I just don't think the location of a Jewish state where it is was politically very bright.

It probably seemed like it was when they first started planning it. There were very few people living in the area and Jeruselem was dominated by Jews. They were doing so well economically that it started to attract Arabs from other countries and that is when the real trouble began.

"..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country." (Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad)

I just don't think the location of a Jewish state where it is was politically very bright.

It probably seemed like it was when they first started planning it. There were very few people living in the area and Jeruselem was dominated by Jews. They were doing so well economically that it started to attract Arabs from other countries and that is when the real trouble began.

"..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country." (Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad)

obviously you still have not had the chance yet to read Sebag-Montefiore's book on Jerusalem....

You are actually arguing the wrong point. Few claim that this was an area devoid of people. What is a far better angle to claim is that there was never a definable Palestine as a stand-alone, politically independent nation. BTW Transjordan was always run as a a distinct adjunct to the Palestinian mandate hence its exclusion from the promises of the Balfour Declaration.

A debate in Feb 2006 involving Shlomo Ben Ami, went as follows:

Amy Goodman: And Shlomo Ben-Ami, your response to those who continue to say that at that time, at the time of the establishment of the state of Israel and before, that it really was empty, that Jews came to a place that was not populated.

Shlomo Ben-Ami: Of course, it is nonsense. I mean, it was populated. Obviously, it was populated. I mean, the notion that existed, I think it was Israel Zangwill, the first to say that we are – we came a nation without a land to a land without a people. Obviously, it was not true ..."

"statistics belie the illusion of an empty land awaiting reclamation: From 1880 to 1913 there was steady demographic growth in Palestine. During this period, the overall population of Palestine increased by approximately 50 percent, and the population of the largest towns doubled. Although the influx of 50,000 European Jews certainly pushed up these numbers, Jewish immigrants made up only 7 percent of the total population of 750,000. Palestine was hardly a 'land without a people.'" James Gelvin

"... the Zionist conception of early twentieth-century Palestine as vacant cannot (and was probably never meant to) be accepted altogether literally, at least not as a claim that there were no prior inhabitants whatsoever of mandatory Palestine. At most, it stakes a lesser claim concerning the density of the population, i.e. the fact that the territory in question was, according to all accounts, at that time very sparsely populated. More likely, if intended as an empirical statement at all, it denies that ‘a people’, that is a free-standing full-fledged nation, inhabited Palestine as such prior to its renewed Jewish settlement." Tamar Meisels, 2002

"... there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country." Chaim Weizmann

But to underline the confusion on this point he went on to say..."Why should the Jews choose a country which has a population that does not want to receive them in a particular friendly way ..." Chaim Weizmann

To roll this back wonderfully to the OP, the concept of a "country without people, for a people without a country", actually dates back to 1844 and a Church of Scotland minister, Alexander Keith, commenting on the area of Greater Syria, and Palestine in particular: ""The Israelites ... are ... wanderers throughout the world, who have nowhere found a place on which the sole of their foot could rest - a people without a country; even as their own land, as subsequently to be shown, is in a great measure a country without a people."

So unpopulated, absolutely not. Underpopulated, undoubtedly yes. The indigenous population (always a mix of Jew and Arab), a nation/s without a country, apparently so, and now "blessed" with one of 3 options; a 2 state option, a Greater Israel option, or a total Palestine option. As ever choice is a double edged sword.

Personally I would shy away from the concept of a "terra nullius", it has unpleasant undertones as seen in S.Africa and Australia, and more importantly is completely unsupported by fact in either case, as would appear to also be the situation in the area known to some as Palestine...

With glorious irony, Alexander Keith, the Church of Scotland minister, was a fervent Restorationist, obsessed with the concept, together with others within the CoS, that a restoration of a Jewish homeland was part of a messianic mission. This mantle has now passed from the Church of Scotlan to the evangelical US Christian organizations who see a Jewish homeland as a precursor to the Second Coming. Seems like the Church of Scotland have gone full circle, but are still taking bookings for their boutique hotel in Tiberias, the sole remnant of Keith's enthusiasm for the Middle East.

Have you bothered to read my posts? You have just made my argument for me, by expounding on points that I have already made. I have said repeatedly that there were more Jews in Jeruselem in 1850 than Arabs and that their economic success is what attracted Arabs immigrants from other countries. I have also said that "there were not a lot of people" (i.e. underpopulated), not that there were none. Your quote backs me up on both points. I have also pointed out over and over again that there were both Jews and Arabs on the land, but there was never an Arab nation there - never in history.

Have you bothered to read my posts? You have just made my argument for me, by expounding on points that I have already made. I have said repeatedly that there were more Jews in Jeruselem in 1850 than Arabs and that their economic success is what attracted Arabs immigrants from other countries. I have also said that "there were not a lot of people" (i.e. underpopulated), not that there were none. Your quote backs me up on both points. I have also pointed out over and over again that there were both Jews and Arabs on the land, but there was never an Arab nation there - never in history.

More than you have read the great book I keep recommending...it won't hurt, promise..!

Thank you for recognizing that Palestine was not terra nullius until reoccupied by Jewish immigrants in the late 19th century.

Your point that Arab populations only boomed once Jewish immigrants had improved economic conditions again seems to be somewhat divorced from reality.

Being idle this evening here's a quick summary of demographics in Palestine pre 1948 courtesy of Wikipedia:

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

This would appear to paint a different picture.

\Whatever the stats may or may not say, it would be fair to summarize that we have 2 distinct (though not always so) ethnic groups devoid of a country, or to put it another way 2 peoples without a country, Unlike the Judgement of Solomon perhaps this time the only real solution is to slice this baby in half.....

You could compare these 2 groups with the Kurds and Assyrians, similar long-established Middle Eastern ethnic groups long in search of a country.

Sorry I failed to understand.

Illegally annexing the West Bank and Gaza Strip, illegally building Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory, building walls to keep the Palestinians out of lands which are rightfully theirs, etc., etc.

All ok because the people whose land the Israelis stole have been offered Israeli citizenship!

I'll leave this topic to the Israeli apologists.

the land is not rightful theirs. the LORD himself has issued and signed the chanote in favour of the Jews

Your point that Arab populations only boomed once Jewish immigrants had improved economic conditions again seems to be somewhat divorced from reality.

Huh? Your link says that there were a total population of 350,000 including Muslims, Christians and Jews in the area in 1850 - which was the year that I mentioned. That is not a lot of people for such a large area. The population quickly increased after the turn of the century because the Jewish economy attracted Arabs from surrounding countries who came illegally as did most of the Jews. The population had doubled by 1920 and increased a lot more later. That is reality.

As far as dividing the area, Jordan was originally supposed to be part of the deal and as King Hussein of Jordan said, “The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan” . That land, which was originally meant for the Palestinian homeland, has to be considered into the whole equation too.

(You seem to think that the book you read is the definitive book on the issue. It is not. I have read plenty of other ones and will read yours when I stumble upon it, but am in no big hurry).

Sorry I failed to understand.

Illegally annexing the West Bank and Gaza Strip, illegally building Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory, building walls to keep the Palestinians out of lands which are rightfully theirs, etc., etc.

All ok because the people whose land the Israelis stole have been offered Israeli citizenship!

I'll leave this topic to the Israeli apologists.

the land is not rightful theirs. the LORD himself has issued and signed the chanote in favour of the Jews

That is beside the fact that the Arabs lost numerous wars that they started after turning down the UN deal which would have given them half of the land.

I don't think Stephen Hawking would think much of the Church of Scotland, but he doesn't think much of Israeli treatment of Palestinians either.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/stephen-hawking-israel-academic-boycott

To be consistent perhaps Stephen Hawking should stop using his speech synthesizer seeing as it was developed by an Israeli team working for Intel.

The academic boycott of Israel is disgusting. The Israeli academic community is the place where many of the more liberal Israelis work in the Israeli democracy, which yes includes 20 percent Arab Israeli citizens.

The academic boycott of Israel is disgusting. The Israeli academic community is the place where many of the more liberal Israelis work in the Israeli democracy, which yes includes 20 percent Arab Israeli citizens.

Alas it's hub is UK academic institutions, which have been taken over to a large degree by leftists with their scarcely concealed anti-Semitism. Apologists for terrorist organizations routinely speak at UK university campuses and Jewish students are intimidated by Islamist sympathizers and their left wing enablers. Many lecturers mark down students who don't subscribe to their Arabite stance on middle eastern issues. It is a great shame as the vast majority of the British are fair minded and tolerant. I suppose in defense of the UK the situation there is nowhere near as bad as Scandinavia, France or Hungary.

Christians should not be supporting any claims by Jews, or any other

people, to an exclusive or even privileged divine right to possess

particular territory.

Seems like a fair comment to me, separation of Church and State, they do not single out Jews they do also say "or any other religion". If only it were so worldwide and all the zealots of all religions were removed from positions of power.

It's an anti-Israel comment is what it is.

In what respect? In their criticism of support for divine right?

My apologies for the on-topic post...

SC

They don't support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. That's not the same thing as a theocratic state. Like IRAN. Israel is mildly theocratic but mostly NOT. Don't be fooled by the Scot's fudging games. It's all spin so they can come out openly against Israel's very right to exist. Zionism is about a lot more than the Jewish religion. It's a nationalist movement and now realization for the Jewish PEOPLE regardless of religiosity.

The issues are complex. Right wing Zionists like the settler movement do believe God grants the Jewish people the west bank. More moderate and liberal Zionists do not. Zionism is not ONE thing.

The majority of Israelis support self determination for Palestinians in their separate state.

The Scots don't think the Jews deserve ANY of Israel. That is crystal clear.

They don't support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. That's not the same thing as a theocratic state. Like IRAN. Israel is mildly theocratic but mostly NOT. Don't be fooled by the Scot's fudging games. It's all spin so they can come out openly against Israel's very right to exist. Zionism is about a lot more than the Jewish religion. It's a nationalist movement and now realization for the Jewish PEOPLE regardless of religiosity.

I thought they just said "Christians should not be supporting any claims by Jews, or any other people, to an exclusive or even privileged divine right to possess particular territory."; They've pretty much abandoned James VI's "Divine Right of Kings" policy as well. that doesn't mean that they oppose the monarchy

SC

They don't support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. That's not the same thing as a theocratic state. Like IRAN. Israel is mildly theocratic but mostly NOT. Don't be fooled by the Scot's fudging games. It's all spin so they can come out openly against Israel's very right to exist. Zionism is about a lot more than the Jewish religion. It's a nationalist movement and now realization for the Jewish PEOPLE regardless of religiosity.

I thought they just said "Christians should not be supporting any claims by Jews, or any other people, to an exclusive or even privileged divine right to possess particular territory."; They've pretty much abandoned James VI's "Divine Right of Kings" policy as well. that doesn't mean that they oppose the monarchy

SC

I'm not so easily fooled. Their TARGET is clearly Jews and ISRAEL.

There was no reason to release that kind of statement at this time in history except to join the trendy European Israel demonization bandwagon.

If you want to protest Israeli settlements in the west bank, don't buy settlement products. If you want to make a statement against the very existence of a Jewish Israel, boycott Israeli academics.

Jews are a small percentage of one percent of the world's population and all this flak about our claim to a TINY piece of real estate clearly linked to the roots of our tribe. It's special treatment. Especially BAD.

They don't support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. That's not the same thing as a theocratic state. Like IRAN. Israel is mildly theocratic but mostly NOT. Don't be fooled by the Scot's fudging games. It's all spin so they can come out openly against Israel's very right to exist. Zionism is about a lot more than the Jewish religion. It's a nationalist movement and now realization for the Jewish PEOPLE regardless of religiosity.

I thought they just said "Christians should not be supporting any claims by Jews, or any other people, to an exclusive or even privileged divine right to possess particular territory."; They've pretty much abandoned James VI's "Divine Right of Kings" policy as well. that doesn't mean that they oppose the monarchy

SC

I'm not so easily fooled. Their TARGET is clearly Jews and ISRAEL.

There was no reason to release that kind of statement at this time in history except to join the trendy European Israel demonization bandwagon.

Read into it whatever paranoid fantasies you have in your mind. Were I to do the same, I would fear they were on the brink of bringing out Revision 2 of the Authorised Version, in rap. With scratch'n'sniff... sometimes, I'm glad that I keep my imagination on a pretty short leash...

SC

Jews aren't paranoid to think most of the world hates Jews. Most of the world DOES hate Jews. You want proof? Two words: UNITED NATIONS. Paranoia means when your feelings are not TRUE.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Why_Do_People_Hate_The_Jews.htm

It has been said that the history
of almost all of the Jewish holidays can be summed up succinctly: "They
wanted to kill us; we won. Let's eat." Why has anti-Semitism been so
pervasive in so many countries, in so many time periods and for so many
reasons?

They don't support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. That's not the same thing as a theocratic state. Like IRAN. Israel is mildly theocratic but mostly NOT. Don't be fooled by the Scot's fudging games. It's all spin so they can come out openly against Israel's very right to exist. Zionism is about a lot more than the Jewish religion. It's a nationalist movement and now realization for the Jewish PEOPLE regardless of religiosity.

The issues are complex. Right wing Zionists like the settler movement do believe God grants the Jewish people the west bank. More moderate and liberal Zionists do not. Zionism is not ONE thing.

The majority of Israelis support self determination for Palestinians in their separate state.

The Scots don't think the Jews deserve ANY of Israel. That is crystal clear.

FWIW as a general rule the Scots and Irish always have a gut sympathy for the perceived underdog. probably due to their history of being subjugated themselves by the English. For a short honeymoon period Israel was the darling of the left when Israel prevailed against many opposing Arab states. But when around 1967 the entity known as the Palestinians was invented to make the Israelis look like the more powerful force (ergo the oppressor) then the stance quickly reversed. Thus from the Church of Scotland you progress from a people without a land for a land without a people to the current stance, which is little different from painting Israel as the old South Africa was.

One could argue (I don't!) that the Jews' right to the Promised Land lapsed when they failed to accept their Messiah. Anyway, I don't think the argument of divine right cuts much ice these days.

But they're there. Israel is a recognised state, and basically a very successful one. All credit to them. They're also part of the Western bloc, i.e. part of us, assuming that most posters are of decidedly Western bloc nationalities. So it's not a question of, Should they be there? but 'How can the present mess be sorted out?'

I don't think the UN proposed partition was a viable one, and it's even less viable now, with Israel in control of the occupied territories, and not looking like giving them up soon.

What I'm really saying, though it may not look like it, is that the Church of Scotland (and Stephen Hawking) can burn Jews in effigy for all the difference it makes. It's time they got back to the real world.

One could argue (I don't!) that the Jews' right to the Promised Land lapsed when they failed to accept their Messiah. Anyway, I don't think the argument of divine right cuts much ice these days.

But they're there. Israel is a recognised state, and basically a very successful one. All credit to them. They're also part of the Western bloc, i.e. part of us, assuming that most posters are of decidedly Western bloc nationalities. So it's not a question of, Should they be there? but 'How can the present mess be sorted out?'

I don't think the UN proposed partition was a viable one, and it's even less viable now, with Israel in control of the occupied territories, and not looking like giving them up soon.

What I'm really saying, though it may not look like it, is that the Church of Scotland (and Stephen Hawking) can burn Jews in effigy for all the difference it makes. It's time they got back to the real world.

To be clear: from what JT has posted, The Church of Scotland were not burning Jews in effigy, nor were they denying Israel's legitimacy. They were saying that Christians should not support a claim that that legitimacy was based on divine right. In other words, that international politics should not be based on religion.

How many amongst us agree with that last statement, and how many disagree?

SC

The first comment under the article says it all:

They don't get it. The Jews do not claim Israel, they have it!

One could argue (I don't!) that the Jews' right to the Promised Land lapsed when they failed to accept their Messiah. Anyway, I don't think the argument of divine right cuts much ice these days.

But they're there. Israel is a recognised state, and basically a very successful one. All credit to them. They're also part of the Western bloc, i.e. part of us, assuming that most posters are of decidedly Western bloc nationalities. So it's not a question of, Should they be there? but 'How can the present mess be sorted out?'

I don't think the UN proposed partition was a viable one, and it's even less viable now, with Israel in control of the occupied territories, and not looking like giving them up soon.

What I'm really saying, though it may not look like it, is that the Church of Scotland (and Stephen Hawking) can burn Jews in effigy for all the difference it makes. It's time they got back to the real world.

To be clear: from what JT has posted, The Church of Scotland were not burning Jews in effigy, nor were they denying Israel's legitimacy. They were saying that Christians should not support a claim that that legitimacy was based on divine right. In other words, that international politics should not be based on religion.

How many amongst us agree with that last statement, and how many disagree?

SC

Well, I did not suggest that the Church of Scotland were burning Jews in effigy! I just said it wouldn't make any difference if they did. And your question is answered in my first paragraph.

As a sideline, the town of Lewes, in Susses, used to burn the Pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes' Night. Great fun for everybody, and I don't suppose the old dear felt so much as a twinge in his bunions.

One could argue (I don't!) that the Jews' right to the Promised Land lapsed when they failed to accept their Messiah. Anyway, I don't think the argument of divine right cuts much ice these days.

But they're there. Israel is a recognised state, and basically a very successful one. All credit to them. They're also part of the Western bloc, i.e. part of us, assuming that most posters are of decidedly Western bloc nationalities. So it's not a question of, Should they be there? but 'How can the present mess be sorted out?'

I don't think the UN proposed partition was a viable one, and it's even less viable now, with Israel in control of the occupied territories, and not looking like giving them up soon.

What I'm really saying, though it may not look like it, is that the Church of Scotland (and Stephen Hawking) can burn Jews in effigy for all the difference it makes. It's time they got back to the real world.

To be clear: from what JT has posted, The Church of Scotland were not burning Jews in effigy, nor were they denying Israel's legitimacy. They were saying that Christians should not support a claim that that legitimacy was based on divine right. In other words, that international politics should not be based on religion.

How many amongst us agree with that last statement, and how many disagree?

SC

Well, I did not suggest that the Church of Scotland were burning Jews in effigy! I just said it wouldn't make any difference if they did. And your question is answered in my first paragraph.

As a sideline, the town of Lewes, in Susses, used to burn the Pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes' Night. Great fun for everybody, and I don't suppose the old dear felt so much as a twinge in his bunions.

I was really aiming my question at those that were having a go at the Church of Scotland, to confirm if they actually held a contrary view to that quoted, or whether they were just using this as another opportunity to promote their own agenda.

SC

EDIT: And on the subject of promised lands, God and Gabriel were putting the finishing touches to this earthly delight:"Beautiful mountains, rich farmland and below, thick seams of coal to warm them on the long winter nights; seas full of fish, with oil below, and peaty mountain burns that will yield the finest whisky on earth"

"Lord, don't you think you're overdoing it for the Scots"

"Aye, well, look who they've got for neighbours"

Permit a personal reflection.

My only contact with the Church of Scotland was enjoying the London Chamber Orchestra sitting in the 13th century Dornoch Cathedral some 30 years ago.

A very enjoyable evening after 36 holes of golf on Royal Dornoch.

They don't support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. That's not the same thing as a theocratic state. Like IRAN. Israel is mildly theocratic but mostly NOT. Don't be fooled by the Scot's fudging games. It's all spin so they can come out openly against Israel's very right to exist. Zionism is about a lot more than the Jewish religion. It's a nationalist movement and now realization for the Jewish PEOPLE regardless of religiosity.

The issues are complex. Right wing Zionists like the settler movement do believe God grants the Jewish people the west bank. More moderate and liberal Zionists do not. Zionism is not ONE thing.

The majority of Israelis support self determination for Palestinians in their separate state.

The Scots don't think the Jews deserve ANY of Israel. That is crystal clear.

The Church of Scotland is a dwindling band of nutters JT. I really wouldn't worry about it.

After all....we have a good education system in Scotland.....so they will eventually be eradicated.

Jewish indoctrination will continue unabated however.

Israel's supporters must not overreact to the position of Stephen Hawking. That's a no win. He's a beloved sacred cow. Best just to ignore him.

Israel's supporters must not overreact to the position of Stephen Hawking. That's a no win. He's a beloved sacred cow. Best just to ignore him.

He was put up to it by Noam Chomsky. 'Nuff said.

Israel's supporters must not overreact to the position of Stephen Hawking. That's a no win. He's a beloved sacred cow. Best just to ignore him.

He was put up to it by Noam Chomsky. 'Nuff said.

At least Chomsky has thought A LOT about these issues. I respect him even if I don't always agree with him. I don't respect Hawking on this issue.

I was in the Boys Brigade.

Offer me a football and I might be prepared to switch to the Jewish faith.

Israel's supporters must not overreact to the position of Stephen Hawking. That's a no win. He's a beloved sacred cow. Best just to ignore him.

He was put up to it by Noam Chomsky. 'Nuff said.

At least Chomsky has thought A LOT about these issues. I respect him even if I don't always agree with him. I don't respect Hawking on this issue.

Hawking will have sleepless nights if somebody tells him

I was in the Boys Brigade.

Offer me a football and I might be prepared to switch to the Jewish faith.

Don't bother.