Should Israel have been created?

[High_Gravity]

Yes, it should. Next question.

 

[RoccoR]

irosie91, et al,

Yes, this has been discussed in many different ways. It truly needs either to be mutually agreed upon by direct negotiation, or by a special court of claims.

Mr R----regarding the land purchases----WHO WOULD BE
"compensated" ????? compensated for what??????

(COMMENT)

There are different kinds of claims relative to property.

• Claims of confiscation.
• Claims of destruction.
• Claims of forced deportation causing separation and loss.
• Claims of income loss from productivity of property lost.
• etc

In reverse, are the offsets from the cost of defensive measures from the three wars, and two Intifad's; and the $2 billion per year paid to Egypt and Jordan in aid packages arranged largely in exchange for peace treaties with Israel. the construction of the Wall and the construction of the security barriers and check points.

It could get complicated.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

georgephillip; et al,

Of course, there are other hypothesis.

The Allied Powers defeated the Ottoman Empire and then set in motion events that lead to the imposition of a settler-colonial state in Israel circa 1948. Hundreds of thousands of indigenous Palestinians were fled lands they had lived on for generations.

(COMMENT)

The outbreak of hostilities was the primary cause. And the outbreak of hostilities was initiated by the Palestinians.

Since all governments serve the interests of their richest citizens (natural and corporate);

(COMMENT)

That is rather a telling statement.

Ah yessss... This is a common anti-government theme.

There is no mention of the land purchases through the Jewish Agency program made lucrative through Egyptian Banks and Real Estate brokers.

perhaps elites in the west who have gotten even richer off the misery of Jew and Arab alike in Palestine since 1948 should pay the cost of reparations to their Semitic victims?

(COMMENT)

Why would you suspect that the elite of the Mandatory would have profited more than the mortgage holders and transfer brokers in Damascus and Cairo?

I suspect, as well, that some reparations and restitutions are probably due. It will take some sort of an effort, given the accounting required to compute the damage caused by the agressors, less the incurred damage claims and associated compensation; and eventually treaty limitations.

Most Respectfully,
R

The outbreak of hostilities was the primary cause. And the outbreak of hostilities was initiated by the Palestinians.

That is not true.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

I know, you see this as an invasion.

(COMMENT)

The outbreak of hostilities was the primary cause. And the outbreak of hostilities was initiated by the Palestinians.

That is not true.

(COMMENT)

The minority group, the Jewish, didn't not open hostilities. That was done by the Arabs (Palestinians) that opposed the LoN/Allied Powers immigration policies, to support the establishment of a Jewish Homeland. This was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers.

The Palestinian/Arab League pattern of behavior was hostile action. You might be able to make a case if it was a one-time event; but, there have been three wars. All three were provoked by the Arab side.

So, while the immature feud continues, there is little question that the Arab/Palestinian pulled the trigger first. They simply were unable to adapt to the changes of the 20th Century and the Post-War developments that came with time.

There is a test question: If the Arab League/Palestinians had NOT opened up hostilities and initiated open warfare on 15 May 1948, would we be facing the same situation today? --- OR --- Would the Arabs and Israelis be better-off in the long run?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

the answer is simple----- DAR AL ISLAM ---a cause

something like 1st reich, 2nd reich 3rd reich
and caliphate the cause of the conflict is
the ideologies----of THE REICHS and
THE CALIPHATES

 

[Billo_Really]

The outbreak of hostilities was the primary cause. And the outbreak of hostilities was initiated by the Palestinians.

Tell that to the Palestinian's who were massacred at Deir Yassin by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

If for what you said was true, how do you explain the fact that there had been no major incidents of violence between jews and arabs prior to the zionist migration?

Myth #1 – Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region.

Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well. For the most part, Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors. This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.

For instance, after a series of riots in Jaffa in 1921 resulting in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, the occupying British held a commission of inquiry, which reported their finding that “there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious.” Rather, Arab attacks on Jewish communities were the result of Arab fears about the stated goal of the Zionists to take over the land.

This was never more apparent than in the racist, apartheid policies, zionists brought with them during the migration, as I will demonstrate below.

There is no mention of the land purchases through the Jewish Agency program made lucrative through Egyptian Banks and Real Estate brokers.

Land purchases came with a catch............."an apartheid catch".

A strict policy of what in today's terms would be described as racial discrimination was maintained by the Zionist Organization in this rapid advance towards the "national home".

Only Jewish labour could service Jewish farms and settlements.

The eventual outcome of this trend was a major outbreak of violence with unprecedented loss of life in 1929, which was investigated by the Shaw Commission. Another commission headed by Sir John Hope Simpson followed to investigate questions of immigration and land transfers. Certain observations of the Hope Simpson Commission are of interest, particularly on labour and employment policies.

And there's no way anyone can argue these policies were not racist and apartheid at their core.

The report described in some detail the employment policies of the Zionist agencies quoting some of their provisions:

"The effect of the Jewish colonization in Palestine on the existing population is very intimately affected by the conditions on which the various Jewish bodies hold, sell and lease their land.

"The Constitution of the Jewish Agency: Land Holding and Employment Clauses ...

"(d) Land is to be acquired as Jewish property and ... the same shall be held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people.

"(e) The Agency shall promote agricultural colonization based on Jewish labour ... it shall be deemed to be a matter of principle that Jewish labour shall be employed ..."

"Keren Kayemet draft lease: Employment of Jewish labour only

"... The lessee undertakes to execute all works connected with the cultivation of the holding only with Jewish labour. Failure to comply with this duty by the employment of non-Jewish labour shall render the lessee liable to the payment of compensation ..."

"The lease also provides that the holding shall never be held by any but a Jew ..."​

So even when land was acquired by non-violent means, indigenous arabs were still denied access to jobs and the ability to make a living and provide for their families.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The outbreak of hostilities was the primary cause. And the outbreak of hostilities was initiated by the Palestinians.

Tell that to the Palestinian's who were massacred at Deir Yassin by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

If for what you said was true, how do you explain the fact that there had been no major incidents of violence between jews and arabs prior to the zionist migration?

Myth #1 – Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region.

Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well. For the most part, Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors. This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.

For instance, after a series of riots in Jaffa in 1921 resulting in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, the occupying British held a commission of inquiry, which reported their finding that “there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious.” Rather, Arab attacks on Jewish communities were the result of Arab fears about the stated goal of the Zionists to take over the land.

This was never more apparent than in the racist, apartheid policies, zionists brought with them during the migration, as I will demonstrate below.

Land purchases came with a catch............."an apartheid catch".

A strict policy of what in today's terms would be described as racial discrimination was maintained by the Zionist Organization in this rapid advance towards the "national home".

Only Jewish labour could service Jewish farms and settlements.

The eventual outcome of this trend was a major outbreak of violence with unprecedented loss of life in 1929, which was investigated by the Shaw Commission. Another commission headed by Sir John Hope Simpson followed to investigate questions of immigration and land transfers. Certain observations of the Hope Simpson Commission are of interest, particularly on labour and employment policies.

And there's no way anyone can argue these policies were not racist and apartheid at their core.

The report described in some detail the employment policies of the Zionist agencies quoting some of their provisions:

"The effect of the Jewish colonization in Palestine on the existing population is very intimately affected by the conditions on which the various Jewish bodies hold, sell and lease their land.

"The Constitution of the Jewish Agency: Land Holding and Employment Clauses ...

"(d) Land is to be acquired as Jewish property and ... the same shall be held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people.

"(e) The Agency shall promote agricultural colonization based on Jewish labour ... it shall be deemed to be a matter of principle that Jewish labour shall be employed ..."

"Keren Kayemet draft lease: Employment of Jewish labour only

"... The lessee undertakes to execute all works connected with the cultivation of the holding only with Jewish labour. Failure to comply with this duty by the employment of non-Jewish labour shall render the lessee liable to the payment of compensation ..."

"The lease also provides that the holding shall never be held by any but a Jew ..."​

So even when land was acquired by non-violent means, indigenous arabs were still denied access to jobs and the ability to make a living and provide for their families.

Jews have always been accused of never wanting to do menial, dirty work like construction or farming, so when the first Zionists immigrated, it was a matter of pride to them. They found a neglected land, drained the swamps, and made the desert bloom. But you should know that in Israel now, professionals like my uncle and aunt hire Arabs to build their houses.

 

[Billo_Really]

Jews have always been accused of never wanting to do menial, dirty work like construction or farming, so when the first Zionists immigrated, it was a matter of pride to them. They found a neglected land, drained the swamps, and made the desert bloom. But you should know that in Israel now, professionals like my uncle and aunt hire Arabs to build their houses.

It would really be nice to see liberal, left-wing jews, become the dominant political party in Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

I know, you see this as an invasion.

(COMMENT)

The outbreak of hostilities was the primary cause. And the outbreak of hostilities was initiated by the Palestinians.

That is not true.

(COMMENT)

The minority group, the Jewish, didn't not open hostilities. That was done by the Arabs (Palestinians) that opposed the LoN/Allied Powers immigration policies, to support the establishment of a Jewish Homeland. This was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers.

The Palestinian/Arab League pattern of behavior was hostile action. You might be able to make a case if it was a one-time event; but, there have been three wars. All three were provoked by the Arab side.

So, while the immature feud continues, there is little question that the Arab/Palestinian pulled the trigger first. They simply were unable to adapt to the changes of the 20th Century and the Post-War developments that came with time.

There is a test question: If the Arab League/Palestinians had NOT opened up hostilities and initiated open warfare on 15 May 1948, would we be facing the same situation today? --- OR --- Would the Arabs and Israelis be better-off in the long run?

Most Respectfully,
R

The minority group, the Jewish, didn't not open hostilities. That was done by the Arabs (Palestinians) that opposed the LoN/Allied Powers immigration policies, to support the establishment of a Jewish Homeland. This was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers.

Not so. The Palestinians were defending their country from this invasion.

Indeed, it was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers. Were the Palestinians expected to sit on their hands while this invasion was taking place before their eyes?

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore; et al,

I know, you see this as an invasion.

That is not true.

(COMMENT)

The minority group, the Jewish, didn't not open hostilities. That was done by the Arabs (Palestinians) that opposed the LoN/Allied Powers immigration policies, to support the establishment of a Jewish Homeland. This was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers.

The Palestinian/Arab League pattern of behavior was hostile action. You might be able to make a case if it was a one-time event; but, there have been three wars. All three were provoked by the Arab side.

So, while the immature feud continues, there is little question that the Arab/Palestinian pulled the trigger first. They simply were unable to adapt to the changes of the 20th Century and the Post-War developments that came with time.

There is a test question: If the Arab League/Palestinians had NOT opened up hostilities and initiated open warfare on 15 May 1948, would we be facing the same situation today? --- OR --- Would the Arabs and Israelis be better-off in the long run?

Most Respectfully,
R

The minority group, the Jewish, didn't not open hostilities. That was done by the Arabs (Palestinians) that opposed the LoN/Allied Powers immigration policies, to support the establishment of a Jewish Homeland. This was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers.

Not so. The Palestinians were defending their country from this invasion.

Indeed, it was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers. Were the Palestinians expected to sit on their hands while this invasion was taking place before their eyes?

Wishful thinking on your part. Rocco provides facts which you always dispute.

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip; et al,

Of course, there are other hypothesis.

The Allied Powers defeated the Ottoman Empire and then set in motion events that lead to the imposition of a settler-colonial state in Israel circa 1948. Hundreds of thousands of indigenous Palestinians were fled lands they had lived on for generations.

(COMMENT)

The outbreak of hostilities was the primary cause. And the outbreak of hostilities was initiated by the Palestinians.

Since all governments serve the interests of their richest citizens (natural and corporate);

(COMMENT)

That is rather a telling statement.

Ah yessss... This is a common anti-government theme.

There is no mention of the land purchases through the Jewish Agency program made lucrative through Egyptian Banks and Real Estate brokers.

perhaps elites in the west who have gotten even richer off the misery of Jew and Arab alike in Palestine since 1948 should pay the cost of reparations to their Semitic victims?

(COMMENT)

Why would you suspect that the elite of the Mandatory would have profited more than the mortgage holders and transfer brokers in Damascus and Cairo?

I suspect, as well, that some reparations and restitutions are probably due. It will take some sort of an effort, given the accounting required to compute the damage caused by the agressors, less the incurred damage claims and associated compensation; and eventually treaty limitations.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...here's where my "telling statement" stems from:

"He (Adam Smith) also made remarks which ought to be truisms about the way states work.

"He pointed out that its totally senseless to talk about a nation and what we would nowadays call 'national interests.'

"He simply observed in passing, because it's so obvious, that in England, which is what he's discussing -- and it was the most democratic society of the day -- the principal architects of policy are the 'merchants and manufacturers,' and they make certain that their own interests are, in his words, 'most peculiarly attended to,' no matter what the effect on others, including the people of England who, he argued, suffered from their policies.

"He didn't have the data to prove it at the time, but he was probably right."

Chomsky and Smith share an opinion that inclines me to believe private wealth doesn't even exist without investment bankers and other war criminals.

Glad you're back, Rocco!

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

I know, you see this as an invasion.


(COMMENT)

The minority group, the Jewish, didn't not open hostilities. That was done by the Arabs (Palestinians) that opposed the LoN/Allied Powers immigration policies, to support the establishment of a Jewish Homeland. This was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers.

The Palestinian/Arab League pattern of behavior was hostile action. You might be able to make a case if it was a one-time event; but, there have been three wars. All three were provoked by the Arab side.

So, while the immature feud continues, there is little question that the Arab/Palestinian pulled the trigger first. They simply were unable to adapt to the changes of the 20th Century and the Post-War developments that came with time.

There is a test question: If the Arab League/Palestinians had NOT opened up hostilities and initiated open warfare on 15 May 1948, would we be facing the same situation today? --- OR --- Would the Arabs and Israelis be better-off in the long run?

Most Respectfully,
R

The minority group, the Jewish, didn't not open hostilities. That was done by the Arabs (Palestinians) that opposed the LoN/Allied Powers immigration policies, to support the establishment of a Jewish Homeland. This was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers.

Not so. The Palestinians were defending their country from this invasion.

Indeed, it was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers. Were the Palestinians expected to sit on their hands while this invasion was taking place before their eyes?

Wishful thinking on your part. Rocco provides facts which you always dispute.

Indeed, he stated that Palestine was being taken over by foreigners.

That is what I have been saying all along. I don't dispute that.

 

[Hossfly]

Maybe that's the way it's supposed to work but those genuises had no practical experience. Only classroom theory.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Again, this is a place where we differ in perspective.

Not so. The Palestinians were defending their country from this invasion.

Indeed, it was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers. Were the Palestinians expected to sit on their hands while this invasion was taking place before their eyes?

(COMMENT)

There are just so many things wrong with this piece of your perspective.

• What you call "their country" was not their country. It was territory under the Mandate decided by Treaty and the Allied Powers/LoN; relinquished from Turkey (the Successor Nation) to the LoN/Allied Powers. What we call the Palestinians today, were once a people under Ottoman Sovereignty. (See Article 139 of the Treaty of Sevres)
  
  
• What you call an "invasion" was an invasion. It was a program to facilitate Jewish immigration and encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. (See Articles 4 & 6 of the Mandate)
  
  
• What you call a "defense" was not a defense. It was the duty of the Mandatory (the UK) to defend the territory; not that of the Palestinian. It was an armed insurgency by the population, of a former and subdued aggressor empire, in open defiance --- to obstruct a key objective of the Mandate; that to establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. (See the Preamble and Articles 4 & 5 of the Mandate)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Again, this is a place where we differ in perspective.

Not so. The Palestinians were defending their country from this invasion.

Indeed, it was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers. Were the Palestinians expected to sit on their hands while this invasion was taking place before their eyes?

(COMMENT)

There are just so many things wrong with this piece of your perspective.

• What you call "their country" was not their country. It was territory under the Mandate decided by Treaty and the Allied Powers/LoN; relinquished from Turkey (the Successor Nation) to the LoN/Allied Powers. What we call the Palestinians today, were once a people under Ottoman Sovereignty. (See Article 139 of the Treaty of Sevres)

• 
  
  Remember, mandates owned no territory. They were assigned to assist a country. In this case that country was Palestine.
  
  

  What you call an "invasion" was an invasion. It was a program to facilitate Jewish immigration and encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. (See Articles 4 & 6 of the Mandate)

  
  Indeed it was.
  
  

  What you call a "defense" was not a defense. It was the duty of the Mandatory (the UK) to defend the territory; not that of the Palestinian. It was an armed insurgency by the population, of a former and subdued aggressor empire, in open defiance --- to obstruct a key objective of the Mandate; that to establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. (See the Preamble and Articles 4 & 5 of the Mandate)

  
  Interesting that it was called the Palestine Mandate.
  
  

  Most Respectfully,
  R

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip; et al,

(PREFACE)

There is no question that the influence that large domestic and transnational corporations have over Congress is, worrisome. The is even a TV Drama about a future time when corporations run the government ("Continuum" on the SyFi Channel). And no doubt, there will be a struggle to diminish this influence over time, as the interest of the people declines and the wealth of the nation is concentrated into the hands of a very few. That time hasn't come yet.

Since all governments serve the interests of their richest citizens (natural and corporate);

Rocco...here's where my "telling statement" stems from:

"He (Adam Smith) also made remarks which ought to be truisms about the way states work.

"He pointed out that its totally senseless to talk about a nation and what we would nowadays call 'national interests.'

"He simply observed in passing, because it's so obvious, that in England, which is what he's discussing -- and it was the most democratic society of the day -- the principal architects of policy are the 'merchants and manufacturers,' and they make certain that their own interests are, in his words, 'most peculiarly attended to,' no matter what the effect on others, including the people of England who, he argued, suffered from their policies.

"He didn't have the data to prove it at the time, but he was probably right."

Chomsky and Smith share an opinion that inclines me to believe private wealth doesn't even exist without investment bankers and other war criminals.

(COMMENT)

There is no doubt that "Adam Smith" (of 18th Century British Economics fame and author of the "wealth of Nations") has had an tremendous influence on those in American that ultimately turnout to control Economic Policy. It has been required reading since before I went to college. And who has not heard of Noam Chomsky (one of today's best known philosopher, political activist, and lecturer) on political issues and controversies of our time. Having said that, it is important to note that balance must be maintained between the influence and control of the very rich -- and the desperation of the remaining 97% of the population that suffers from the adverse impact of the hardships presented by the floundering economy and receding standard of living; if we are to avoid a truly horrific class warfare struggle.

Glad you're back, Rocco!

(COMMENT)

Many thanks. I didn't think anyone noticed I was even gone.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

georgephillip; et al,

(PREFACE)

There is no question that the influence that large domestic and transnational corporations have over Congress is, worrisome. The is even a TV Drama about a future time when corporations run the government ("Continuum" on the SyFi Channel). And no doubt, there will be a struggle to diminish this influence over time, as the interest of the people declines and the wealth of the nation is concentrated into the hands of a very few. That time hasn't come yet.

Since all governments serve the interests of their richest citizens (natural and corporate);

Rocco...here's where my "telling statement" stems from:

"He (Adam Smith) also made remarks which ought to be truisms about the way states work.

"He pointed out that its totally senseless to talk about a nation and what we would nowadays call 'national interests.'

"He simply observed in passing, because it's so obvious, that in England, which is what he's discussing -- and it was the most democratic society of the day -- the principal architects of policy are the 'merchants and manufacturers,' and they make certain that their own interests are, in his words, 'most peculiarly attended to,' no matter what the effect on others, including the people of England who, he argued, suffered from their policies.

"He didn't have the data to prove it at the time, but he was probably right."

Chomsky and Smith share an opinion that inclines me to believe private wealth doesn't even exist without investment bankers and other war criminals.

(COMMENT)

There is no doubt that "Adam Smith" (of 18th Century British Economics fame and author of the "wealth of Nations") has had an tremendous influence on those in American that ultimately turnout to control Economic Policy. It has been required reading since before I went to college. And who has not heard of Noam Chomsky (one of today's best known philosopher, political activist, and lecturer) on political issues and controversies of our time. Having said that, it is important to note that balance must be maintained between the influence and control of the very rich -- and the desperation of the remaining 97% of the population that suffers from the adverse impact of the hardships presented by the floundering economy and receding standard of living; if we are to avoid a truly horrific class warfare struggle.

Glad you're back, Rocco!

(COMMENT)

Many thanks. I didn't think anyone noticed I was even gone.

Most Respectfully,
R

I missed you.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Again and Again, this is a place where we differ in perspective.

Remember, mandates owned no territory. They were assigned to assist a country. In this case that country was Palestine.

Indeed it was.

Interesting that it was called the Palestine Mandate.

(COMMENT)

So much wrong here.

The region, we call today Palestine, was a portion of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey, the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, forfeited the rights of sovereignty over that land (as well as several others). They were not countries. In the case of Palestine, not only was it not a country, but the lands and meaning of Palestine was undefined.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

SOURCE: Sevres Treaty: Part III

In 1920, there wasn't even a recognized outline to Palestine. That was made by the Allied Powers, under the terms of the Treaty. The Allied Powers determined what they would call "Palestine" and made a Mandate through the LoN Process.

Make no mistake! There was no such country as Palestine. It is a made-up territory with a ancient name.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Even when Rocco provides indisputable evidence, Tinmore finds a way to make up more stories.

 

[irosie91]

Even when Rocco provides indisputable evidence, Tinmore finds a way to make up more stories.

Tinnie has created a specific "reality" His "reality" consists of a LAND CALLED
PALESTINE which is peopled by a specific society of people since ancient times
called "palestinians" Its borders were ratified in 1922 as immutable and eternal
and its population and unchanging demographics dominated by "arabs" ---yet
another mythic society of which "palestinians" are a subset and
who in his mind have populated the middle east for at least 3000 years.
If you accept his basic premise-----you can understand his posts. His concepts
are not all that weird------he considers jews to be "foreigners" to "palestine"---
in the same way Episcopalian Bostonians might consider a tribe of SIOUX Indians
to be "foreigners" in North America. Jews lived in arabia----for a period of time
about as long as ISLAM has existed ----christians for several centuries ---perhaps
as much as five centuries-----and perhaps zoroastrians too---about as long as
jews. In arabia today----all three groups would be considered ABSOLUTELY---
foreigners Arabians of today date their own society and language and culture
back to Noah (the one
with the ark and two by two zoo)