Palestinians demand return of "their" heritage -- Dead Sea Scolls

[Phoenall]

Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found.

Actually, "international law" is quite a bit more nuanced and detailed than that.

The United Nations has made an effort to specifically name examples of international heritage worthy of protection.

And not one item of Israeli heritage is amongst them, but plenty of arab muslims stolen artifacts are

 

[rylah]

I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.

Your claim is that cultural heritage preferentially should be under the guardianship of the political entity currently in control of the territory in which the cultural heritage is found.

I'm pointing out that is a lame argument. I've also pointed out the difference between tangible heritage (buildings and monuments) and intangible heritage which is portable.

Why should the guardianship of cultural heritage be given to the owner of a piece of land, rather than to the people of the cultural heritage?

Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found. For example, Roman coins found in Spain are studied there and on display in Spanish museums, not Italian museums.

I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.

Your claim is that cultural heritage preferentially should be under the guardianship of the political entity currently in control of the territory in which the cultural heritage is found.

I'm pointing out that is a lame argument. I've also pointed out the difference between tangible heritage (buildings and monuments) and intangible heritage which is portable.

Why should the guardianship of cultural heritage be given to the owner of a piece of land, rather than to the people of the cultural heritage?

Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found. For example, Roman coins found in Spain are studied there and on display in Spanish museums, not Italian museums.

Really? Did the Spanish people use Italian gravestones for..khhm khhm..TOILETS in any recent time??
Like the Jordanians did in occupied Judea:

Or use Jewish and Christian gravestones to pave roads and build walls:

The shameful negligence of some to respect the the sacred artifacts that were their responsibility to care for should make us more determined not to do the same.

Eloy when we discussed the history, heritage and the texts of the scrolls,
You spared no words (slogans) talking about the 'brutal occupation'. And claimed to not have enough evidence of Arab Palestinians trying to destroy Jewish heritage.

However once You've seen a TOILET being made out of a gravestone in Jerusalem- by the Arab Palestinians....You seem to be so bored and short of words.

Makes one think...

 

[Eloy]

I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.

Your claim is that cultural heritage preferentially should be under the guardianship of the political entity currently in control of the territory in which the cultural heritage is found.

I'm pointing out that is a lame argument. I've also pointed out the difference between tangible heritage (buildings and monuments) and intangible heritage which is portable.

Why should the guardianship of cultural heritage be given to the owner of a piece of land, rather than to the people of the cultural heritage?

Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found. For example, Roman coins found in Spain are studied there and on display in Spanish museums, not Italian museums.

I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.

Your claim is that cultural heritage preferentially should be under the guardianship of the political entity currently in control of the territory in which the cultural heritage is found.

I'm pointing out that is a lame argument. I've also pointed out the difference between tangible heritage (buildings and monuments) and intangible heritage which is portable.

Why should the guardianship of cultural heritage be given to the owner of a piece of land, rather than to the people of the cultural heritage?

Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found. For example, Roman coins found in Spain are studied there and on display in Spanish museums, not Italian museums.

Really? Did the Spanish people use Italian gravestones for..khhm khhm..TOILETS in any recent time??
Like the Jordanians did in occupied Judea:

Or use Jewish and Christian gravestones to pave roads and build walls:

The shameful negligence of some to respect the the sacred artifacts that were their responsibility to care for should make us more determined not to do the same.

Eloy when we discussed the history, heritage and the texts of the scrolls,
You spared no words (slogans) talking about the 'brutal occupation'. And claimed to not have enough evidence of Arab Palestinians trying to destroy Jewish heritage.

However once You've seen a TOILET being made out of a gravestone in Jerusalem- by the Arab Palestinians....You seem to be so bored and short of words.

Makes one think...

Me being bored by the post showing the desecration of graves is the product of your mind. I gave no such indication by what I wrote.

I apologize to anyone reading this if I waste their time defending myself but I never wrote that I saw no evidence of Arab Palestinians (terminology I avoid) trying to destroy Jewish heritage. I would not take the hooliganism of some undisciplined Jordanian soldiers as a reflection of Palestinian government attempts to deny a connection between Semitic Jews and the Holy Land.

None of this should be about me but the distinction between right and wrong. it is right for the Palestinian authorities to guard historical artifacts uncovered in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. It is wrong for another country (in this case Israel) to pilfer such artifacts on the grounds that a Jewish state owns all artifacts produced by any Jews anywhere in the world. This is risible racial hubris.

 

[rylah]

Your claim is that cultural heritage preferentially should be under the guardianship of the political entity currently in control of the territory in which the cultural heritage is found.

I'm pointing out that is a lame argument. I've also pointed out the difference between tangible heritage (buildings and monuments) and intangible heritage which is portable.

Why should the guardianship of cultural heritage be given to the owner of a piece of land, rather than to the people of the cultural heritage?

Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found. For example, Roman coins found in Spain are studied there and on display in Spanish museums, not Italian museums.

Your claim is that cultural heritage preferentially should be under the guardianship of the political entity currently in control of the territory in which the cultural heritage is found.

I'm pointing out that is a lame argument. I've also pointed out the difference between tangible heritage (buildings and monuments) and intangible heritage which is portable.

Why should the guardianship of cultural heritage be given to the owner of a piece of land, rather than to the people of the cultural heritage?

Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found. For example, Roman coins found in Spain are studied there and on display in Spanish museums, not Italian museums.

Really? Did the Spanish people use Italian gravestones for..khhm khhm..TOILETS in any recent time??
Like the Jordanians did in occupied Judea:

Or use Jewish and Christian gravestones to pave roads and build walls:

The shameful negligence of some to respect the the sacred artifacts that were their responsibility to care for should make us more determined not to do the same.

Eloy when we discussed the history, heritage and the texts of the scrolls,
You spared no words (slogans) talking about the 'brutal occupation'. And claimed to not have enough evidence of Arab Palestinians trying to destroy Jewish heritage.

However once You've seen a TOILET being made out of a gravestone in Jerusalem- by the Arab Palestinians....You seem to be so bored and short of words.

Makes one think...

Me being bored by the post showing the desecration of graves is the product of your mind. I gave no such indication by what I wrote.

I apologize to anyone reading this if I waste their time defending myself but I never wrote that I saw no evidence of Arab Palestinians (terminology I avoid) trying to destroy Jewish heritage. I would not take the hooliganism of some undisciplined Jordanian soldiers as a reflection of Palestinian government attempts to deny a connection between Semitic Jews and the Holy Land.

None of this should be about me but the distinction between right and wrong. it is right for the Palestinian authorities to guard historical artifacts uncovered in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. It is wrong for another country (in this case Israel) to pilfer such artifacts on the grounds that a Jewish state owns all artifacts produced by any Jews anywhere in the world. This is risible racial hubris.

This IS INDEED "risible racial hubris", this I You trying to talk Your way around the long going crime of the Arab Palestinians to obliterate anything Jewish. In fact this is still going on today- the excavations and disposal of artifacts on the Temple Mount, a Hotel is still standing on a part of a graveyard of Olive Mount and Jews are still being spat at and cursed when visiting their holiest place.

Of course "racial hubris" - this is what should be evident to You-
the hatred of the Jew is very real in the ME.

Let's se what's at stake here- the most ancient Jewish scrolls found on earth. And You advocate for it to be in the hands of the- "dirty joooish feet' PLO bunnies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No I'm not saying "everything a Jew wrote move to Israel", this is a ridiculous ad hominem.
I'm saying that here , in this case - the most ancient Hebrew Torah that were found in Judea....have more chance and relevance in the hands of Israeli Jews and Christians rather than people who build toilets, roadways and walls out of Christian and Jewish gravestones in Jerusalem.

 

[montelatici]

Well yes, there is certainly hatred for the European colonizers, who happened to be followers of Judaism. But in Algeria they had a hatred for the same Europeans who happened to be Christian. Only because they had colonized and intended to rule Algeria.

 

[Shusha]

Well yes, there is certainly hatred for the European colonizers, who happened to be followers of Judaism. But in Algeria they had a hatred for the same Europeans who happened to be Christian. Only because they had colonized and intended to rule Algeria.

Does this mean there is also certainly hatred for Arab invaders and colonizers, who happen to be followers of Islam?

I mean, if you are looking to justify hatred, it isn't especially difficult. Why don't you instead, try to see the Jewish narrative of return to their ancient ancestral homeland.

 

[montelatici]

The Arabians, who are Bedouins, did not colonize, there were too few of them, they are a desert people after all, deserts do not host large populations. They arrived leading armies mostly made up of converts they picked up along the way and ruled the native people, who eventually converted to Islam. In the case of places formerly under Roman rule, most of the Middle East and North Africa, the people seemed to prefer Arabian rule over Roman rule. But that is conjecture on the part of certain historians.

 

[montelatici]

Well yes, there is certainly hatred for the European colonizers, who happened to be followers of Judaism. But in Algeria they had a hatred for the same Europeans who happened to be Christian. Only because they had colonized and intended to rule Algeria.

Does this mean there is also certainly hatred for Arab invaders and colonizers, who happen to be followers of Islam?

I mean, if you are looking to justify hatred, it isn't especially difficult. Why don't you instead, try to see the Jewish narrative of return to their ancient ancestral homeland.

It is not the ancestral homeland of Europeans. It is the ancestral homeland of the native people. That they converted to Christianity when it became obligatory and then Islam when it became convenient doesn't change a people's homeland. The Zionist were Europeans that practiced Judaism, that's it.

 

[Phoenall]

Well yes, there is certainly hatred for the European colonizers, who happened to be followers of Judaism. But in Algeria they had a hatred for the same Europeans who happened to be Christian. Only because they had colonized and intended to rule Algeria.

Does this mean there is also certainly hatred for Arab invaders and colonizers, who happen to be followers of Islam?

I mean, if you are looking to justify hatred, it isn't especially difficult. Why don't you instead, try to see the Jewish narrative of return to their ancient ancestral homeland.

It is not the ancestral homeland of Europeans. It is the ancestral homeland of the native people. That they converted to Christianity when it became obligatory and then Islam when it became convenient doesn't change a people's homeland. The Zionist were Europeans that practiced Judaism, that's it.

So now you are saying Roman Catholic invaders and illegal immigrants are now indigenous. Or have you forgotten that the majority of Christians arrived after the fall of the Roman empire and were Romans

 

[rylah]

Well yes, there is certainly hatred for the European colonizers, who happened to be followers of Judaism. But in Algeria they had a hatred for the same Europeans who happened to be Christian. Only because they had colonized and intended to rule Algeria.

Does this mean there is also certainly hatred for Arab invaders and colonizers, who happen to be followers of Islam?

I mean, if you are looking to justify hatred, it isn't especially difficult. Why don't you instead, try to see the Jewish narrative of return to their ancient ancestral homeland.

It is not the ancestral homeland of Europeans. It is the ancestral homeland of the native people. That they converted to Christianity when it became obligatory and then Islam when it became convenient doesn't change a people's homeland. The Zionist were Europeans that practiced Judaism, that's it.

Well, what You claim here is not in line with the pattern of behavior of minorities in the ME. Where such communities used to differentiate themselves from any new conquest by ritual, language and law, that later turned into ethnicities.

There's a reason why we still can see many ethnicities and tribes fighting for survival under Muslim rule, even the other Muslim minorities among them (Drize, Shia, Yazidi, Ismaelites). People don't just change their collective and personal identity.

Again trying to rewrite history just for the Jews doesn't hold water to in light of all evidence-THE SCROLLS BEING ONE.

 

[Shusha]

I was watching one of Corey Gil-Shuster's videos yesterday and it occurred to me that one of the motivations for having possession of the Scrolls would be to destroy them because they prove, contrary to Islamic belief, that the Torah has been near perfectly preserved and has not changed at all in over 2000 years.

 

[Phoenall]

I was watching one of Corey Gil-Shuster's videos yesterday and it occurred to me that one of the motivations for having possession of the Scrolls would be to destroy them because they prove, contrary to Islamic belief, that the Torah has been near perfectly preserved and has not changed at all in over 2000 years.

Or send them to gaza where they will be used as shields to stop the IDF from firing at hamas rocket launchers

 

[Shusha]

Or send them to gaza where they will be used as shields to stop the IDF from firing at hamas rocket launchers

Ha! Don't give them any ideas!