he ordered PA intelligence to assist Israeli in its probe to find out if a Hamas bomb rather than an Israeli artillery shell was the true culprit behind the death of the Palestinian family. As yet it is not yet clear how much information Dahlan will allow the Palestinian service to release on the episode.

http://debka.com/

If you mean to attack Jews, or any other ethnic group, don't do it on Indymedia.

"If you mean to attack Jews, or any other ethnic group, don't do it on Indymedia."

But he's already done that, nessie. But because he's an anti-Zionist, you must pretend you didn't notice.

@%<

Now you lie outright, gerhig. I didn't attack all Jews and you know it. I explained my rational for my use of the word Jew, and I even went as far as to apologize to those I may have offended.

How dare you lecture me about how I am stereotyping and offending Jews, and then turn around and slander me like that.

You're a lowlife, your Jewishness withstanding.

You did attack Jews in general, not only me. Your backpedaling was noticed and that's dandy, but you needn't recoil in horror at seeing that your vicious attack was mentioned to another poster and proceed to deny you ever did it.

But you never apologized to me for attacking my Jewishness personally, including joining your pal's repugnant riff intoning I'm not a Jew or a real Jew. You're a weak person, otherwise you would've apologized to me personally and wouldn't have made a mysogynist remark about BJ.

Now you're adding insult to the injury from before pretending gehrig just said you're stereotyping and offending Jews *now*. That's a blatant lie.

You're not scoring good points for your anti-Zionist cause.

LUNCHBOX WRITES: "Plus, with the heap of scorn the Zionists in this forum are so quick to dump onto the rest of us, I thought you'd all have thicker skins."

BECKY: So was that your excuse when you called me Miss Blow Job?

Jun. 13, 2006 0:30 | Updated Jun. 13, 2006 9:19
Report: Chances slim that IDF shell killed Gazans on beach
By JPOST.COM STAFF

The IDF probe investigating the deaths of seven Palestinian civilians, caused by an explosion on a beach in Gaza on Friday evening, concluded that chances were slim that the accident was caused by IDF shelling.

According to the findings, expected to be formally released on Tuesday, shrapnel taken from two wounded Palestinians who were evacuated to Israeli hospitals showed that the explosives were not made in Israel, IDF officials said.

Moreover, the investigation noted the absence of a large enough crater at the site of the explosion, as would be expected if an IDF shell had landed there.

The third observation casting doubt on the possibility that IDF shelling was the cause of the Palestinian deaths was that the IDF had accounted for five of the six shells that it fired in the area before the explosion and the shell that was unaccounted for was fired more than 10 minutes before the blast that killed the Palestinians.

On Saturday evening Gaza Division Commander Brig.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi insisted that the sites that were shelled by the IDF were the places from where Kassam rockets were launched. He noted those places were frequently targeted by the IDF, and were known to be dangerous places.

The leading theory currently entertained, suggested that an explosive charge, buried by Palestinians on the Gaza beach to prevent Israeli infiltration, was behind the explosion.

Throughout the whole investigation, army officials complained about the lack of Palestinian cooperation. Unconfirmed reports further suggested attempts by Palestinians to remove shrapnel from the bodies of the wounded, treated in Israeli hospitals, thus impeding the investigation.

The Palestinians originally claimed that the explosion was caused by Naval shelling, but that possibility, as well as the notion of an IAF assault was dismissed early in the investigation.

Shortly after the accident, the IDF, including the Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz, expressed regret at the deaths of the seven civilians, but claimed it was too early to conclude that the IDF was responsible.

A probe headed by Deputy Head of the IDF Ground Forces Command Maj.-Gen. Meir Kalifi was commissioned to investigate the incident.

AP contributed to this report

How do we know you've had a journalism career? How do we know you worked in a grocery store? How do we know you rode a motorcycle? How do we know you lived in Connecticut? How do we know you lived in NY? How do we know you live in SF? How do we know you lived in PA before supposedly moving to NY? How do we know you were injured in one or two road accidents? How do we know you were glasses and had metal pieces implanted in you? How do we know you bought a tree to be planted in Israel? How do we know you read Leon Uris' Exodus? How do we know you're a gentile? Hell... how do we know you're a human and not a bot?

How...? Because you say or said you are or have done these things? That proves nothing. This is the internet, so for all we know for certain, you aren't even human and those things never happened.

>The IDF probe . . . concluded that chances were slim that the accident was caused by IDF shelling.

Right, mom, and my hand isn't really in the cookie jar. You're hallucinating.

FROM: MIDEAST WEB

"From 1984, Rabin served as Defense Minister in the unity governments under Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Shamir. Rabin was responsible for the withdrawal from most of Lebanon, and was responsible for Israeli policy during the intifada. He is famously quoted as having said of the Palestinians "We will break their bones," but his wife, Leah Rabin, insisted in her bood "Rabin - Our life, His Legacy" that he never said it. Other versions claim that Rabin made the statement in order to encourage soldiers to refrain from shooting at stone-throwing Palestinians."

from: http://www.mideastweb.org/bio-rabin.htm

Biography -- Yitzhak Rabin

BECKY: Well, its not entirely clear if he said it or not. Of course that was in the '80's , about 20 years ago, and has never been the policy of the IDF.

I watched the video too. Its very grainy and does appear to show a brutal attack on a person who has already been taken into custody. I would call it brutality and excessive force. However, other than the super-imposed "Star of David" its impossible to tell who the perpetrators are and who the victim is. Do you have any more information on this incident? When did it occur? Who was the victim? Was a complaint filed? What happened to the complaint?

It is the stated and enforced policy of the IDF to minimize injuries or death to civilian populations. In 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled against the use of torture. (By contrast, the US just ruled against the use of torture earlier this year!!) If these soldiers (if indeed they ARE IDF soldiers!) committed these acts caught on videotape, they ought to be prosecuted and punished.

However I am not convinced it ever happened, or was not staged, or was of another group committing the violence and then blamed on the IDF.

We need more information.

LUNCHBOX WRITES: "I'm only interested in the truth."

BECKY: But LUNCHBOX believes on first glance any report which blames Israel for excessive force or brutality, while rejecting any other reports as "unreliable" because they were written by "Zionists."

Will LUNCHBOX come to see that the PA is already broadcasting on an endless loop the video of the shattered family on the beach edited with a video of an Israeli ship firing weapons at the shore from several hours BEFORE the incident? Will Lunchbox ever realize that this is PA propaganda at its worst?

Will LUNCHBOX ever consider that an IDF rocket hitting the beach would have left a pit from its impact, yet no such pit appears in the video?

Will LUNCHBOX also assume that the aerial photos that will be published later on showing NO IDF fire at the time of the explosion, are doctored?

Will LUNCHBOX discount the shrapnel removed from three of the victims treated at Israeli hospitals which is inconsistant with an IDF shell because the Israeli doctors are "Zionists?"

Will LUNCHBOX ignore reports of the Palestinians quickly removing evidence from the crime scene?

Will LUNCHBOX discount the failure of the victims to cooperate with the IDF, Egyptian, British, and PA investigators as inconsequential?

Will LUNCHBOX ignore that the time of the incident given in PA media conflicts with the actual records of when the explosion occurred?

Only interested in the truth? That's a LOT of evidence you have to discount or ignore, and a LOT of Arab propaganda you have to take at face value in order to keep thinking the worst of the IDF and Israel.

ON ANOTHER MATTER: Were my feelings hurt when you called me "Miss Blow Job?" Hmmmmmm. In my debate class, if you had done that, you would have been expelled.
It was crude, low, rude, crass, cheap, and hostile to all women, not just me.
I did not like it in the least. However, I think the stain of the remark remains with you--showing you to be the misogynist Jew-hater your short stint at LA IMC has shown you to be. This is just another example of your inabilty to debate on a level-playing field.

To believe her would be like taking Eva Braun's word about what Hitler said.

At least this Indymedia (a credit to the editors, I assume) is publicizing the investigation. Other indymedias are letting the lies stand.

It's not an investigation. It's an attempted coverup, one of a long line.

nessie is not the kind of person that any sane person tries to convince. At best, he's a foil. Fortunately, most of the world is *not* convinced.

Anti-Zionists have a track record of brutality and lies that stretches back many centuries. Whatever credibility they earned in the early 20th century, they squandered immediately upon squashing a third of the Jewish people in the Holocaust.

No one who has followed their lies and impersonations on Indymedia believes these people for even a second.

Shrapnel Palestinian doctors missed doesn't match artillery metal
Shrapnel Palestinian doctors missed doesn't match artillery metal

Dr. Aaron Lerner 12 June 2006

Walla http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//922629 reports that Israel Television
Channel Two military correspondent Ronnie Daniel broadcast tonight that
Israel succeeded in finding shrapnel in the body of a wounded Palestinian
who had been brought to Israel after being wounded in the Friday Gaza Beach
incident. Palestinian doctors attempted to remove all shrapnel before
transferring wounded to Israel but missed some.

According to Daniel, Israel found that the composition of the metal shrapnel
does not match the metal composition of Israeli artillery shells. Final
analysis of the metal has not been completed.

In addition, the crater on the beach does not have the characteristics of
craters formed by an artillery shell and the timing of the incident does not
coincide with the firing of Israeli artillery

Ryan: You should also learn that in the eyes of nature, and of natural law, women ~ARE~ inferior to men. I know this reality makes you hate men even more, but it was only bad luck on your behalf that you were born inferior.


Tia: Wow. Ryan. This is indeed telling.
I'd take you on, anyday. Face to face. Hand to Hand. Not because I think I'm stronger. Because I know I'm smarter.

"Let us put men and women together
See which one is smarter
Some say men, but I say no
Women run the men like a puppet show

It ain't me
It's the people that say
Men are leading the women astray
But I say, it's the women today
Smarter than the man in every way"


Becky- we need to get ourselves guns and learn to use them, if this is what we are up against out there.

PMW PA TV falsifies video of Gaza deaths
Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin - June 12, 2006

Contact details hereView this bulletin online here
PA TV falsifies video of Gaza deaths
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Contact Palestinian Media Watch:
p:+972 2 625 4140e: pmw@pmw.org.il
f: +972 2 624 2803w: www.pmw.org.il

Palestinian Authority TV has been repeatedly broadcasting a falsified video
clip of the events surrounding the deaths of seven family members on the
Gaza beach on Friday. In an attempt to blame Israel's navy for the deaths,
PA TV took unrelated video of an Israeli missile boat firing at Gaza earlier
in the day and edited them into the scenes, creating the impression Israeli
responsibility.

The following is the time frame of the PA TV editing and falsification:

00 - :32 Seconds: PATV clip introduces the scene by showing an Israeli
missile boat firing on the Gaza coast. Audio of ambulance siren is added to
visual to create false impression that boat was shooting at same time as
ambulances were present.

0:32 - 1:05: Scene switches directly to the victims, creating a false
connection between the events.

1:05 - 1:09: PA TV returns to the naval vessel showing sailor with
binoculars looking at shore, again creating the false impression he is
observing the evacuation.

1:09 - 2:00: The evacuation scene continues ending with the word "Why" on
the screen only in English, indicating a foreign target audience, possibly
media.

The video of the Israeli navy was unrelated to the deaths, having been
filmed earlier in the day and had already released to the media and to the
internet by the Israeli army at 4:00 PM, an hour prior to the deaths.

Click here to see the falsified PA TV broadcast of the evacuation
www.pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_Shooting2006.asx

Comment: It should be noted that not only is the video falsified, but the
beach scene clearly backs the Israeli contention that the deaths were not
caused by an Israeli shell. Any Israeli shell would have left a giant crater
and spread sand over the entire area, as well as on the victims. There is no
crater and the beach scene is not disturbed in a way that indicates an
Israeli shell could have landed nearby.
Please feel free to forward this bulletin, crediting Palestinian Media Watch

Not true. An airblast from a shell equipped with a proximity fuse would not "have left a giant crater "

>An airblast from a shell equipped with a proximity fuse would not "have left a giant crater

Israel didn't use a shell equipped with a proximity fuse would not "have left a giant crater.

That my post stating simply the fact that men are stronger than women, thus making women inferior, was hidden.

But Tia's comment that she would take me on hand to hand, which blatantly advocates the use of violence against me for making such a comment is allowed to stand.

How biased is that? This website must be run by a feminist!

Classic! My comments are being hidden like the Anne Frank!

out-to-lunch: "I didn't attack all Jews and you know it. "

You did ("All you Jews ever seem to have is innuendo"), were caught at it, and then backpedalled.

You then went on to misogyny.

Thanks for asking.

@%<

I don't have to explain myself to you Jews.

and most Native Americans are good people. But you happen to be racist Native American trash. Actually, lowlife filth. Which goosestepping outfit is financing your anti-Jewish and mysogynist trolling here? Neo-Nazi, White Power, or Vov de-Aztlan?

Once again they demonstrate what fundamentally dishonest people they are:


http://www.sfimc.net/news/2002/12/1555696_comment.php#1692248

(snip)

Sometimes they take something that an anti-Zionist has written, subtly alter it’s meaning by changing a few words, and post it under the name of the original author.

(snip)

* * * * *

Zionists love to sign other people's names. That's the kind of people they are, fundamentally dishonest. False flag ops are their specialty. We cannot help but wonder how many atrocities they have signed Osama bin Laden's name to, or Hamas' or the PLO's.

For more about "black propaganda," see:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1555696_comment.php#1711536

"Which goosestepping outfit is financing your anti-Jewish and mysogynist trolling here?"

I don't owe any explanations to likes of you Zionist filth.

Once again he demonstrates what fundamentally dishonest a person he is:


http://www.sfimc.net/news/2002/12/1555696_comment.php#1962248

(snip)

Sometimes he takes something that a Zionist has written, subtly alters its meaning by changing a few words, and posts it under the name of the original author.

(snip)

* * * * *

Anti-Zionists love to sign other people's names. That's the kind of people they are, fundamentally dishonest. False flag ops are their specialty. We cannot help but wonder how many atrocities they have signed Ehud Barak 's name to, or Irgun's or the Haganah's.

For more about "black propaganda," see:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1555696_comment.php#1711539

Why is Lunchbox taken at his word that he is "Native-American"? When I asked, he didn't answer as to tribe, language, tribal activities. I suspect that he's just another prejudiced cracker with a family legend of a mythical Native-American ancestor.

Does anyone care what the likes of Zionist filth think/feel/believe. No.

But I agree courtesy mandated that he grace the question about language and tribal activities with a fitting answer.

Maybe he knows no Native American language, has never been in meaningful personal touch with tribal activities as a member and is envious of Jews. That would go some way toward explaining his behavior on this forum.

People who do stuff like this can't be trusted to be telling the truth about anything.

Why is this racist crap on Indymedia?

"But I agree courtesy mandated that he grace the question about language and tribal activities with a fitting answer."

Zionist scum are not allotted any of the common courtesies civil people typically afford each other.

People who say stuff like this can't be trusted to be telling the truth about anything.

You did allot Tia the courtesy of revealing your name and regaled a few more details about your uncivil self.

"But Tia's comment that she would take me on hand to hand, which blatantly advocates the use of violence against me for making such a comment is allowed to stand."

You misunderstood. I'm a vegetarian, pacifist, escort the spiders outside type of girl. i don't advocate violence. But I don't advocate walking slowly, passively to my death either. I think smarts (strategy?) beat strength anyday. (And that, best beloved, is how Israel beat the combined Arab armies of 6 nations in 6 days in 1967)

"You did allot Tia the courtesy of revealing your name and regaled a few more details about your uncivil self."

Yes, I made the mistake of treating you like human beings and attempting to engage you civilly. I was grossly in error. That mistake I will not make again.

I now see why your ilk has been banned from Indybay and SF Indymedia. You don't deserve any forum to disseminate your agenda of hate.

The deterioration of discussion here is particularly depressing . If we can't maintain civil dialog thousands of miles away from the conflict, what hope is there for peace in the region, ever?

"And that, best beloved, is how Israel beat the combined Arab armies of 6 nations in 6 days in 1967"

Just a battle in the war, far from over.
Israel is losing.
Take it from an impartial observer.
Let's face it, hard times are in store for the USA.
The $6 Billion coattails will have to be cut.
How long will Israel last then?
I wonder if even 6 days.

"what hope is there for peace in the region, ever?"

Looks like none whatsoever as best as I can tell.

But then again, liars and thieves deserve neither peace nor security.

Basically, Indybay and SF-IMC are governed by self-anointed uebermensch lowlife Stalinist dictators who sanctify their rabid mouth frothed anti-Zionist insanity which they enforce with an iron fist. They're threatened by the slightest hint from news on the ground that refutes their lopsided racist worldview.

What you'd really likke to do after you muzzle up is to stamp us out of the world. You (plural) may succeed in the long run in the former given oil influence, but perish in any attempt to act on the latter. We'll take down many of you without using nukes.

"We'll take down many of you without using nukes."

The nazis had delusions of grandeur too. We saw how that turned out.

"...The $6 Billion coattails will have to be cut.
How long will Israel last then?
I wonder if even 6 days."

I'm not in a rush to discout all Israeli Jews as wussies who'll make every effort to hang onto US largese at any cost. There still exist people like Menahem Begin who proclaimed that given a similar situation, he'll "commute from one place of residence to the next and encourage my people to settle for only bread and margarine for food".

The point here is, acute crises get the best out of Zionist Jews.

I've got a little blue box on my window sill. Just like my parents did. Just like my grandparents did. Just like Jews all over the world do. In it go our pennies, nickels and dimes. And our pennies nickels and dimes are sent to Israel.
If the US government stops supporting Israel, the Jewish people of the world will take up the slack, as much as we can. With our pennies, and penses, with our nickels and lire.
And if Israel falls, we'll wait. We waited 2,000 years. We can wait another 2,000. We are a patient people.

I just attended a talk with Dr. Ruth- she had to stand on a box to reach the microphone- she is 4 foot 7- the size of a 10 year old. She was a fighter in the Haganah. Its not about size, Ryan. Its about heart.

You don't get that , do you?

"he'll "commute from one place of residence to the next and encourage my people to settle for only bread and margarine for food".

They'd deserve and get a lot more respect than they do now if they had the gonads and the spines to make good on that.

"The nazis had delusions of grandeur too. We saw how that turned out."

You're saying many Jews aren't capable of using guns to effectively fend off massive attacks in personal, paramilitary and military settings? If you believe that capability to be a delusion of grandeur, you're mistaken. But we already know which line of thought you came from-- all Jews are only untermenschen who can be stamped out easily with no resistance.

"Its not about size, Ryan. Its about heart."

Let's face it: It's not about size or heart.

It's about gall.

It's about selfishness.

It's about the unmitigated nerve to lie, cheat, steal, and kill as necessary to get your land.

Anyway, heavens forfend you should wish the Palestinian aristocracy, middle class and the oil producing Arab countries that have grown fat on the backs of the commons they had stolen from to settle for two bare food staples.

"You're saying many Jews aren't capable of using guns to effectively fend off massive attacks in personal, paramilitary and military settings?"

The nazis were paranoid too.

"The nazis were paranoid too."

Surely an Indianazi like you who knows no fear isn't afraid to reply to the point, are you? You needn't be civil to answer that.

"Surely an Indianazi like you who knows no fear isn't afraid to reply to the point, are you?"

The point is the Zionist and the Nazis are blood brothers. They're practically the same in all aspects.

Irony is a bitch. A stinging, wretched bitch.

Is Ryan quoting Nessie now? It seems to disturb these type of Jew haters that we didn't remain subservient, cowering Shet'l Jews.

Does the idea of armed Jews defending themselves shock you? It shocked the Nazis!

The Indianazi Ryan holds the Zionists and the Nazis to be blood brothers and practically identical in all aspects because I stated that many Jews would successfully fend off massive armed attacks by racist haters like himself. That's the typical fallback of a rabid antisemite when such an inconvenient fact is brought to their attention.

The conclusion here is that he's deeply troubled by the fact that a Jew can advise him that many Jews are capable of killing their attackers in self defense.

"The conclusion here is that he's deeply troubled by the fact that a Jew can advise him that many Jews are capable of killing their attackers in self defense."

I really have seen everything here today: Women wanting to engage men in hand to hand combat. Zionists claiming to be secular. Jews claiming they can defend themselves.

I tell you this is very entertaining indeed.

"They were slaves in Egypt. Then they were forced to wander aimlessly in the desert and worship false idols. Then they murdered Jesus Christ "

LOL... haven't you insisted these things are fictitious Biblical tales? You can't even get your position straight! (Anyway, the Christ canard is definitely historically invalid. Sorry to burst your bubble.)


"Jews are cursed people!"

Because of goosesteping uebermenschen like you that refuse to be confused by the entire picture.

>Does the idea of armed Jews defending themselves shock you?


They aren't "defending themselves." They are preying on their neighbors.

Actually, it is amazing just how much archaeology has confirmed the historic truth and accuracy of Torah. From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Western Wall, to the Moabite Stela, to Jericho etc.

that justifies racist aggression today.

"I'd really love to know more about this, and most certainly about your denial of the account of the massacre of Jesus Christ. "

(a.) One person cannot be massacred. Besides, your venerable Jesus was executed by the Romans. The various details in your NT don't mesh with what's known of Jewish legal practice at the time. For the whole explanation, see http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishviewofjesus/a/jesus_trial.htm and http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishviewofjesus/a/jesus_execute.htm

(b.) For the other stuff, make up your own facts. You're very adept at doing it.


"But I'm afraid I'm out of time today. "

More like out of smarts.


"Although, I never implied that the books of the New Testament are fiction"

Newsflash: the NT isn't within the Jewish canon and the fictional component in it probably outnumbers the fictional part of the Hebrew Bible.

nessie just accused *the Jews* of preying on their neighbors. The anti-Zionist figleaf slipped bigtime. nessie is racist to the core. Dialogue with racists is immoral. Throw nessie out.

The IDF is innocent," was the bottom line that came out of a press conference Tuesday night, during which Defense Minister Amir Peretz, Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz and other top officers presented the findings of an internal military investigation into Friday's explosion that killed seven Palestinians as they picnicked on a Gaza beach.

In a press conference at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv, Peretz told reporters that following an extensive three-day investigation the IDF had collected sufficient evidence to prove that Friday's explosion was not caused by Israel. The evidence was being presented first and foremost to the Israeli people, Peretz emphasized, saying, "We owe it to ourselves to know that we did not cause these deaths."

"We have sufficient evidence which confirms our suspicion that the attempts to portray this incident as caused by Israel were wrong," Peretz said. "I know it is difficult to explain this, but the facts that have accumulated prove that Israel was not behind the incident."

In contrast to daily Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel, Peretz added, the IDF made great efforts to avoid harming innocent Palestinians. "In all IDF operations one of the issues that is taken into consideration and sometimes adds risk to ourselves is the need to not cause harm to innocent civilians," the defense minister said.

Halutz said that, while the IDF expressed regret immediately following the incident, it did not mean to take upon itself responsibility for the explosion. Referring to Tuesday's missile strike on an Islamic Jihad terror cell in Gaza that killed eight innocent Palestinians, Halutz stressed that the rocket cells operated from within densely populated areas.

"We will not let them get away with their attacks and the [responsibility] for the price the Palestinians are paying lies on the shoulders of the Palestinian Authority and the other groups that should be doing everything possible to prevent these events from occurring," Halutz said.

Peretz also expressed regret for the harm caused to innocent civilians in Tuesday's missile strike. But, he said, "all the organizations attacking us are trying to hurt our civilians. They act from within population centers while knowing that they are endangering the population."

"The bottom line," Halutz said, "is that we are very sad that innocent people were killed due to an explosion that happened on the seashore of the Gaza Strip but it has no connection to Israeli military activity that happened that same day."

Presenting the technical findings was Deputy Head of the IDF Ground Forces Command Maj.-Gen. Meir Klifi, who headed up the investigation into the incident on Friday. Standing in front of an array of maps and movie screens, Klifi showed aerial photographs of IDF attacks on northern Gaza that day while presenting the time line of events that led to the deadly explosion on the beach.

An analysis of the location of the incident together with its timing - between 16:57 and 17:10 - Klifi said, proved that Israel could not have been behind the explosion since neither the Air Force, the Navy nor artillery cannons were in action at the time.

One IAF strike on the Gaza Strip that day, he said, occurred 2.5 kilometers from the scene of the explosion and two other strikes took place hours earlier. Ruling out Navy fire, Klifi said that "every 76-mm. shell fired from the navy boats can be accounted for since they all hit their targets successfully." In fact, Klifi said, "the ones that fell closest to the location of the incident were fired four hours earlier."Artillery shelling, he added, could also not have been responsible for the explosion. A piece of shrapnel taken from one of the wounded being treated in an Israeli hospital and cross-checked with 155-mm. Shells used by the IDF proved that the explosion was not caused by Israeli artillery fire. "The fragment taken out of the wounded showed absolutely that it is not connected to any [type of] Israeli ammunition used that day," Halutz said.

The army, Klifi said, has also accounted for five of the six shells that were fired in the area Friday evening before the beach explosion.

None of them exploded nearby, he said, adding that the one shell that was not accounted for was fired before the five others and more than 10 minutes before the blast.

Peretz and Halutz did show signs of disagreement after they were both asked separately if they would be willing to allow an international third party to inspect the shrapnel sample taken from one of the wounded. Peretz said he would consider the possibility but later, after he had already left the briefing, Halutz was asked the same question by the foreign press and said he was confident with the IDF's internal probe and that there was no reason to cast doubt in its professionalism.

In Gaza, Human Rights Watch military expert Marc Garlasco inspected the shrapnel at the scene and saw the wounded. He concluded that the blast was caused by an Israeli shell. However, he held open the slim possibility that it was planted there by Palestinian militants, though fragment patterns did not back that.

"Our information certainly supports, I believe, an Israeli shell did come in and kill these people," he said, ruling out a land mine. Garlasco was the first independent expert to inspect the scene. Palestinians also rejected the possibility that their own explosives caused the fatal blast.

"This is a false allegation, and the Israeli occupation state is trying to escape from shouldering its responsibility by accusing Palestinians without evidence or any proof," said Ghazi Hamad, a spokesman for the Hamas-led Palestinian government.

"The eyewitnesses and the evidence that we have confirm that the massacre is the result of Israeli shelling, and the allegation about land mines planted by Palestinians is baseless," he said.

AP contributed to this report.

There seems to be no limit to their Nazi-like willingness to go to every length and beyond to win a PR bonanza. Shouldn't this Palestinian propaganda ruse be recorded in the Guinness Book of Records?

Anyone think sheepdog and ryan are one and the same?

Where is Sheepdog anyway? We've never seen the two at the same time have we?

Sheepdog and Ryan can't be the same -- for a number of reasons..

But on the topic itself, the anti-Zionists have fallen sylent and are gnashing their teeth until the next opportunity presents itself to launch another diatribe.

I said no such thing. Really, scroll up and read for yourselves.

They're putting words into my mouth again. They do this a lot, and not just to me.

Yet nessie accused *armed Jews* of preying on their neighbors. That's almost as bad. It's still extremely racist. It paints all armed Jews with the same broad brush. Dialogue is not an appropriate reaction to racists. Throw nessie out.

"Yet nessie accused *armed Jews* of preying on their neighbors. That's almost as bad. It's still extremely racist. It paints all armed Jews with the same broad brush. Dialogue is not an appropriate reaction to racists. Throw nessie out."

Again. How can it possibly be racists if Jews are not a race? I really don't get that.

It's just noise. They're trying to smother a discussion again. They do this a lot.

It's just noise. He's lying and trying to smother the discussion again. He does this a lot.

and more noise. We must have hit another nerve.

Wheres the appology? Now that it sems estalished that it was a Hamas land mine, shouldn't there be a retraction, perhaps a condemnation of the use of land mines or will this persist as another Pallywood myth?

It is now clear that Israel was not responsible for the killing of the Palestinian family on the beach in Gaza last weekend. Shrapnel removed from the wounded Palestinians turned out not to be Israeli ordinance; there was no blast crater of the kind that would have been expected following a shell landing, while the evidence at the scene suggested instead a mine exploding from below; and all the shells fired from the Israeli gunboat had been fired significantly earlier than the disaster on the beach. This was the incident, remember, that Hamas used as an excuse for its announcement that the "truce" with Israel was now over.

Meanwhile, more than 100 missiles have been fired at Israeli towns from Gaza since the weekend. The Palestinians are using their own people as human shields by firing from densely populated areas, thus making it impossible for Israel to take out these firing sites without civilian casualties. The bombardment of Israel, however, has been all but ignored by the main stream media. The same media eagerly regurgitates Palestinian lies and libels to demonize Israel. No country on earth would be expected to put up with such a bombardment of its citizens.

I've been following the tragic story of the "Farm" on LA IMC. It reminds me very much of what happened in Berkeley a few years back, with our "People's Park"- its still a park, thank you!

There is a sign one of the posters is carrying "The land belongs to those who work it" Maybe we can add this as yet another reason why Israel has the "right" to its ancient homeland.

"The land belongs to those who work it"

The British Consul in Palestine reported in 1857 that

"The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population.... "

In the 1860s, it was reported that "depopulation is even now advancing." At the same time, H. B. Tristram noted in his journal that
"The north and south [of the Sharon plain] land is going out of cultivation and whole villages are rapidly disappearing from the face of the earth."

Mark Twain, in his inimitable fashion, expressed scom for what he called the "romantic" and "prejudiced" accounts of Palestine after he visited the Holy Land in 1867. In one location after another, Twain registered gloom at his findings.
"Stirring scenes ... occur in the valley [Jezreel] no more. There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent-not for thirty miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings."

The land only began flourishing after the return of the Jews.
The land belongs to those who work it.
Reason #5.

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God espies or discovers a land for a people, as in Ezek. 20:6: "He brought them into a land that He had espied for them." And, that is, when either He gives them to discover it themselves, or hears of it discovered by others, and fitting them. Second, after He hath espied it, when He carrieth them along to it, so that they plainly see a providence of God leading them from one country to another, as in Ex. 19.-4; "You have seen how I have borne you as on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" So that though they met with many difficulties, yet He carried them high above them all, like an eagle, flying over seas and rocks, and all hindrances.

Third, when He makes room for a people to dwell there, as in Ps. 80:9: "Thou preparedst room for them. . ."

Now, God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2- "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Achpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .

This may teach us all, where we now dwell or where after we may dwell: Be sure you look at every place appointed to you from the hand of God. We may not rush into any place and never say to God, "By Your leave." But we must discern how God appoints us this place. There is poor comfort in sitting down in any place that you cannot say, "This place is appointed me of God." Canst thou say that God spied out this place for thee, and there hath settled thee above all hindrances? Didst thou find that God made room for the either by lawful descent, or purchase, or gift, or other warrantable right? Why, then, this is the place God hath appointed thee; here He hath made room for thee, He hath placed thee in Rehoboth, in a peaceable place. This we must discern or else we are but intruders upon God. And when we do withal discern that God giveth us these out- ward blessings from His love in Christ, and maketh comfortable provision as well for our soul as for our bodies by the means of grace, then do we enjoy our present possession as well by gracious promise as by the common, and just, and bountiful providence of the Lord. Or, if a man do remove, he must see that God hath espied out such a country for him. . .

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removal?

Answ. There be four or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Second, there be some evil things, for avoiding of any of which we may transplant ourselves. Third, if withal we find some special providence of God concurring in either of both concerning ourselves, and applying general grounds of removal to our personal estate.

First, we may remove for the gaining of knowledge. . .

Second, some remove and travail for merchandise and gainsake: "Daily bread may be sought from afar" (Prov. 31:14). . .

Third, to plant a colony, that is, a company that agree together to remove out of their own country, and settle a city or commonwealth elsewhere. Of such a colony, we read in Acts 16:12, which God blessed and prospered exceedingly, and made it a glorious church. . .

Fourth, God alloweth a man to remove when he may employ his talents and gift better elsewhere, especially when where he is, he is not bound by any special engagement. . .

Fifth, for the liberty of the ordinances. . . This case was of seasonable use to our fathers in the days of Queen Mary, who removed to France and Germany in the beginning of her reign, upon proclamation of alteration of religion, before any persecution began. . . . There be evils to be avoided that may warrant removal: First, when some grievous sins overspread a country that threaten desolation. . . . Second, if men be overburdened with debts and miseries. . . Third, in case of persecution. . .As these general cases, where any of them do fall out, do warrant removal in general; so there be some special providences or particular cases which may give warrant unto such or such a person to transplant himself, and which apply the former general grounds to particular persons; hat threaten desolation. . . Second, if be overburdened with debts and misery . . .Third, in case of persecution . . .As these general cases, where any em do fall out, do warrant removal in ml; so there be some special provinces or particular cases which may give 'ant unto such or such a person to plant himself, and which apply the for general grounds to particular persons; first, if sovereign authority command and encourage such plantations by giving way to subjects to transplant themselves and set up a new commonwealth. This is a lawful and expedient case for such particular persons as be designed and sent; Matt. 8:9: "And for such as they who are sent have power to command." Second, when some special providence of God leads a man unto such a course.

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God espies or discovers a land for a people, as in Ezek. 20:6: "He brought them into a land that He had espied for them." And, that is, when either He gives them to discover it themselves, or hears of it discovered by others, and fitting them. Second, after He hath espied it, when He carrieth them along to it, so that they plainly see a providence of God leading them from one country to another, as in Ex. 19.-4; "You have seen how I have borne you as on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" So that though they met with many difficulties, yet He carried them high above them all, like an eagle, flying over seas and rocks, and all hindrances.

Third, when He makes room for a people to dwell there, as in Ps. 80:9: "Thou preparedst room for them. . ."

Now, God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2- "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Achpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .

This may teach us all, where we now dwell or where after we may dwell: Be sure you look at every place appointed to you from the hand of God. We may not rush into any place and never say to God, "By Your leave." But we must discern how God appoints us this place. There is poor comfort in sitting down in any place that you cannot say, "This place is appointed me of God." Canst thou say that God spied out this place for thee, and there hath settled thee above all hindrances? Didst thou find that God made room for the either by lawful descent, or purchase, or gift, or other warrantable right? Why, then, this is the place God hath appointed thee; here He hath made room for thee, He hath placed thee in Rehoboth, in a peaceable place. This we must discern or else we are but intruders upon God. And when we do withal discern that God giveth us these out- ward blessings from His love in Christ, and maketh comfortable provision as well for our soul as for our bodies by the means of grace, then do we enjoy our present possession as well by gracious promise as by the common, and just, and bountiful providence of the Lord. Or, if a man do remove, he must see that God hath espied out such a country for him. . .

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removal?

Answ. There be four or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Second, there be some evil things, for avoiding of any of which we may transplant ourselves. Third, if withal we find some special providence of God concurring in either of both concerning ourselves, and applying general grounds of removal to our personal estate.

First, we may remove for the gaining of knowledge. . .

Second, some remove and travail for merchandise and gainsake: "Daily bread may be sought from afar" (Prov. 31:14). . .

Third, to plant a colony, that is, a company that agree together to remove out of their own country, and settle a city or commonwealth elsewhere. Of such a colony, we read in Acts 16:12, which God blessed and prospered exceedingly, and made it a glorious church. . .

Fourth, God alloweth a man to remove when he may employ his talents and gift better elsewhere, especially when where he is, he is not bound by any special engagement. . .

Fifth, for the liberty of the ordinances. . . This case was of seasonable use to our fathers in the days of Queen Mary, who removed to France and Germany in the beginning of her reign, upon proclamation of alteration of religion, before any persecution began. . . . There be evils to be avoided that may warrant removal: First, when some grievous sins overspread a country that threaten desolation. . . . Second, if men be overburdened with debts and miseries. . . Third, in case of persecution. . .As these general cases, where any of them do fall out, do warrant removal in general; so there be some special providences or particular cases which may give warrant unto such or such a person to transplant himself, and which apply the former general grounds to particular persons; hat threaten desolation. . . Second, if be overburdened with debts and misery . . .Third, in case of persecution . . .As these general cases, where any em do fall out, do warrant removal in ml; so there be some special provinces or particular cases which may give 'ant unto such or such a person to plant himself, and which apply the for general grounds to particular persons; first, if sovereign authority command and encourage such plantations by giving way to subjects to transplant themselves and set up a new commonwealth. This is a lawful and expedient case for such particular persons as be designed and sent; Matt. 8:9: "And for such as they who are sent have power to command." Second, when some special providence of God leads a man unto such a course.

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God espies or discovers a land for a people, as in Ezek. 20:6: "He brought them into a land that He had espied for them." And, that is, when either He gives them to discover it themselves, or hears of it discovered by others, and fitting them. Second, after He hath espied it, when He carrieth them along to it, so that they plainly see a providence of God leading them from one country to another, as in Ex. 19.-4; "You have seen how I have borne you as on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" So that though they met with many difficulties, yet He carried them high above them all, like an eagle, flying over seas and rocks, and all hindrances.

Third, when He makes room for a people to dwell there, as in Ps. 80:9: "Thou preparedst room for them. . ."

Now, God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2- "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Achpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .

This may teach us all, where we now dwell or where after we may dwell: Be sure you look at every place appointed to you from the hand of God. We may not rush into any place and never say to God, "By Your leave." But we must discern how God appoints us this place. There is poor comfort in sitting down in any place that you cannot say, "This place is appointed me of God." Canst thou say that God spied out this place for thee, and there hath settled thee above all hindrances? Didst thou find that God made room for the either by lawful descent, or purchase, or gift, or other warrantable right? Why, then, this is the place God hath appointed thee; here He hath made room for thee, He hath placed thee in Rehoboth, in a peaceable place. This we must discern or else we are but intruders upon God. And when we do withal discern that God giveth us these out- ward blessings from His love in Christ, and maketh comfortable provision as well for our soul as for our bodies by the means of grace, then do we enjoy our present possession as well by gracious promise as by the common, and just, and bountiful providence of the Lord. Or, if a man do remove, he must see that God hath espied out such a country for him. . .

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removal?

Answ. There be four or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Second, there be some evil things, for avoiding of any of which we may transplant ourselves. Third, if withal we find some special providence of God concurring in either of both concerning ourselves, and applying general grounds of removal to our personal estate.

First, we may remove for the gaining of knowledge. . .

Second, some remove and travail for merchandise and gainsake: "Daily bread may be sought from afar" (Prov. 31:14). . .

Third, to plant a colony, that is, a company that agree together to remove out of their own country, and settle a city or commonwealth elsewhere. Of such a colony, we read in Acts 16:12, which God blessed and prospered exceedingly, and made it a glorious church. . .

Fourth, God alloweth a man to remove when he may employ his talents and gift better elsewhere, especially when where he is, he is not bound by any special engagement. . .

Fifth, for the liberty of the ordinances. . . This case was of seasonable use to our fathers in the days of Queen Mary, who removed to France and Germany in the beginning of her reign, upon proclamation of alteration of religion, before any persecution began. . . . There be evils to be avoided that may warrant removal: First, when some grievous sins overspread a country that threaten desolation. . . . Second, if men be overburdened with debts and miseries. . . Third, in case of persecution. . .As these general cases, where any of them do fall out, do warrant removal in general; so there be some special providences or particular cases which may give warrant unto such or such a person to transplant himself, and which apply the former general grounds to particular persons; hat threaten desolation. . . Second, if be overburdened with debts and misery . . .Third, in case of persecution . . .As these general cases, where any em do fall out, do warrant removal in ml; so there be some special provinces or particular cases which may give 'ant unto such or such a person to plant himself, and which apply the for general grounds to particular persons; first, if sovereign authority command and encourage such plantations by giving way to subjects to transplant themselves and set up a new commonwealth. This is a lawful and expedient case for such particular persons as be designed and sent; Matt. 8:9: "And for such as they who are sent have power to command." Second, when some special providence of God leads a man unto such a course.

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God espies or discovers a land for a people, as in Ezek. 20:6: "He brought them into a land that He had espied for them." And, that is, when either He gives them to discover it themselves, or hears of it discovered by others, and fitting them. Second, after He hath espied it, when He carrieth them along to it, so that they plainly see a providence of God leading them from one country to another, as in Ex. 19.-4; "You have seen how I have borne you as on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" So that though they met with many difficulties, yet He carried them high above them all, like an eagle, flying over seas and rocks, and all hindrances.

Third, when He makes room for a people to dwell there, as in Ps. 80:9: "Thou preparedst room for them. . ."

Now, God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2- "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Achpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .

This may teach us all, where we now dwell or where after we may dwell: Be sure you look at every place appointed to you from the hand of God. We may not rush into any place and never say to God, "By Your leave." But we must discern how God appoints us this place. There is poor comfort in sitting down in any place that you cannot say, "This place is appointed me of God." Canst thou say that God spied out this place for thee, and there hath settled thee above all hindrances? Didst thou find that God made room for the either by lawful descent, or purchase, or gift, or other warrantable right? Why, then, this is the place God hath appointed thee; here He hath made room for thee, He hath placed thee in Rehoboth, in a peaceable place. This we must discern or else we are but intruders upon God. And when we do withal discern that God giveth us these out- ward blessings from His love in Christ, and maketh comfortable provision as well for our soul as for our bodies by the means of grace, then do we enjoy our present possession as well by gracious promise as by the common, and just, and bountiful providence of the Lord. Or, if a man do remove, he must see that God hath espied out such a country for him. . .

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removal?

Answ. There be four or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Second, there be some evil things, for avoiding of any of which we may transplant ourselves. Third, if withal we find some special providence of God concurring in either of both concerning ourselves, and applying general grounds of removal to our personal estate.

First, we may remove for the gaining of knowledge. . .

Second, some remove and travail for merchandise and gainsake: "Daily bread may be sought from afar" (Prov. 31:14). . .

Third, to plant a colony, that is, a company that agree together to remove out of their own country, and settle a city or commonwealth elsewhere. Of such a colony, we read in Acts 16:12, which God blessed and prospered exceedingly, and made it a glorious church. . .

Fourth, God alloweth a man to remove when he may employ his talents and gift better elsewhere, especially when where he is, he is not bound by any special engagement. . .

Fifth, for the liberty of the ordinances. . . This case was of seasonable use to our fathers in the days of Queen Mary, who removed to France and Germany in the beginning of her reign, upon proclamation of alteration of religion, before any persecution began. . . . There be evils to be avoided that may warrant removal: First, when some grievous sins overspread a country that threaten desolation. . . . Second, if men be overburdened with debts and miseries. . . Third, in case of persecution. . .As these general cases, where any of them do fall out, do warrant removal in general; so there be some special providences or particular cases which may give warrant unto such or such a person to transplant himself, and which apply the former general grounds to particular persons; hat threaten desolation. . . Second, if be overburdened with debts and misery . . .Third, in case of persecution . . .As these general cases, where any em do fall out, do warrant removal in ml; so there be some special provinces or particular cases which may give 'ant unto such or such a person to plant himself, and which apply the for general grounds to particular persons; first, if sovereign authority command and encourage such plantations by giving way to subjects to transplant themselves and set up a new commonwealth. This is a lawful and expedient case for such particular persons as be designed and sent; Matt. 8:9: "And for such as they who are sent have power to command." Second, when some special providence of God leads a man unto such a course.

Spammer is back

See:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/164379_comment.php

read the other thread. Its mealy mouthed , inconclusive and appears tainted. Just more Pallywood

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God espies or discovers a land for a people, as in Ezek. 20:6: "He brought them into a land that He had espied for them." And, that is, when either He gives them to discover it themselves, or hears of it discovered by others, and fitting them. Second, after He hath espied it, when He carrieth them along to it, so that they plainly see a providence of God leading them from one country to another, as in Ex. 19.-4; "You have seen how I have borne you as on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" So that though they met with many difficulties, yet He carried them high above them all, like an eagle, flying over seas and rocks, and all hindrances.

Third, when He makes room for a people to dwell there, as in Ps. 80:9: "Thou preparedst room for them. . ."

Now, God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2- "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Achpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .

This may teach us all, where we now dwell or where after we may dwell: Be sure you look at every place appointed to you from the hand of God. We may not rush into any place and never say to God, "By Your leave." But we must discern how God appoints us this place. There is poor comfort in sitting down in any place that you cannot say, "This place is appointed me of God." Canst thou say that God spied out this place for thee, and there hath settled thee above all hindrances? Didst thou find that God made room for the either by lawful descent, or purchase, or gift, or other warrantable right? Why, then, this is the place God hath appointed thee; here He hath made room for thee, He hath placed thee in Rehoboth, in a peaceable place. This we must discern or else we are but intruders upon God. And when we do withal discern that God giveth us these out- ward blessings from His love in Christ, and maketh comfortable provision as well for our soul as for our bodies by the means of grace, then do we enjoy our present possession as well by gracious promise as by the common, and just, and bountiful providence of the Lord. Or, if a man do remove, he must see that God hath espied out such a country for him. . .

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removal?

Answ. There be four or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Second, there be some evil things, for avoiding of any of which we may transplant ourselves. Third, if withal we find some special providence of God concurring in either of both concerning ourselves, and applying general grounds of removal to our personal estate.

First, we may remove for the gaining of knowledge. . .

Second, some remove and travail for merchandise and gainsake: "Daily bread may be sought from afar" (Prov. 31:14). . .

Third, to plant a colony, that is, a company that agree together to remove out of their own country, and settle a city or commonwealth elsewhere. Of such a colony, we read in Acts 16:12, which God blessed and prospered exceedingly, and made it a glorious church. . .

Fourth, God alloweth a man to remove when he may employ his talents and gift better elsewhere, especially when where he is, he is not bound by any special engagement. . .

Fifth, for the liberty of the ordinances. . . This case was of seasonable use to our fathers in the days of Queen Mary, who removed to France and Germany in the beginning of her reign, upon proclamation of alteration of religion, before any persecution began. . . . There be evils to be avoided that may warrant removal: First, when some grievous sins overspread a country that threaten desolation. . . . Second, if men be overburdened with debts and miseries. . . Third, in case of persecution. . .As these general cases, where any of them do fall out, do warrant removal in general; so there be some special providences or particular cases which may give warrant unto such or such a person to transplant himself, and which apply the former general grounds to particular persons; hat threaten desolation. . . Second, if be overburdened with debts and misery . . .Third, in case of persecution . . .As these general cases, where any em do fall out, do warrant removal in ml; so there be some special provinces or particular cases which may give 'ant unto such or such a person to plant himself, and which apply the for general grounds to particular persons; first, if sovereign authority command and encourage such plantations by giving way to subjects to transplant themselves and set up a new commonwealth. This is a lawful and expedient case for such particular persons as be designed and sent; Matt. 8:9: "And for such as they who are sent have power to command." Second, when some special providence of God leads a man unto such a course.

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God espies or discovers a land for a people, as in Ezek. 20:6: "He brought them into a land that He had espied for them." And, that is, when either He gives them to discover it themselves, or hears of it discovered by others, and fitting them. Second, after He hath espied it, when He carrieth them along to it, so that they plainly see a providence of God leading them from one country to another, as in Ex. 19.-4; "You have seen how I have borne you as on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" So that though they met with many difficulties, yet He carried them high above them all, like an eagle, flying over seas and rocks, and all hindrances.

Third, when He makes room for a people to dwell there, as in Ps. 80:9: "Thou preparedst room for them. . ."

Now, God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2- "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Achpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .

This may teach us all, where we now dwell or where after we may dwell: Be sure you look at every place appointed to you from the hand of God. We may not rush into any place and never say to God, "By Your leave." But we must discern how God appoints us this place. There is poor comfort in sitting down in any place that you cannot say, "This place is appointed me of God." Canst thou say that God spied out this place for thee, and there hath settled thee above all hindrances? Didst thou find that God made room for the either by lawful descent, or purchase, or gift, or other warrantable right? Why, then, this is the place God hath appointed thee; here He hath made room for thee, He hath placed thee in Rehoboth, in a peaceable place. This we must discern or else we are but intruders upon God. And when we do withal discern that God giveth us these out- ward blessings from His love in Christ, and maketh comfortable provision as well for our soul as for our bodies by the means of grace, then do we enjoy our present possession as well by gracious promise as by the common, and just, and bountiful providence of the Lord. Or, if a man do remove, he must see that God hath espied out such a country for him. . .

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removal?

Answ. There be four or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Second, there be some evil things, for avoiding of any of which we may transplant ourselves. Third, if withal we find some special providence of God concurring in either of both concerning ourselves, and applying general grounds of removal to our personal estate.

First, we may remove for the gaining of knowledge. . .

Second, some remove and travail for merchandise and gainsake: "Daily bread may be sought from afar" (Prov. 31:14). . .

Third, to plant a colony, that is, a company that agree together to remove out of their own country, and settle a city or commonwealth elsewhere. Of such a colony, we read in Acts 16:12, which God blessed and prospered exceedingly, and made it a glorious church. . .

Fourth, God alloweth a man to remove when he may employ his talents and gift better elsewhere, especially when where he is, he is not bound by any special engagement. . .

Fifth, for the liberty of the ordinances. . . This case was of seasonable use to our fathers in the days of Queen Mary, who removed to France and Germany in the beginning of her reign, upon proclamation of alteration of religion, before any persecution began. . . . There be evils to be avoided that may warrant removal: First, when some grievous sins overspread a country that threaten desolation. . . . Second, if men be overburdened with debts and miseries. . . Third, in case of persecution. . .As these general cases, where any of them do fall out, do warrant removal in general; so there be some special providences or particular cases which may give warrant unto such or such a person to transplant himself, and which apply the former general grounds to particular persons; hat threaten desolation. . . Second, if be overburdened with debts and misery . . .Third, in case of persecution . . .As these general cases, where any em do fall out, do warrant removal in ml; so there be some special provinces or particular cases which may give 'ant unto such or such a person to plant himself, and which apply the for general grounds to particular persons; first, if sovereign authority command and encourage such plantations by giving way to subjects to transplant themselves and set up a new commonwealth. This is a lawful and expedient case for such particular persons as be designed and sent; Matt. 8:9: "And for such as they who are sent have power to command." Second, when some special providence of God leads a man unto such a course.

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God espies or discovers a land for a people, as in Ezek. 20:6: "He brought them into a land that He had espied for them." And, that is, when either He gives them to discover it themselves, or hears of it discovered by others, and fitting them. Second, after He hath espied it, when He carrieth them along to it, so that they plainly see a providence of God leading them from one country to another, as in Ex. 19.-4; "You have seen how I have borne you as on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" So that though they met with many difficulties, yet He carried them high above them all, like an eagle, flying over seas and rocks, and all hindrances.

Third, when He makes room for a people to dwell there, as in Ps. 80:9: "Thou preparedst room for them. . ."

Now, God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2- "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Achpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .

This may teach us all, where we now dwell or where after we may dwell: Be sure you look at every place appointed to you from the hand of God. We may not rush into any place and never say to God, "By Your leave." But we must discern how God appoints us this place. There is poor comfort in sitting down in any place that you cannot say, "This place is appointed me of God." Canst thou say that God spied out this place for thee, and there hath settled thee above all hindrances? Didst thou find that God made room for the either by lawful descent, or purchase, or gift, or other warrantable right? Why, then, this is the place God hath appointed thee; here He hath made room for thee, He hath placed thee in Rehoboth, in a peaceable place. This we must discern or else we are but intruders upon God. And when we do withal discern that God giveth us these out- ward blessings from His love in Christ, and maketh comfortable provision as well for our soul as for our bodies by the means of grace, then do we enjoy our present possession as well by gracious promise as by the common, and just, and bountiful providence of the Lord. Or, if a man do remove, he must see that God hath espied out such a country for him. . .

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removal?

Answ. There be four or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Second, there be some evil things, for avoiding of any of which we may transplant ourselves. Third, if withal we find some special providence of God concurring in either of both concerning ourselves, and applying general grounds of removal to our personal estate.

First, we may remove for the gaining of knowledge. . .

Second, some remove and travail for merchandise and gainsake: "Daily bread may be sought from afar" (Prov. 31:14). . .

Third, to plant a colony, that is, a company that agree together to remove out of their own country, and settle a city or commonwealth elsewhere. Of such a colony, we read in Acts 16:12, which God blessed and prospered exceedingly, and made it a glorious church. . .

Fourth, God alloweth a man to remove when he may employ his talents and gift better elsewhere, especially when where he is, he is not bound by any special engagement. . .

Fifth, for the liberty of the ordinances. . . This case was of seasonable use to our fathers in the days of Queen Mary, who removed to France and Germany in the beginning of her reign, upon proclamation of alteration of religion, before any persecution began. . . . There be evils to be avoided that may warrant removal: First, when some grievous sins overspread a country that threaten desolation. . . . Second, if men be overburdened with debts and miseries. . . Third, in case of persecution. . .As these general cases, where any of them do fall out, do warrant removal in general; so there be some special providences or particular cases which may give warrant unto such or such a person to transplant himself, and which apply the former general grounds to particular persons; hat threaten desolation. . . Second, if be overburdened with debts and misery . . .Third, in case of persecution . . .As these general cases, where any em do fall out, do warrant removal in ml; so there be some special provinces or particular cases which may give 'ant unto such or such a person to plant himself, and which apply the for general grounds to particular persons; first, if sovereign authority command and encourage such plantations by giving way to subjects to transplant themselves and set up a new commonwealth. This is a lawful and expedient case for such particular persons as be designed and sent; Matt. 8:9: "And for such as they who are sent have power to command." Second, when some special providence of God leads a man unto such a course.

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God espies or discovers a land for a people, as in Ezek. 20:6: "He brought them into a land that He had espied for them." And, that is, when either He gives them to discover it themselves, or hears of it discovered by others, and fitting them. Second, after He hath espied it, when He carrieth them along to it, so that they plainly see a providence of God leading them from one country to another, as in Ex. 19.-4; "You have seen how I have borne you as on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" So that though they met with many difficulties, yet He carried them high above them all, like an eagle, flying over seas and rocks, and all hindrances.

Third, when He makes room for a people to dwell there, as in Ps. 80:9: "Thou preparedst room for them. . ."

Now, God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2- "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Achpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .

This may teach us all, where we now dwell or where after we may dwell: Be sure you look at every place appointed to you from the hand of God. We may not rush into any place and never say to God, "By Your leave." But we must discern how God appoints us this place. There is poor comfort in sitting down in any place that you cannot say, "This place is appointed me of God." Canst thou say that God spied out this place for thee, and there hath settled thee above all hindrances? Didst thou find that God made room for the either by lawful descent, or purchase, or gift, or other warrantable right? Why, then, this is the place God hath appointed thee; here He hath made room for thee, He hath placed thee in Rehoboth, in a peaceable place. This we must discern or else we are but intruders upon God. And when we do withal discern that God giveth us these out- ward blessings from His love in Christ, and maketh comfortable provision as well for our soul as for our bodies by the means of grace, then do we enjoy our present possession as well by gracious promise as by the common, and just, and bountiful providence of the Lord. Or, if a man do remove, he must see that God hath espied out such a country for him. . .

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removal?

Answ. There be four or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Second, there be some evil things, for avoiding of any of which we may transplant ourselves. Third, if withal we find some special providence of God concurring in either of both concerning ourselves, and applying general grounds of removal to our personal estate.

First, we may remove for the gaining of knowledge. . .

Second, some remove and travail for merchandise and gainsake: "Daily bread may be sought from afar" (Prov. 31:14). . .

Third, to plant a colony, that is, a company that agree together to remove out of their own country, and settle a city or commonwealth elsewhere. Of such a colony, we read in Acts 16:12, which God blessed and prospered exceedingly, and made it a glorious church. . .

Fourth, God alloweth a man to remove when he may employ his talents and gift better elsewhere, especially when where he is, he is not bound by any special engagement. . .

Fifth, for the liberty of the ordinances. . . This case was of seasonable use to our fathers in the days of Queen Mary, who removed to France and Germany in the beginning of her reign, upon proclamation of alteration of religion, before any persecution began. . . . There be evils to be avoided that may warrant removal: First, when some grievous sins overspread a country that threaten desolation. . . . Second, if men be overburdened with debts and miseries. . . Third, in case of persecution. . .As these general cases, where any of them do fall out, do warrant removal in general; so there be some special providences or particular cases which may give warrant unto such or such a person to transplant himself, and which apply the former general grounds to particular persons; hat threaten desolation. . . Second, if be overburdened with debts and misery . . .Third, in case of persecution . . .As these general cases, where any em do fall out, do warrant removal in ml; so there be some special provinces or particular cases which may give 'ant unto such or such a person to plant himself, and which apply the for general grounds to particular persons; first, if sovereign authority command and encourage such plantations by giving way to subjects to transplant themselves and set up a new commonwealth. This is a lawful and expedient case for such particular persons as be designed and sent; Matt. 8:9: "And for such as they who are sent have power to command." Second, when some special providence of God leads a man unto such a course.

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God espies or discovers a land for a people, as in Ezek. 20:6: "He brought them into a land that He had espied for them." And, that is, when either He gives them to discover it themselves, or hears of it discovered by others, and fitting them. Second, after He hath espied it, when He carrieth them along to it, so that they plainly see a providence of God leading them from one country to another, as in Ex. 19.-4; "You have seen how I have borne you as on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" So that though they met with many difficulties, yet He carried them high above them all, like an eagle, flying over seas and rocks, and all hindrances.

Third, when He makes room for a people to dwell there, as in Ps. 80:9: "Thou preparedst room for them. . ."

Now, God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2- "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Achpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .

This may teach us all, where we now dwell or where after we may dwell: Be sure you look at every place appointed to you from the hand of God. We may not rush into any place and never say to God, "By Your leave." But we must discern how God appoints us this place. There is poor comfort in sitting down in any place that you cannot say, "This place is appointed me of God." Canst thou say that God spied out this place for thee, and there hath settled thee above all hindrances? Didst thou find that God made room for the either by lawful descent, or purchase, or gift, or other warrantable right? Why, then, this is the place God hath appointed thee; here He hath made room for thee, He hath placed thee in Rehoboth, in a peaceable place. This we must discern or else we are but intruders upon God. And when we do withal discern that God giveth us these out- ward blessings from His love in Christ, and maketh comfortable provision as well for our soul as for our bodies by the means of grace, then do we enjoy our present possession as well by gracious promise as by the common, and just, and bountiful providence of the Lord. Or, if a man do remove, he must see that God hath espied out such a country for him. . .

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removal?

Answ. There be four or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Second, there be some evil things, for avoiding of any of which we may transplant ourselves. Third, if withal we find some special providence of God concurring in either of both concerning ourselves, and applying general grounds of removal to our personal estate.

First, we may remove for the gaining of knowledge. . .

Second, some remove and travail for merchandise and gainsake: "Daily bread may be sought from afar" (Prov. 31:14). . .

Third, to plant a colony, that is, a company that agree together to remove out of their own country, and settle a city or commonwealth elsewhere. Of such a colony, we read in Acts 16:12, which God blessed and prospered exceedingly, and made it a glorious church. . .

Fourth, God alloweth a man to remove when he may employ his talents and gift better elsewhere, especially when where he is, he is not bound by any special engagement. . .

Fifth, for the liberty of the ordinances. . . This case was of seasonable use to our fathers in the days of Queen Mary, who removed to France and Germany in the beginning of her reign, upon proclamation of alteration of religion, before any persecution began. . . . There be evils to be avoided that may warrant removal: First, when some grievous sins overspread a country that threaten desolation. . . . Second, if men be overburdened with debts and miseries. . . Third, in case of persecution. . .As these general cases, where any of them do fall out, do warrant removal in general; so there be some special providences or particular cases which may give warrant unto such or such a person to transplant himself, and which apply the former general grounds to particular persons; hat threaten desolation. . . Second, if be overburdened with debts and misery . . .Third, in case of persecution . . .As these general cases, where any em do fall out, do warrant removal in ml; so there be some special provinces or particular cases which may give 'ant unto such or such a person to plant himself, and which apply the for general grounds to particular persons; first, if sovereign authority command and encourage such plantations by giving way to subjects to transplant themselves and set up a new commonwealth. This is a lawful and expedient case for such particular persons as be designed and sent; Matt. 8:9: "And for such as they who are sent have power to command." Second, when some special providence of God leads a man unto such a course.

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God espies or discovers a land for a people, as in Ezek. 20:6: "He brought them into a land that He had espied for them." And, that is, when either He gives them to discover it themselves, or hears of it discovered by others, and fitting them. Second, after He hath espied it, when He carrieth them along to it, so that they plainly see a providence of God leading them from one country to another, as in Ex. 19.-4; "You have seen how I have borne you as on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" So that though they met with many difficulties, yet He carried them high above them all, like an eagle, flying over seas and rocks, and all hindrances.

Third, when He makes room for a people to dwell there, as in Ps. 80:9: "Thou preparedst room for them. . ."

Now, God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2- "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Achpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .

This may teach us all, where we now dwell or where after we may dwell: Be sure you look at every place appointed to you from the hand of God. We may not rush into any place and never say to God, "By Your leave." But we must discern how God appoints us this place. There is poor comfort in sitting down in any place that you cannot say, "This place is appointed me of God." Canst thou say that God spied out this place for thee, and there hath settled thee above all hindrances? Didst thou find that God made room for the either by lawful descent, or purchase, or gift, or other warrantable right? Why, then, this is the place God hath appointed thee; here He hath made room for thee, He hath placed thee in Rehoboth, in a peaceable place. This we must discern or else we are but intruders upon God. And when we do withal discern that God giveth us these out- ward blessings from His love in Christ, and maketh comfortable provision as well for our soul as for our bodies by the means of grace, then do we enjoy our present possession as well by gracious promise as by the common, and just, and bountiful providence of the Lord. Or, if a man do remove, he must see that God hath espied out such a country for him. . .

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removal?

Answ. There be four or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Second, there be some evil things, for avoiding of any of which we may transplant ourselves. Third, if withal we find some special providence of God concurring in either of both concerning ourselves, and applying general grounds of removal to our personal estate.

First, we may remove for the gaining of knowledge. . .

Second, some remove and travail for merchandise and gainsake: "Daily bread may be sought from afar" (Prov. 31:14). . .

Third, to plant a colony, that is, a company that agree together to remove out of their own country, and settle a city or commonwealth elsewhere. Of such a colony, we read in Acts 16:12, which God blessed and prospered exceedingly, and made it a glorious church. . .

Fourth, God alloweth a man to remove when he may employ his talents and gift better elsewhere, especially when where he is, he is not bound by any special engagement. . .

Fifth, for the liberty of the ordinances. . . This case was of seasonable use to our fathers in the days of Queen Mary, who removed to France and Germany in the beginning of her reign, upon proclamation of alteration of religion, before any persecution began. . . . There be evils to be avoided that may warrant removal: First, when some grievous sins overspread a country that threaten desolation. . . . Second, if men be overburdened with debts and miseries. . . Third, in case of persecution. . .As these general cases, where any of them do fall out, do warrant removal in general; so there be some special providences or particular cases which may give warrant unto such or such a person to transplant himself, and which apply the former general grounds to particular persons; hat threaten desolation. . . Second, if be overburdened with debts and misery . . .Third, in case of persecution . . .As these general cases, where any em do fall out, do warrant removal in ml; so there be some special provinces or particular cases which may give 'ant unto such or such a person to plant himself, and which apply the for general grounds to particular persons; first, if sovereign authority command and encourage such plantations by giving way to subjects to transplant themselves and set up a new commonwealth. This is a lawful and expedient case for such particular persons as be designed and sent; Matt. 8:9: "And for such as they who are sent have power to command." Second, when some special providence of God leads a man unto such a course.

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God espies or discovers a land for a people, as in Ezek. 20:6: "He brought them into a land that He had espied for them." And, that is, when either He gives them to discover it themselves, or hears of it discovered by others, and fitting them. Second, after He hath espied it, when He carrieth them along to it, so that they plainly see a providence of God leading them from one country to another, as in Ex. 19.-4; "You have seen how I have borne you as on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" So that though they met with many difficulties, yet He carried them high above them all, like an eagle, flying over seas and rocks, and all hindrances.

Third, when He makes room for a people to dwell there, as in Ps. 80:9: "Thou preparedst room for them. . ."

Now, God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2- "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Achpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .

This may teach us all, where we now dwell or where after we may dwell: Be sure you look at every place appointed to you from the hand of God. We may not rush into any place and never say to God, "By Your leave." But we must discern how God appoints us this place. There is poor comfort in sitting down in any place that you cannot say, "This place is appointed me of God." Canst thou say that God spied out this place for thee, and there hath settled thee above all hindrances? Didst thou find that God made room for the either by lawful descent, or purchase, or gift, or other warrantable right? Why, then, this is the place God hath appointed thee; here He hath made room for thee, He hath placed thee in Rehoboth, in a peaceable place. This we must discern or else we are but intruders upon God. And when we do withal discern that God giveth us these out- ward blessings from His love in Christ, and maketh comfortable provision as well for our soul as for our bodies by the means of grace, then do we enjoy our present possession as well by gracious promise as by the common, and just, and bountiful providence of the Lord. Or, if a man do remove, he must see that God hath espied out such a country for him. . .

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removal?

Answ. There be four or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Second, there be some evil things, for avoiding of any of which we may transplant ourselves. Third, if withal we find some special providence of God concurring in either of both concerning ourselves, and applying general grounds of removal to our personal estate.

First, we may remove for the gaining of knowledge. . .

Second, some remove and travail for merchandise and gainsake: "Daily bread may be sought from afar" (Prov. 31:14). . .

Third, to plant a colony, that is, a company that agree together to remove out of their own country, and settle a city or commonwealth elsewhere. Of such a colony, we read in Acts 16:12, which God blessed and prospered exceedingly, and made it a glorious church. . .

Fourth, God alloweth a man to remove when he may employ his talents and gift better elsewhere, especially when where he is, he is not bound by any special engagement. . .

Fifth, for the liberty of the ordinances. . . This case was of seasonable use to our fathers in the days of Queen Mary, who removed to France and Germany in the beginning of her reign, upon proclamation of alteration of religion, before any persecution began. . . . There be evils to be avoided that may warrant removal: First, when some grievous sins overspread a country that threaten desolation. . . . Second, if men be overburdened with debts and miseries. . . Third, in case of persecution. . .As these general cases, where any of them do fall out, do warrant removal in general; so there be some special providences or particular cases which may give warrant unto such or such a person to transplant himself, and which apply the former general grounds to particular persons; hat threaten desolation. . . Second, if be overburdened with debts and misery . . .Third, in case of persecution . . .As these general cases, where any em do fall out, do warrant removal in ml; so there be some special provinces or particular cases which may give 'ant unto such or such a person to plant himself, and which apply the for general grounds to particular persons; first, if sovereign authority command and encourage such plantations by giving way to subjects to transplant themselves and set up a new commonwealth. This is a lawful and expedient case for such particular persons as be designed and sent; Matt. 8:9: "And for such as they who are sent have power to command." Second, when some special providence of God leads a man unto such a course.

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God espies or discovers a land for a people, as in Ezek. 20:6: "He brought them into a land that He had espied for them." And, that is, when either He gives them to discover it themselves, or hears of it discovered by others, and fitting them. Second, after He hath espied it, when He carrieth them along to it, so that they plainly see a providence of God leading them from one country to another, as in Ex. 19.-4; "You have seen how I have borne you as on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" So that though they met with many difficulties, yet He carried them high above them all, like an eagle, flying over seas and rocks, and all hindrances.

Third, when He makes room for a people to dwell there, as in Ps. 80:9: "Thou preparedst room for them. . ."

Now, God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2- "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Achpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .

This may teach us all, where we now dwell or where after we may dwell: Be sure you look at every place appointed to you from the hand of God. We may not rush into any place and never say to God, "By Your leave." But we must discern how God appoints us this place. There is poor comfort in sitting down in any place that you cannot say, "This place is appointed me of God." Canst thou say that God spied out this place for thee, and there hath settled thee above all hindrances? Didst thou find that God made room for the either by lawful descent, or purchase, or gift, or other warrantable right? Why, then, this is the place God hath appointed thee; here He hath made room for thee, He hath placed thee in Rehoboth, in a peaceable place. This we must discern or else we are but intruders upon God. And when we do withal discern that God giveth us these out- ward blessings from His love in Christ, and maketh comfortable provision as well for our soul as for our bodies by the means of grace, then do we enjoy our present possession as well by gracious promise as by the common, and just, and bountiful providence of the Lord. Or, if a man do remove, he must see that God hath espied out such a country for him. . .

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removal?

Answ. There be four or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Second, there be some evil things, for avoiding of any of which we may transplant ourselves. Third, if withal we find some special providence of God concurring in either of both concerning ourselves, and applying general grounds of removal to our personal estate.

First, we may remove for the gaining of knowledge. . .

Second, some remove and travail for merchandise and gainsake: "Daily bread may be sought from afar" (Prov. 31:14). . .

Third, to plant a colony, that is, a company that agree together to remove out of their own country, and settle a city or commonwealth elsewhere. Of such a colony, we read in Acts 16:12, which God blessed and prospered exceedingly, and made it a glorious church. . .

Fourth, God alloweth a man to remove when he may employ his talents and gift better elsewhere, especially when where he is, he is not bound by any special engagement. . .

Fifth, for the liberty of the ordinances. . . This case was of seasonable use to our fathers in the days of Queen Mary, who removed to France and Germany in the beginning of her reign, upon proclamation of alteration of religion, before any persecution began. . . . There be evils to be avoided that may warrant removal: First, when some grievous sins overspread a country that threaten desolation. . . . Second, if men be overburdened with debts and miseries. . . Third, in case of persecution. . .As these general cases, where any of them do fall out, do warrant removal in general; so there be some special providences or particular cases which may give warrant unto such or such a person to transplant himself, and which apply the former general grounds to particular persons; hat threaten desolation. . . Second, if be overburdened with debts and misery . . .Third, in case of persecution . . .As these general cases, where any em do fall out, do warrant removal in ml; so there be some special provinces or particular cases which may give 'ant unto such or such a person to plant himself, and which apply the for general grounds to particular persons; first, if sovereign authority command and encourage such plantations by giving way to subjects to transplant themselves and set up a new commonwealth. This is a lawful and expedient case for such particular persons as be designed and sent; Matt. 8:9: "And for such as they who are sent have power to command." Second, when some special providence of God leads a man unto such a course.

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God espies or discovers a land for a people, as in Ezek. 20:6: "He brought them into a land that He had espied for them." And, that is, when either He gives them to discover it themselves, or hears of it discovered by others, and fitting them. Second, after He hath espied it, when He carrieth them along to it, so that they plainly see a providence of God leading them from one country to another, as in Ex. 19.-4; "You have seen how I have borne you as on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" So that though they met with many difficulties, yet He carried them high above them all, like an eagle, flying over seas and rocks, and all hindrances.

Third, when He makes room for a people to dwell there, as in Ps. 80:9: "Thou preparedst room for them. . ."

Now, God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2- "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Achpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .

This may teach us all, where we now dwell or where after we may dwell: Be sure you look at every place appointed to you from the hand of God. We may not rush into any place and never say to God, "By Your leave." But we must discern how God appoints us this place. There is poor comfort in sitting down in any place that you cannot say, "This place is appointed me of God." Canst thou say that God spied out this place for thee, and there hath settled thee above all hindrances? Didst thou find that God made room for the either by lawful descent, or purchase, or gift, or other warrantable right? Why, then, this is the place God hath appointed thee; here He hath made room for thee, He hath placed thee in Rehoboth, in a peaceable place. This we must discern or else we are but intruders upon God. And when we do withal discern that God giveth us these out- ward blessings from His love in Christ, and maketh comfortable provision as well for our soul as for our bodies by the means of grace, then do we enjoy our present possession as well by gracious promise as by the common, and just, and bountiful providence of the Lord. Or, if a man do remove, he must see that God hath espied out such a country for him. . .

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removal?

Answ. There be four or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Second, there be some evil things, for avoiding of any of which we may transplant ourselves. Third, if withal we find some special providence of God concurring in either of both concerning ourselves, and applying general grounds of removal to our personal estate.

First, we may remove for the gaining of knowledge. . .

Second, some remove and travail for merchandise and gainsake: "Daily bread may be sought from afar" (Prov. 31:14). . .

Third, to plant a colony, that is, a company that agree together to remove out of their own country, and settle a city or commonwealth elsewhere. Of such a colony, we read in Acts 16:12, which God blessed and prospered exceedingly, and made it a glorious church. . .

Fourth, God alloweth a man to remove when he may employ his talents and gift better elsewhere, especially when where he is, he is not bound by any special engagement. . .

Fifth, for the liberty of the ordinances. . . This case was of seasonable use to our fathers in the days of Queen Mary, who removed to France and Germany in the beginning of her reign, upon proclamation of alteration of religion, before any persecution began. . . . There be evils to be avoided that may warrant removal: First, when some grievous sins overspread a country that threaten desolation. . . . Second, if men be overburdened with debts and miseries. . . Third, in case of persecution. . .As these general cases, where any of them do fall out, do warrant removal in general; so there be some special providences or particular cases which may give warrant unto such or such a person to transplant himself, and which apply the former general grounds to particular persons; hat threaten desolation. . . Second, if be overburdened with debts and misery . . .Third, in case of persecution . . .As these general cases, where any em do fall out, do warrant removal in ml; so there be some special provinces or particular cases which may give 'ant unto such or such a person to plant himself, and which apply the for general grounds to particular persons; first, if sovereign authority command and encourage such plantations by giving way to subjects to transplant themselves and set up a new commonwealth. This is a lawful and expedient case for such particular persons as be designed and sent; Matt. 8:9: "And for such as they who are sent have power to command." Second, when some special providence of God leads a man unto such a course.

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God espies or discovers a land for a people, as in Ezek. 20:6: "He brought them into a land that He had espied for them." And, that is, when either He gives them to discover it themselves, or hears of it discovered by others, and fitting them. Second, after He hath espied it, when He carrieth them along to it, so that they plainly see a providence of God leading them from one country to another, as in Ex. 19.-4; "You have seen how I have borne you as on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" So that though they met with many difficulties, yet He carried them high above them all, like an eagle, flying over seas and rocks, and all hindrances.

Third, when He makes room for a people to dwell there, as in Ps. 80:9: "Thou preparedst room for them. . ."

Now, God makes room for a people three ways: First, when He casts out the enemies of a people before them by lawful war with the inhabitants, which God calls them unto, as in Ps. 44:2- "Thou didst drive out the heathen before them." But this course of warring against others and driving them out without provocation depends upon special commission from God, or else it is not imitable.

Second, when He gives a foreign people favor in the eyes of any native people to come and sit down with them, either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Achpelah; or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the land of Goshen unto the sons of Jacob.

Third, when He makes a country, though not altogether void of inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the sons of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it nor ask their leaves. . . . So that it is free from that common grant for any to take possession of vacant countries. Indeed, no nation is to drive out another without special commission from Heaven, such as the Israelites had, unless the natives do unjustly wrong them, and will not recompense the wrongs done in a peaceable fort [way]. And then they may right themselves by lawful war and subdue the country unto them- selves. . .

This may teach us all, where we now dwell or where after we may dwell: Be sure you look at every place appointed to you from the hand of God. We may not rush into any place and never say to God, "By Your leave." But we must discern how God appoints us this place. There is poor comfort in sitting down in any place that you cannot say, "This place is appointed me of God." Canst thou say that God spied out this place for thee, and there hath settled thee above all hindrances? Didst thou find that God made room for the either by lawful descent, or purchase, or gift, or other warrantable right? Why, then, this is the place God hath appointed thee; here He hath made room for thee, He hath placed thee in Rehoboth, in a peaceable place. This we must discern or else we are but intruders upon God. And when we do withal discern that God giveth us these out- ward blessings from His love in Christ, and maketh comfortable provision as well for our soul as for our bodies by the means of grace, then do we enjoy our present possession as well by gracious promise as by the common, and just, and bountiful providence of the Lord. Or, if a man do remove, he must see that God hath espied out such a country for him. . .

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removal?

Answ. There be four or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Second, there be some evil things, for avoiding of any of which we may transplant ourselves. Third, if withal we find some special providence of God concurring in either of both concerning ourselves, and applying general grounds of removal to our personal estate.

First, we may remove for the gaining of knowledge. . .

Second, some remove and travail for merchandise and gainsake: "Daily bread may be sought from afar" (Prov. 31:14). . .

Third, to plant a colony, that is, a company that agree together to remove out of their own country, and settle a city or commonwealth elsewhere. Of such a colony, we read in Acts 16:12, which God blessed and prospered exceedingly, and made it a glorious church. . .

Fourth, God alloweth a man to remove when he may employ his talents and gift better elsewhere, especially when where he is, he is not bound by any special engagement. . .

Fifth, for the liberty of the ordinances. . . This case was of seasonable use to our fathers in the days of Queen Mary, who removed to France and Germany in the beginning of her reign, upon proclamation of alteration of religion, before any persecution began. . . . There be evils to be avoided that may warrant removal: First, when some grievous sins overspread a country that threaten desolation. . . . Second, if men be overburdened with debts and miseries. . . Third, in case of persecution. . .As these general cases, where any of them do fall out, do warrant removal in general; so there be some special providences or particular cases which may give warrant unto such or such a person to transplant himself, and which apply the former general grounds to particular persons; hat threaten desolation. . . Second, if be overburdened with debts and misery . . .Third, in case of persecution . . .As these general cases, where any em do fall out, do warrant removal in ml; so there be some special provinces or particular cases which may give 'ant unto such or such a person to plant himself, and which apply the for general grounds to particular persons; first, if sovereign authority command and encourage such plantations by giving way to subjects to transplant themselves and set up a new commonwealth. This is a lawful and expedient case for such particular persons as be designed and sent; Matt. 8:9: "And for such as they who are sent have power to command." Second, when some special providence of God leads a man unto such a course.

The Divine Right to Occupy the Land

by John Cotton

London,1630

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more [11 Sam. 7:10]. . . .

The placing of a people in this or that country is from the appointment of the Lord. . . Quest. Wherein doth this work of God stand in appointing a place for a people? Answ. First, when God e

Our Right to the Land of Israel
There is a fundamental argument that must be dealt with. At the bottom of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: "You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us."

Once it is established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal: reclaiming a land that is rightfully theirs. And once validity is granted to their goal, the debate whether all means are acceptable to attain it or not is one of philosophy.

What is our claim to the land? -Gd's promise in the Torah. Gd told Abraham: "I have given this land to your descendants." For one-and-a- half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage - to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple; to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return. Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse, "This month shall be for you the first of the months...," for this introduces the first commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of creation?...

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan]," Israel will reply to them: "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel - not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land - is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Kneisiyah HaGedolah of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry's foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews' right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that Gd's promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as "the Land of Israel."

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible's prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favorable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible's prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when that foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles' claim: "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the... nations."

After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land. Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which Gd showed overt miracles. Now when Gd grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?
Our Right to the Land of Israel
There is a fundamental argument that must be dealt with. At the bottom of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: "You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us."

Once it is established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal: reclaiming a land that is rightfully theirs. And once validity is granted to their goal, the debate whether all means are acceptable to attain it or not is one of philosophy.

What is our claim to the land? -Gd's promise in the Torah. Gd told Abraham: "I have given this land to your descendants." For one-and-a- half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage - to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple; to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return. Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse, "This month shall be for you the first of the months...," for this introduces the first commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of creation?...

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan]," Israel will reply to them: "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel - not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land - is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Kneisiyah HaGedolah of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry's foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews' right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that Gd's promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as "the Land of Israel."

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible's prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favorable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible's prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when that foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles' claim: "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the... nations."

After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land. Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which Gd showed overt miracles. Now when Gd grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?
Our Right to the Land of Israel
There is a fundamental argument that must be dealt with. At the bottom of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: "You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us."

Once it is established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal: reclaiming a land that is rightfully theirs. And once validity is granted to their goal, the debate whether all means are acceptable to attain it or not is one of philosophy.

What is our claim to the land? -Gd's promise in the Torah. Gd told Abraham: "I have given this land to your descendants." For one-and-a- half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage - to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple; to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return. Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse, "This month shall be for you the first of the months...," for this introduces the first commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of creation?...

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan]," Israel will reply to them: "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel - not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land - is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Kneisiyah HaGedolah of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry's foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews' right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that Gd's promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as "the Land of Israel."

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible's prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favorable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible's prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when that foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles' claim: "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the... nations."

After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land. Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which Gd showed overt miracles. Now when Gd grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?
Our Right to the Land of Israel
There is a fundamental argument that must be dealt with. At the bottom of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: "You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us."

Once it is established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal: reclaiming a land that is rightfully theirs. And once validity is granted to their goal, the debate whether all means are acceptable to attain it or not is one of philosophy.

What is our claim to the land? -Gd's promise in the Torah. Gd told Abraham: "I have given this land to your descendants." For one-and-a- half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage - to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple; to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return. Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse, "This month shall be for you the first of the months...," for this introduces the first commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of creation?...

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan]," Israel will reply to them: "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel - not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land - is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Kneisiyah HaGedolah of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry's foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews' right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that Gd's promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as "the Land of Israel."

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible's prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favorable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible's prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when that foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles' claim: "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the... nations."

After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land. Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which Gd showed overt miracles. Now when Gd grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?
Our Right to the Land of Israel
There is a fundamental argument that must be dealt with. At the bottom of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: "You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us."

Once it is established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal: reclaiming a land that is rightfully theirs. And once validity is granted to their goal, the debate whether all means are acceptable to attain it or not is one of philosophy.

What is our claim to the land? -Gd's promise in the Torah. Gd told Abraham: "I have given this land to your descendants." For one-and-a- half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage - to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple; to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return. Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse, "This month shall be for you the first of the months...," for this introduces the first commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of creation?...

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan]," Israel will reply to them: "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel - not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land - is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Kneisiyah HaGedolah of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry's foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews' right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that Gd's promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as "the Land of Israel."

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible's prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favorable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible's prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when that foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles' claim: "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the... nations."

After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land. Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which Gd showed overt miracles. Now when Gd grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?
Our Right to the Land of Israel
There is a fundamental argument that must be dealt with. At the bottom of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: "You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us."

Once it is established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal: reclaiming a land that is rightfully theirs. And once validity is granted to their goal, the debate whether all means are acceptable to attain it or not is one of philosophy.

What is our claim to the land? -Gd's promise in the Torah. Gd told Abraham: "I have given this land to your descendants." For one-and-a- half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage - to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple; to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return. Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse, "This month shall be for you the first of the months...," for this introduces the first commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of creation?...

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan]," Israel will reply to them: "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel - not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land - is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Kneisiyah HaGedolah of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry's foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews' right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that Gd's promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as "the Land of Israel."

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible's prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favorable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible's prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when that foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles' claim: "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the... nations."

After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land. Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which Gd showed overt miracles. Now when Gd grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?
Our Right to the Land of Israel
There is a fundamental argument that must be dealt with. At the bottom of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: "You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us."

Once it is established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal: reclaiming a land that is rightfully theirs. And once validity is granted to their goal, the debate whether all means are acceptable to attain it or not is one of philosophy.

What is our claim to the land? -Gd's promise in the Torah. Gd told Abraham: "I have given this land to your descendants." For one-and-a- half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage - to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple; to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return. Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse, "This month shall be for you the first of the months...," for this introduces the first commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of creation?...

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan]," Israel will reply to them: "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel - not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land - is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Kneisiyah HaGedolah of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry's foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews' right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that Gd's promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as "the Land of Israel."

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible's prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favorable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible's prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when that foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles' claim: "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the... nations."

After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land. Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which Gd showed overt miracles. Now when Gd grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?
Our Right to the Land of Israel
There is a fundamental argument that must be dealt with. At the bottom of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: "You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us."

Once it is established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal: reclaiming a land that is rightfully theirs. And once validity is granted to their goal, the debate whether all means are acceptable to attain it or not is one of philosophy.

What is our claim to the land? -Gd's promise in the Torah. Gd told Abraham: "I have given this land to your descendants." For one-and-a- half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage - to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple; to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return. Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse, "This month shall be for you the first of the months...," for this introduces the first commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of creation?...

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan]," Israel will reply to them: "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel - not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land - is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Kneisiyah HaGedolah of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry's foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews' right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that Gd's promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as "the Land of Israel."

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible's prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favorable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible's prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when that foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles' claim: "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the... nations."

After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land. Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which Gd showed overt miracles. Now when Gd grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?
Our Right to the Land of Israel
There is a fundamental argument that must be dealt with. At the bottom of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: "You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us."

Once it is established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal: reclaiming a land that is rightfully theirs. And once validity is granted to their goal, the debate whether all means are acceptable to attain it or not is one of philosophy.

What is our claim to the land? -Gd's promise in the Torah. Gd told Abraham: "I have given this land to your descendants." For one-and-a- half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage - to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple; to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return. Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse, "This month shall be for you the first of the months...," for this introduces the first commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of creation?...

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan]," Israel will reply to them: "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel - not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land - is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Kneisiyah HaGedolah of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry's foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews' right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that Gd's promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as "the Land of Israel."

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible's prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favorable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible's prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when that foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles' claim: "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the... nations."

After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land. Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which Gd showed overt miracles. Now when Gd grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?
Our Right to the Land of Israel
There is a fundamental argument that must be dealt with. At the bottom of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: "You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us."

Once it is established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal: reclaiming a land that is rightfully theirs. And once validity is granted to their goal, the debate whether all means are acceptable to attain it or not is one of philosophy.

What is our claim to the land? -Gd's promise in the Torah. Gd told Abraham: "I have given this land to your descendants." For one-and-a- half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage - to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple; to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return. Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse, "This month shall be for you the first of the months...," for this introduces the first commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of creation?...

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan]," Israel will reply to them: "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel - not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land - is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Kneisiyah HaGedolah of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry's foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews' right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that Gd's promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as "the Land of Israel."

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible's prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favorable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible's prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when that foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles' claim: "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the... nations."

After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land. Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which Gd showed overt miracles. Now when Gd grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?
Our Right to the Land of Israel
There is a fundamental argument that must be dealt with. At the bottom of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: "You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us."

Once it is established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal: reclaiming a land that is rightfully theirs. And once validity is granted to their goal, the debate whether all means are acceptable to attain it or not is one of philosophy.

What is our claim to the land? -Gd's promise in the Torah. Gd told Abraham: "I have given this land to your descendants." For one-and-a- half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage - to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple; to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return. Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse, "This month shall be for you the first of the months...," for this introduces the first commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of creation?...

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan]," Israel will reply to them: "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel - not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land - is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Kneisiyah HaGedolah of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry's foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews' right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that Gd's promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as "the Land of Israel."

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible's prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favorable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible's prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when that foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles' claim: "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the... nations."

After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land. Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which Gd showed overt miracles. Now when Gd grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?
Our Right to the Land of Israel
There is a fundamental argument that must be dealt with. At the bottom of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: "You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us."

Once it is established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal: reclaiming a land that is rightfully theirs. And once validity is granted to their goal, the debate whether all means are acceptable to attain it or not is one of philosophy.

What is our claim to the land? -Gd's promise in the Torah. Gd told Abraham: "I have given this land to your descendants." For one-and-a- half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage - to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple; to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return. Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse, "This month shall be for you the first of the months...," for this introduces the first commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of creation?...

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan]," Israel will reply to them: "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel - not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land - is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Kneisiyah HaGedolah of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry's foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews' right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that Gd's promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as "the Land of Israel."

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible's prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favorable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible's prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when that foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles' claim: "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the... nations."

After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land. Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which Gd showed overt miracles. Now when Gd grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?
Our Right to the Land of Israel
There is a fundamental argument that must be dealt with. At the bottom of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: "You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us."

Once it is established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal: reclaiming a land that is rightfully theirs. And once validity is granted to their goal, the debate whether all means are acceptable to attain it or not is one of philosophy.

What is our claim to the land? -Gd's promise in the Torah. Gd told Abraham: "I have given this land to your descendants." For one-and-a- half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage - to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple; to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return. Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse, "This month shall be for you the first of the months...," for this introduces the first commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of creation?...

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan]," Israel will reply to them: "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel - not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land - is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Kneisiyah HaGedolah of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry's foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews' right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that Gd's promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as "the Land of Israel."

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible's prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favorable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible's prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when that foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles' claim: "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the... nations."

After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land. Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which Gd showed overt miracles. Now when Gd grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?
Our Right to the Land of Israel
There is a fundamental argument that must be dealt with. At the bottom of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: "You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us."

Once it is established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal: reclaiming a land that is rightfully theirs. And once validity is granted to their goal, the debate whether all means are acceptable to attain it or not is one of philosophy.

What is our claim to the land? -Gd's promise in the Torah. Gd told Abraham: "I have given this land to your descendants." For one-and-a- half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage - to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple; to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return. Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse, "This month shall be for you the first of the months...," for this introduces the first commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of creation?...

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan]," Israel will reply to them: "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel - not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land - is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Kneisiyah HaGedolah of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry's foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews' right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that Gd's promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as "the Land of Israel."

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible's prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favorable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible's prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when that foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles' claim: "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the... nations."

After thousands of years of exil

Same spammer

ETERNAL PALESTINE WRITES: "TEN PALESTINIAN MARTYRS IN THE LATEST ISRAELI MASSACRE"

BECKY: Let's see. How accurate is this? First, its 8 killed, not 9 as Amy Goodman reported, or 10 as Al Jazeera reported.
A Martyr is when they are engaged in Holy Jihad for Allah, right?
These were Gazan families on a picnic at the beach. Jihadis???

I'm not sure what the rules are on Islamic martyrs, and just WHO qualifies for those 72 virgins. But somehow I don't think that going to the beach qualifies. But then hey, I"m not a Muslim.

The "Israeli" part is so knee-jerk for "Eternal Palestine" for blame-the-Jews is deeply ingrained. But the evidence is clear:

1. bomb fragments don't match
2. timing of IDF artillery fire doesn't match
3. there was no fire from the sea at the time either
4. Hamas had cameras on the scene in seconds
5. no bomb crater
6. PA is already fabricating IDF blame in a video, showing Israeli fire from a ship, then the girl wailing on the beach

AND TO CONSIDER A POSSIBLE MOTIVE:

7. Hamas got caught 2 weeks ago when Israeli divers landed on shore and caught a qassam rocket crew. Its entirely possible that Hamas then put land mines on the beach to stop another IDF attack.

MASSACRE: That part was right. It was a horrible massacre with dead and orphaned, most likely innocent Palestinians---killed by accident and blamed on Israel on purpose.

Spammer is back

Spammer is back

Spammer is back

Are you done spamming now kid?

German paper doubts Gaza beach reports

German newspaper casts doubt on Palestinian claims that IDF shell killed seven family members on Gaza beach. How come Hadil Ghalia was seen wearing dry clothes after the Gaza beach attack when she was reported to have been swimming?
Ynet


While three major British newspapers published reports contradicting Israel's claims that its military was not responsible for the murder of seven members of the Ghalia family on a Gaza beach over a week ago, a German newspaper casts doubt on the authenticity of pictures taken soon after the bloody incident.


Contradictions
Gaza blast: Doubt over IDF's version / Ynet
According to new findings, testimonies and hospital records, deadly blast at Gaza beach, which killed Ghalia family members, occurred at time of shelling, not after; British Guardian, Independent, Times newspapers publish findings casting doubt on Israel's claims
Full Story

German daily Sued Deutsche, said pictures taken by Zakaria Abu Irbad, 36, a cameramen with the Palestinian independent news agency Ramattan, contradict Palestinian claims that an IDF shell killed the Ghalia family and point to the possibility that the event was staged to hold Israel responsible.

Irbad was the first journalist to arrive at the s cene after the attack and Ramattan sold footage of Hadil weeping on the beach by her dead father to all major news broadcasters.

The newspaper said in footage of the beach taken by an IDF drone at the time of the attack, five craters left by IDF artillery shells could be seen, but that 250 meters away people could also be seen.

The paper said it is strange that although shells exploded 250 meters away from a beach site where Palestinian families congregated, no one was seen running away or panicking.

Irbad told the newspaper he was told of the attack by paramedics who guided him to the scene.

But no paramedics are seen until later in the footage, raising suspicions that he was first to reach the scene.

Moreover, if Irbad was the first to get to the scene, why were most bodies covered by sheets? Who was there first to cover the bodies? The newspaper asked.


'Did girl give instructions to cameraman?'

The newspaper also doubts Irbad's claim that Hadil was not injured because she was in the water when the shell exploded. His footage show her dry and fully clothed.

Another question raised by the newspaper is a shot of a man carrying a rifle next to the dead body of Hadil's father. The newspaper said in earlier footage, the same man was seen lying on the beach among the injured.

The footage also shows paramedics in green clothes and a dozen of bearded men looking for evidence. The newspaper asks whether the men are Hamas affiliates and wonders why they were preoccupied with collecting evidence rather than helping the injured.

Did Hamas men hide evidence from the scene, as claimed by eyewitnesses interviewed by Israeli broadcasters?

The newspaper said Irbad evaded most of the questions addressed to him.

Asked why he didn't try to calm Hadil instead of filming her he said: "She asked me to film her. She wanted to be seen next to her father to show the world the crimes that Israel is committing."

The newspaper finally asks: "Did the shocked 10-year-old girl, who had lost her father minutes earlier, give the cameraman direction instructions?"

the German press, and the German people in general, bend over backwards to avoid being percieved as critical of Israel in any way.

No comment on the content? Just a little low brow ad hominem hit and run? Typical Nessie droppings!

That's an overgeneralization and in any event can't account for this specific dissenting journalistic treatise.

Demonizing Israel is beyond pathetic. True.

It is also true that usually Israel are the good guys and "Palestine" are the bad ones. But it's untrue and counterproductive to say the Israelis are always good and never bad. I myself acknowledge the blemishes of Israel. But Israel's excesses and shortcomings do not excuse demonization of Israel re the Palestinians by anyone.

There's also no excuse for lionizing a society whose numerous racist ills have been pointed out to those lefties with gusto.

That being said, where else would the leftists malign Israel if not on Indymedia and their assorted other fora? We live in democracies and they're exercizing their rights to be wrong.

>the good guys (Israel) and the bad guys (Palestine).

That's a Zionist lie. There are two sides in this conflict, the oppressors and the oppressed. You're either on the side of the oppressed, all the oppressed, all over the world, or you're evil. It's a simple as that.

>the bad guys (Israel) and the good guys (Palestine).

That's an anti-Zionist lie. There are two sides in this conflict, the Palestinian oppressors and the Israeli and Palestinian oppressed. You're either on the side of the oppressed, all the oppressed, all over the world, or you're evil. It's a simple as that. You're either with us or against us.

PICK A SIDE WRITES: "There are two sides in this conflict, the oppressors and the oppressed..."

BECKY: There are two sides in this conflict, the attackers and and the defenders.

Pallywood: German Expose of Palestinian media hi-jinx in Gaza beach tragedy
Pallywood: German Expose of Palestinian media hi-jinx in Gaza beach tragedy
www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000123.html

19.06.2006
The German Suedduetche Zeitung ran the following article with a detailed
examination of the evidence in the Gaza Bearch shooting. It clarifies many
of the problems with the story disseminated by the Palestinians and media.

The Middle East: The war of images Seven casualties in Gaza beach: Was it a
shelling attack by Israel? Or an exploding Palestinian land mine? An example
of how sometimes Palestinians bend the truth. by Thorsten Schmitz

Source (in German, with photos:
www.sueddeutsche.de/ausland/artikel/315/78237/5/

Last Friday ten year old Huda Ghalia rose early, although she did not have
any school. She was excited. The last exams were written, and large summer
holidays had begun. Huda's father Ali had promised his children to organize
a picnic at the beach in northern Gaza on that Friday last week .

Huda is, a cousin tells us, one of the class scholars and loves math,
biology and classics. Their favorite poem is by Mahmud Darwish: Calling Card
is a sad poem about a homeless Palestinian and his hate for settlers. The
family from the 35,000 inhabitant town of Beit Lahia loaded up with plastic
tables and chairs, cooked ears of corn and Pita bread on the short way to
the beach. Beit Lahija is well-known for its strawberries, in addition,
however, from here short-range missiles are fired on Israel.

For the father, one of his two wives and five of the sons and daughters the
picnic had a deadly end. Before 5 PM a shell exploded g in the midst of the
family. Seven humans lost their lives that Friday afternoon in the sand or
in the ambulance.

The bloody picnic made Huda Ghalija famous within a few hours world-wide.
This was owing to the cameraman Zakarija Abu Harbed. Only few minutes after
the explosion of shrapnel from a ball-filled shell the 36 year old cameraman
from Gaza city with camera and full equipment was at the scene of the
catastrophe.

A lucrative job

Harbed works for the Arab TV Ramattan News Agency. The agency has offices
in Ramallah in the West Bank and in Gaza city, the capital of the Gaza
Strip.

The largest TV broadcasters in the world, CNN and ABC, news agencies such as
Reuters and Associated press, and also German TV firms, work almost
exclusively with Palestinian camera men, if it concerns reports out of the
Gaza Strip.

The pictures of the hopeless world in the Gaza Strip are filmed primarily by
Palestinians. As a cameraman, working for Western media is considered one of
the most lucrative jobs in the Palestinian areas. Some earn as much as 250
US dollar a day, as much as some Palestinian extended families earn in half
a year.

Cameraman Harbed had occupational luck on past Friday: He was first at the
place of the misfortune. His agency, Ramattan news Agency sold the
heart-rending pictures of the hysterical and tear-flooded Huda Ghalia to
television stations around the entire world. In Australia as in India, in
Europe as in the USA, Harbed's photographs of Huda were shown: As she tears
her hair and strikes her chest, as she sinks beside her dead father into the
sand, as she runs completely alone dozens of meters in the sand.

In the Arab world and in the Palestinian areas the cause of the death of the
Ghalia family members was already certain on Friday: Israeli shelling. This
verdict was also bolstered by archive photos of Israeli soldiers firing
artillery shells, which some Arab television stations cut into the film of
cameraman Harbed.

In opinion of the Hamas-led autonomy authority, and in the opinion of Fatah
head and president of Palestinian Authority, Mahmud Abbas, the Ghalias were
killed by Israeli bombardment. They both used the word "massacre". In rare
agreement still on Saturday, Hamas head of the government Ismail Hanija and
Abbas symbolically adopted Huda and vowed they would be responsible for the
remainder of their life for her living costs.

A Palestinian child, who lost its father, is considered as an orphan.
(Huda's physical birth mother Hamdia survived the detonation with an injury)
Likewise the investigation of a team of the US human rights group, Human
Rights Watch, concluded provisionally that Israel was responsible for the
shell explosion.

The group formulates its conclusions, however, carefully and less
certainly: After interviews with victims, eye-witnesses, policemen and
physicians and visiting the scene of the disaster, one preserves "strong
assumptions" that Israeli artillery is responsible for the misfortune. The
report of the human rights groups does not mention however that their
investigator researched the incident for evidence only after a day had
elapsed - allowing enough time to remove important pieces of evidence.

The Israeli Ministry of Defense concluded, after first evaluations of radar
and satellite photographs, that the projectile, which led to the death of
the seven Palestinians did not originate with the army. Chief of Staff Dan
Halutz said, that while Israel regrets the death of the seven Palestinians,
this does not mean however "that we were responsible for it".

According to investigations of the Israeli army, based only on pictures and
medical findings, not on on the scene searches, the Israeli army fired six
shells in that Friday afternoon toward Gaza beach. According to data
supplied by Halutz, five of the six shells hit in the time between 16.31 and
16.48 - approximately 250 meters north of that place, in which the family
picnic had taken place. The artillery bombardment was due to Palestinian
rocket launchers.

An unmanned airplane of the Israeli army filmed the Gaza Strip at the time
of the bombardment from the air. On the films one sees on the one hand five
impact holes of the shells in the beach, in addition, 250 meters to the
south, humans. According to data of the army the explosion at the beach
section, at which the Ghalias picnicked, must have taken place between 16.57
and 17.10. Before 16.57 normal beach activity is to be seen on the film of
the army.

The fact that humans did not react to the five shell impacts at 250 meters
distance by rushing to escape is strange. The next scene on the army film
shows ambulances, arriving at the beach. That is at 17.15 o'clock. The
hospital, where the ambulances came, lies five minutes away from the site of
the explosion.

Possible dud

Over the impact site the sixth shell, which caused the death of the seven
family members according to statements of human rights group and the
Palestinian government as a dud, The Israeli army cannot give any
information. It regards it however as "impossible" that the shell deviated a
whole 250 meters from its target.

As further proof Israel states that it treated four of the beach casualties
in hospitals in Tel Aviv. From the body of one of the wounded fragments were
saved, which could not have originated from weapons in the arsenal of the
Israeli army.

The Israeli army does not exclude the possibility that the detonation was
due to a mine, which had been buried there by Palestinians, in order to
prevent the Israeli navy from landing commandos in the Gaza Strip.

In view of the contradictory statements, great importance is attached to
Harbed's television pictures. These however raise more questions than they
contribute to clarifying. The original photographs are in the meantime so
doubtful that CNN shows them only in abbreviated form at its Website.

To the Sueddeutche Zeitung, Harbed explains that he had been informed
afterwards about the explosion and driven to the scene by the rescue medics
in the ambulance. In his pictures however, Harbed films the hysteria of the
ten-year Huda, as if he were a witness of the detonation. Also he films the
arrival of the medics, as though he was at the beach beforehand.

Additionally, some of the dead and wounded are covered with cloths - who did
that?

Harbed claims that Huda escaped serious injury, since she was bathing in the
sea. In his photos, however, Huda is running around in dry street clothes.
Harbed runs several minutes of the crying Huda and afterwards turns his
camera to the dead and injured.

Suddenly a man beside Huda's dead father can be discerned, until now covered
and motionless, who appears with a machine gun in his hand. In the pictures
of the cameraman one can recognize both medics in green OI clothes as well
as dozens of men, most with typical Hamas full beards, apparently securing
pieces of evidence.

However one must ask, why the medics do not worry about the injured people
and policemen do not secure the place. Have the Hamas men, as Israeli media
quote Palestinian eye witnesses, removed pieces of evidence?

Evasive answers of the cameraman

It is also strange why in Harbed's pictures we cannot discern a crater. The
more cameraman Harbed is asked by Sueddeutche Zeitung in the telephone
interview, the more he evades the issue. Was he at the scene of the incident
before the outpatient clinic [personnel] arrived? Who are the civilians, who
are clean the beach? Who is the armed man in the ground, which suddenly
rises? If it was an Israeli army shell that killed the Ghalia family
members, why don't the Palestinians show its fragments?

And: Why didn't it occur to Harbed to calm the hysterical Huda down instead
of pursuing her for several minutes with his camera? Harbed says: "She asked
me to film her. She wanted to be shown to the world with her father and show
the world what crimes Israel commits." The ten-year Huda, who lost seven
family members, distraught in mourning, is supposed have given Harbed cinema
direction instructions?

Pallywood

The fact that Palestinians in the Middle East war fabricate based on
pictures or bring incorrect pictures into circulation is not new. In the
media parlance following the US TV Magazine 60 Minutes one speaks of
"Pallywood" - following Hollywoods film industry. In the [60 minutes] report
for example one can see Palestinians of the latest Intifada, who carry a
dead person on a stretcher. Someone trips, the alleged dead man falls on the
soil - and jumps swiftly again back on the stretcher, lies down and acts
like a dead man.

A recent example of an attempt of Palestinians to lead the world public by
the nose is the Israeli Air Force attack on last Tuesday on three members of
the "Islamic Jihad", in which eight civilians, among them two children, were
killed. After the attack on the car, in which the members of the terror
group sat, one sees three men briefly, as they remove a short-range missile
in a hurry from the car.

For two days the Ramattan TV news Agency Internet site blinked with an
"urgent flash: Message for our customers . As if the company is anxious to
further spread the Huda pictures, whose authenticity is doubted by many
people, pointing out hereby that that it possesses exclusive rights to the
pictures. Nobody has the right to disseminate the pictures further without
consent of Ramattan news Agency.

The victims of Zionist aggression want justice. No justice, no piece.

When he has nothing of substance to say, he just spouts out a bumper-sticker like platitude full of buzzwords. It's a trick. Don't fall for it.

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/style.htm

Style Over Substance

Definition:

The manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is taken to affect the likelihood that the conclusion is true.

Examples:

1. Nixon lost the presidential debate because of the sweat on his forehead.
2. Trudeau knows how to move a crowd. He must be right.
3. Why don't you take the advice of that nicely dressed young man?

Proof:

While it is true that the manner in which an argument is presented will affect whether people believe that its conclusion is true, nonetheless, the truth of the conclusion does not depend on the manner in which the argument is presented. In order to show that this fallacy is being committed, show that the style in this case does not affect the truth or falsity of the conclusion.

Nessie can't confront the current Pallywood set up and so, like a typical anti-zionist, changes the subject.

Human Rights Watch admits unable to contradict IDF
By YAAKOV KATZ


While sticking to its demand for the establishment of an independent inquiry into a blast on a Gaza beach 10 days ago that killed seven Palestinian civilians, the Human Rights Watch conceded Monday night for the first time since the incident that it could not contradict the IDF's exonerating findings.

On Monday, Maj.-Gen. Meir Klifi - head of the IDF inquiry commission that cleared the IDF of responsibility for the blast - met with Marc Garlasco, a military expert from the HRW who had last week claimed that the blast was caused by an IDF artillery shell. Following the three-hour meeting, described by both sides as cordial and pleasant, Garlasco praised the IDF's professional investigation into the blast, which he said was most likely caused by unexploded Israeli ordnance left laying on the beach, a possibility also raised by Klifi and his team.

"We came to an agreement with General Klifi that the most likely cause [of the blast] was unexploded Israeli ordinance," Garlasco told The Jerusalem Post following the meeting. While Klifi's team did a "competent job" to rule out the possibility that the blast was caused by artillery fire, there were still, Garlasco said, a number of pieces of evidence that the IDF commission did not take into consideration.

The main argument between Klifi and HRW surrounded the timeline of the blast, which the IDF said took between 16:57 and 15:10, at least 10 minutes after artillery fire in the area had stopped. HRW however disputes this claim and basing itself on Palestinian hospital documentation, claims that the explosion actually took place right around the time of the IDF artillery fire.

Meanwhile Monday, The Post learned that the IDF was currently inspecting a second piece of shrapnel doctors had retrieved from one of the Palestinians wounded in the blast and currently being treated at Soroka Hospital in Beersheba. A first piece of shrapnel, examined by the IDF as well as by an independent academic institute in Beersheba was found to not have come from a 155 mm shell, the type used in IDF artillery attacks on Kassam launch sites in the Gaza Strip. The second piece of shrapnel, sources said, was currently being examined in an IDF lab.

Garlasco told Klifi during the meeting that he was impressed with the IDF's system of checks and balances concerning its artillery fire in the Gaza Strip and unlike Hamas which specifically targeted civilians in its rocket attacks, the Israelis, he said, invested a great amount of resources and efforts not to harm innocent civilians.

"We do not believe the Israelis were targeting civilians." Garlasco said. "We just want to know if it was an Israeli shell that killed the Palestinians."

Lucy Mair - head of the HRW's Jerusalem office - said Klifi's team had conducted a thorough and professional investigation of the incident and made "a good assessment" when ruling out the possibility that an errant IDF shell had killed the seven Palestinians on the Gaza beach.

'We differ when it comes to other pieces of information from other sources that don't relate to the military strike such as the timing and the type of injuries," Mair explained. "While they [the IDF] made a very good presentation, we still think there are enough unanswered questions that have not been examined by Klifi's team…and that is why we believe there should be an independent investigation."

It's a George Soros sock puppet.

Only nessie is a credible source. Just ask nessie. Because only nessie is a credible source. Just ask nessie. Because...

@%<

Sounds like HRW has backed down on their initial claim.
Now I wonder why they believe it was an unexploded Israeli ordinance.

The Devil (George Warmonger Bush): "Sorry to Oil the Arming of Likud Extremist but Oil comes First. Fill her Up ??????"