Archaeologica.org

Factually Marduk that is quite correct, but it doesn't explain the enduring anti semitism. The root cause in Germany and England was always money.
Christian belief forbad the lending of money at interest, so Jews became money lenders. Jews were not permitted in England to marry non Jews so their wealth stayed within the Jewish community.
Weath meant education, better health care, the abilty to travel = envy.
In pre Nazi Germany Jews were less than 5% of the population and gained 25% of the Nobel honours = envy.

but it doesn't explain the enduring anti semitism.

For that, you need christianity.

And modern Islam Min.

I don't equate the two, Digit. Islam believes that it has a legitimate grievance in that Arab land was taken to re-create Israel. It's only 60 years ago....it's a fresh wound.

Early christian writings become not only progressively more ornate and miracle-driven but progressively more anti-semitic. Even if it happened (which I doubt) there should be a statute of limitations on that crime.

That's why I said modern Islam Min. But unfortunately their argument is hypocritical. By force of arms Islam took over Pakistan, Bangla Desh, and the whole of the North African coast and southern Spain. Islam also made a number of attempts at taking over Europe as well. And remember, 'From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli'?

Nobody's arguing that 'force of arms' is not a legitimate means of gaining control of an area. Historically it is the most common means.

They are simply applying the concept to try to get back what they feel was taken from them.


All of this archaeological nonsense about trying to find out who has "roots" to the land is pointless. If they suddenly produced a deed from the Byzantine Emperor giving title to Mohammad would the Israelis say "You're right....we'll leave." Of course not.

Islam also made a number of attempts at taking over Europe as well.

then they got this letter in the post

I have killed men and women, old and young, who lived at Oblucitza and Novoselo, where the Danube flows into the sea, up to Rahova, which is located near Chilia, from the lower Danube up to such places as Samovit and Ghighen. We killed 23,884 Turks and Bulgars without counting those whom we burned in homes or whose heads were not cut by our soldiers....Thus your highness must know that I have broken the peace with him [the sultan].
Vlad Dracul

Yep Steve, he was a right bar steward, there's little doubt about that.
Min, fair comment. But if you took over your neighbour's land sixty years ago and it's wrong and you took over your neighbours land eight hundred years ago and you want that accepted, where between 60 and 800 does a wrong become a right?

When someone stops fighting to get it back.

This is a power issue. There is no moral dimension to the question.

Yep Steve, he was a right bar steward

he was a hero of the church and the reason that western europe isnt getting down on its knees three times a day and praising allah
dont know if Bar Steward is the right term Roy

Minimalist wrote:They are simply applying the concept to try to get back what they feel was taken from them.

As did Ben Gurian and company in 1947 by force of arms. Is there a statute of limitations on land rights? After all they were forcefully removed by the Romans after the Bar Kochab revolution iirc.

But unfortunately Min Israel wasn't entirely a take away job.
Any Jew of my generation will be able to quote you the 'Balfour Declaration', It runs, 'The British Government views with favour the establishment of a Jewish National home in Palestine and will bend all endeavours to that end.'
Palestine was at that time a mandated territory under the flag of the League of Nations having just been removed from Turkish control.
At that time a greater part of Arabia was under the leadership of Prince Fiasal and he agreed to the arrangement.
The treaty reads, 'the deserts will bloom and Jews will be our friends.'
Jews began then to move into Palestine and they purchased the land, here in the UK collections were made each Sabbath 'for Zion'.
Fiasal was no fool, at the bottom of the treaty there is scribed in his own hand, 'I will not be bound by one word of this if the British do not honour our agreements.
They didn't! The Government dumped on both parties and set the scene for all that followed.

Correct and the land has been overrun many times by various conquerors since then. Even the Holy Crusaders held it briefly.

I was about to mention T. E. Lawrence, Dig, but you saved me the trouble!

I regret to say Min that various governments of my country have not infrequently been guilty of the some of most devious forms of double dealing the world has ever seen.
Currently TB is saying that in Iraq we will stay and 'finish the job'. Socialist governments in the past said the same in Palestine, India, Aden, and Cyprus, then cut and ran and left locals to slaughter each other when things got tough.