The Right To Destroy Jewish History

[Sixties Fan]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told NNC Pierce Morgan on March 18, 2011 that he might agree to a Palestinian state through negotiations. And he added, “We will make territorial concessions although it is very painful to do that in our ancestral land.” Netanyahu was not talking about Poland where his ancestors lived. He was talking about Palestine where generations of its indigenous population ancestors lived, cultivated the land and are buried.

By the end of the nineteenth century, Zionism created a new Jewish identity of blood and soil. To mobilize their followers and supporters and appeal to their emotions, the Zionists created myths. Zionism started as a tribal religion without god, but in order to fulfill its function as a unifying force, Zionism required external religious and race symbols, not inner content. Its leaders regarded metaphysical religious belief and purity of race as having value in itself. They created a divine paradisiacal state of merger with the gods. Despite his non-religious ideology, Herzl’s writings were replete with religious references. The Jews should settle in Palestine because, in his words, “the Temple will be visible from long distance, for it is only our ancient faith that has kept us together”.

The Zionists and their supporters have invested tremendous financial and scholarly resources to work within the Hebrew Bible historical narratives to affirm the links between the intrusive Zionist population and the ancient Israelite past, and by doing so assert the right of that population to the land. The political end-game shaped the investigation and the outcome. Tracing the roots of Israel’s ethnic state in biblical antiquity is effectively to silence the indigenous Palestinian claim to the past and therefore to the land. The Biblical scholarship employs a bewildering array of terms for the region: “the Holy Land”, “the Land of the Bible”, “Eretz Israel”, “the Land of Israel”, or “Judah and Samaria.” To the casual reader these names appear interchangeable, but they all imply connection to ancient Israel.
Continued

A Palestinian telling Jewish/ZIonism history.

How quaint

No, he does not have the right to destroy Jewish History with this:

"The indigenous Palestinians, the legitimate owners of the land, are the descendants of Ancient Canaanites, Philistinians, ancient Hebrews, Assyrians, ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims, Christian crusaders and Turks. The groups that lived in Palestine fought, interacted and collaborated, but no group was obliterated."


Arab Palestinians are Arabs.

It is so simple that even all of the ancient tribes in ancient Canaan agree

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told NNC Pierce Morgan on March 18, 2011 that he might agree to a Palestinian state through negotiations. And he added, “We will make territorial concessions although it is very painful to do that in our ancestral land.” Netanyahu was not talking about Poland where his ancestors lived. He was talking about Palestine where generations of its indigenous population ancestors lived, cultivated the land and are buried.

By the end of the nineteenth century, Zionism created a new Jewish identity of blood and soil. To mobilize their followers and supporters and appeal to their emotions, the Zionists created myths. Zionism started as a tribal religion without god, but in order to fulfill its function as a unifying force, Zionism required external religious and race symbols, not inner content. Its leaders regarded metaphysical religious belief and purity of race as having value in itself. They created a divine paradisiacal state of merger with the gods. Despite his non-religious ideology, Herzl’s writings were replete with religious references. The Jews should settle in Palestine because, in his words, “the Temple will be visible from long distance, for it is only our ancient faith that has kept us together”.

The Zionists and their supporters have invested tremendous financial and scholarly resources to work within the Hebrew Bible historical narratives to affirm the links between the intrusive Zionist population and the ancient Israelite past, and by doing so assert the right of that population to the land. The political end-game shaped the investigation and the outcome. Tracing the roots of Israel’s ethnic state in biblical antiquity is effectively to silence the indigenous Palestinian claim to the past and therefore to the land. The Biblical scholarship employs a bewildering array of terms for the region: “the Holy Land”, “the Land of the Bible”, “Eretz Israel”, “the Land of Israel”, or “Judah and Samaria.” To the casual reader these names appear interchangeable, but they all imply connection to ancient Israel.
Continued

Yes, Eretz Israel is the Holy Land and the Promised Land, the land where our kings and prophets walked. Practically every street in Jerusalem is named after a prophet (like Shmuel HaNavi) or king/ queen (Shlomtzion HaMalka). There are the King David and King Solomon Hotels. You can't walk a mile in Israel without stepping into Jewish history, whether it's the tunnel where the last King of Judah (Zedekiah) fled from the Babylonians, the fortress of Masada, or Ein-Gedi where David hid from Saul.

 

[fanger]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told NNC Pierce Morgan on March 18, 2011 that he might agree to a Palestinian state through negotiations. And he added, “We will make territorial concessions although it is very painful to do that in our ancestral land.” Netanyahu was not talking about Poland where his ancestors lived. He was talking about Palestine where generations of its indigenous population ancestors lived, cultivated the land and are buried.

By the end of the nineteenth century, Zionism created a new Jewish identity of blood and soil. To mobilize their followers and supporters and appeal to their emotions, the Zionists created myths. Zionism started as a tribal religion without god, but in order to fulfill its function as a unifying force, Zionism required external religious and race symbols, not inner content. Its leaders regarded metaphysical religious belief and purity of race as having value in itself. They created a divine paradisiacal state of merger with the gods. Despite his non-religious ideology, Herzl’s writings were replete with religious references. The Jews should settle in Palestine because, in his words, “the Temple will be visible from long distance, for it is only our ancient faith that has kept us together”.

The Zionists and their supporters have invested tremendous financial and scholarly resources to work within the Hebrew Bible historical narratives to affirm the links between the intrusive Zionist population and the ancient Israelite past, and by doing so assert the right of that population to the land. The political end-game shaped the investigation and the outcome. Tracing the roots of Israel’s ethnic state in biblical antiquity is effectively to silence the indigenous Palestinian claim to the past and therefore to the land. The Biblical scholarship employs a bewildering array of terms for the region: “the Holy Land”, “the Land of the Bible”, “Eretz Israel”, “the Land of Israel”, or “Judah and Samaria.” To the casual reader these names appear interchangeable, but they all imply connection to ancient Israel.
Continued

A Palestinian telling Jewish/ZIonism history.

How quaint

No, he does not have the right to destroy Jewish History with this:

"The indigenous Palestinians, the legitimate owners of the land, are the descendants of Ancient Canaanites, Philistinians, ancient Hebrews, Assyrians, ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims, Christian crusaders and Turks. The groups that lived in Palestine fought, interacted and collaborated, but no group was obliterated."


Arab Palestinians are Arabs.

It is so simple that even all of the ancient tribes in ancient Canaan agree

Biblical narratives or poems that cannot be supported by archeology and common sense are treated by the Zionists and their supporters as historical language. Historians have to differentiate between biblical myths and the history of real people living in real places and real time. They should have the intellectual courage to challenge any source including the “revealed truth” of higher order as presented in Biblical text if it is used to justify injustice and cruelty by one people against another. Gamla, an ethnic cleansing advocacy group founded by former Israeli military officers, Knesset members and settler activists publishes detailed plans for how to carry out the “complete elimination of the Arab demographic threat to Israel” by forcibly expelling all Palestinians and demolishing their towns and villages. This, the plan argued is “the only possible solution” to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and it is “substantiated by the Torah.” Biblical studies have focused on inventing “Ancient Israel” while ignoring the reality of Palestinian history over thousands of years. Many historic experiences related to the ancient Israelite conquest and settlement of Palestine were described in terms of divine acts with religious zeal.

Many scholars, mostly moderate Jewish, who give primacy to archaeology, relegate the biblical text to a secondary place as a historical source. On 2001 Passover, Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple in Westwood, Los Angeles told his congregation: “The truth is that virtually every archaeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus [from Egypt], with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all.” He based his conclusions on the fact that no archeological findings have produced evidence of the Jews wandering the Sinai Desert for forty years, and the excavations in Palestine show settlement patterns different from the Biblical account of a sudden influx of Jews from Egypt.

continued

 

[Sixties Fan]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told NNC Pierce Morgan on March 18, 2011 that he might agree to a Palestinian state through negotiations. And he added, “We will make territorial concessions although it is very painful to do that in our ancestral land.” Netanyahu was not talking about Poland where his ancestors lived. He was talking about Palestine where generations of its indigenous population ancestors lived, cultivated the land and are buried.

By the end of the nineteenth century, Zionism created a new Jewish identity of blood and soil. To mobilize their followers and supporters and appeal to their emotions, the Zionists created myths. Zionism started as a tribal religion without god, but in order to fulfill its function as a unifying force, Zionism required external religious and race symbols, not inner content. Its leaders regarded metaphysical religious belief and purity of race as having value in itself. They created a divine paradisiacal state of merger with the gods. Despite his non-religious ideology, Herzl’s writings were replete with religious references. The Jews should settle in Palestine because, in his words, “the Temple will be visible from long distance, for it is only our ancient faith that has kept us together”.

The Zionists and their supporters have invested tremendous financial and scholarly resources to work within the Hebrew Bible historical narratives to affirm the links between the intrusive Zionist population and the ancient Israelite past, and by doing so assert the right of that population to the land. The political end-game shaped the investigation and the outcome. Tracing the roots of Israel’s ethnic state in biblical antiquity is effectively to silence the indigenous Palestinian claim to the past and therefore to the land. The Biblical scholarship employs a bewildering array of terms for the region: “the Holy Land”, “the Land of the Bible”, “Eretz Israel”, “the Land of Israel”, or “Judah and Samaria.” To the casual reader these names appear interchangeable, but they all imply connection to ancient Israel.
Continued

A Palestinian telling Jewish/ZIonism history.

How quaint

No, he does not have the right to destroy Jewish History with this:

"The indigenous Palestinians, the legitimate owners of the land, are the descendants of Ancient Canaanites, Philistinians, ancient Hebrews, Assyrians, ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims, Christian crusaders and Turks. The groups that lived in Palestine fought, interacted and collaborated, but no group was obliterated."


Arab Palestinians are Arabs.

It is so simple that even all of the ancient tribes in ancient Canaan agree

Biblical narratives or poems that cannot be supported by archeology and common sense are treated by the Zionists and their supporters as historical language. Historians have to differentiate between biblical myths and the history of real people living in real places and real time. They should have the intellectual courage to challenge any source including the “revealed truth” of higher order as presented in Biblical text if it is used to justify injustice and cruelty by one people against another. Gamla, an ethnic cleansing advocacy group founded by former Israeli military officers, Knesset members and settler activists publishes detailed plans for how to carry out the “complete elimination of the Arab demographic threat to Israel” by forcibly expelling all Palestinians and demolishing their towns and villages. This, the plan argued is “the only possible solution” to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and it is “substantiated by the Torah.” Biblical studies have focused on inventing “Ancient Israel” while ignoring the reality of Palestinian history over thousands of years. Many historic experiences related to the ancient Israelite conquest and settlement of Palestine were described in terms of divine acts with religious zeal.

Many scholars, mostly moderate Jewish, who give primacy to archaeology, relegate the biblical text to a secondary place as a historical source. On 2001 Passover, Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple in Westwood, Los Angeles told his congregation: “The truth is that virtually every archaeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus [from Egypt], with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all.” He based his conclusions on the fact that no archeological findings have produced evidence of the Jews wandering the Sinai Desert for forty years, and the excavations in Palestine show settlement patterns different from the Biblical account of a sudden influx of Jews from Egypt.

continued

I do thank you for alerting me to this site and the "Right to Destroy Jewish History" the author of the article seems to think he and other Arab Muslims are entitled to have.

This coming from a religion which is based on the Myth that Allah (oh, wait, wasn't it Angel Gabriel from Jewish Myths? ) told Mohammad that he would create "the last" monotheism, designed to replaced the previous two ones.

And through that monotheism, the previous two could either accept it or be oppressed and killed at any Muslim whim.

The author only seems to like Myths which fulfill Muslim narratives or superiority to Jews, especially to Jews.

It does not matter who writes against or denies Jewish History.
It is there, on the Land of Israel and always will be.

How many parts to this beautiful attempt at destruction of Jewish History?

 

[fanger]

The Bible and the claim of the Jews as a distinct race have been used as a tool to cement the inner unity of the Zionist movement and an indispensable weapon in the struggle for claiming the land of Palestine. The religio-historical element as a focus of national identity had greater importance in Zionism than in other national movements. It was religion in the broadest sense, with all its national and historical connotations, that provided the justification for the conquest of Palestine and legitimization of Jews’ return.

Although Semitic originally referred to certain languages and peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean that included not only Jews but also Palestinians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Phoenicians, claim of hostility only toward Jews is generally known as anti-Semitism.

Jews are a religious body, not a separate biological human group. The history of the Jews reveals that they have always interbred with non-Jews and many non-Jews have become Jews. The only valid criterion for determining membership in the group is confessional.

By insisting that a cultural trait, Jewishness, is inherited, the self-proclaimed Jews have contributed to the idea that they belong to an exclusive family, a distinct race, and a chosen people. Under Israel’s “Law of Return” of Jews to Israel, Ethiopian Jews (Falashas) were verified as descendants of an ancient Israelite tribe by testing samples of their males DNA Y-Chromosome. The claim of identifying the Jewish DNA is the pinnacle of charlatan science, an ideology driven hoax!
continued

 

[Sixties Fan]

Source: Official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 9, 2017

Headline: "Experts: The book ‘The Bible Proves that Palestine is Arab’ refutes the Israeli lies"

"Arab experts and researchers emphasized yesterday [Feb. 8, 2017] that the book ‘The Bible Proves that Palestine is Arab,' published by researcher Dua Al-Sharif, refutes all of the lies and false narratives that Israel has disseminated throughout recent decades in an attempt to prove the claims regarding 'what is called the Promised Land, the Judaization of Jerusalem, and the construction of the Temple on the ruins of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque.'

These statements were made during a discussion about the book ‘The Bible Proves that Palestine is Arab’ at the international book fair in Cairo, with the participation of Secretary-General of the Arab League Sa'id Abu Ali, political analyst and researcher Dr. Sarkis Abu Zaid, and author of the book and expert on Israeli affairs Dua Al-Sharif. The Egyptian Middle East News Agency quoted Sa'id Abu Ali who said: 'The Israeli claims are based only on false claims and lies, and this is what the researcher has proven by examining the historical facts, that there is no promise, Promised [Land], or anything else, and it does not matter what they do, Palestine will remain Arab.'
Dr. Sarkis Abu Zaid noted that 'The conflict with Israel is cultural and military,' and that 'This book comes at a time when the colonialist states are struggling over the division of the region in order to create a new map that will first of all serve the West and Israel.' He added that Israel intentionally falsified history in order to erase the Palestinian identity, as the Israeli myth claims that the Bible is the spiritual father of modern culture, while everything that is written in it was taken and stolen from the Arab cultures, such as the ancient Egyptian culture, the Iraqi culture, and the Canaanite culture.

 

[teddyearp]

It is interesting that the Arab Muslims are the ones accusing Israel of some 'recent invention' when it is the recent invention of the Palestinian narrative to deny the ancient Jewish writings as a recent invention. These writings have been around for thousands of years and get this.

They're even mentioned and confirmed in the Muslim writings that are hundreds of years old. The Koran admits that Israel is the homeland of the Jews.

Then the narrative claims that the Jews come from Europe.

Am I the only one that sees through this twisting of history bullshit?

 

[teddyearp]

You know, the Jews have been telling the same story for at least 2,500 years. It is the Muslims who keep changing the story.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sigh.... you're really on the offensive now, aren't you.

Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian

"
The Arab-Israeli War of 1948"

Israel was founded on 14th May 1948 and the fighting started almost immediately. True or not true?

Sigh. Off topic, but did you even read your linked article? Right in the first paragraph it states, "five Arab armies invaded".

How does that prove the Jews came in guns blazing?

So, are you saying this just happened? That Israel didn't expect a war? How did they win the war if they didn't have an army in the first place?

 

[teddyearp]

Considering how much they were outnumbered and outgunned, sheer luck and lots of balls.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Considering how much they were outnumbered and outgunned, sheer luck and lots of balls.

Potentially. They had more to fight for.

However it wasn't like they didn't have arms.

1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia

"In 1946, Ben-Gurion decided that the Yishuv would probably have to defend itself against both the Palestinian Arabs and neighbouring Arab states and accordingly began a "massive, covert arms acquisition campaign in the West", and acquired many more during the first few months of hostilities."

Though they probably weren't outnumber in terms of troops.

"The effective number of Arab combatants is listed at 12,000 by some historians[59] while others calculate a total Arab strength of approximately 23,500 troops, and with this being more of less or roughly equal to that of the Yishuv. However, as Israel mobilized most of its most able citizens during the war while the Arab troops were only a small percentage of its far greater population, the strength of the Yishuv grew steadily and dramatically during the war."

 

[Sixties Fan]

Considering how much they were outnumbered and outgunned, sheer luck and lots of balls.

Potentially. They had more to fight for.

However it wasn't like they didn't have arms.

1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia

"In 1946, Ben-Gurion decided that the Yishuv would probably have to defend itself against both the Palestinian Arabs and neighbouring Arab states and accordingly began a "massive, covert arms acquisition campaign in the West", and acquired many more during the first few months of hostilities."

Though they probably weren't outnumber in terms of troops.

"The effective number of Arab combatants is listed at 12,000 by some historians[59] while others calculate a total Arab strength of approximately 23,500 troops, and with this being more of less or roughly equal to that of the Yishuv. However, as Israel mobilized most of its most able citizens during the war while the Arab troops were only a small percentage of its far greater population, the strength of the Yishuv grew steadily and dramatically during the war."

Let me make things simple for you.

1900 years before, the Jewish people were surrounded by the invading, conquering Roman Empire.
They revolted against the Romans a couple of times.
In 70 CE they lost badly.
From 132 until 135 CE the Jewish revolt headed by Bar Kochba managed to keep the Romans out of their sovereign land.

Clearly they had arms, made arms, or got them somehow exactly because they knew that they would have to protect their land from the Romans who would want to take it back.
No different than it had been during any other time before with the Philistines, Greeks, etc.
One protects one's land as best as one can from invaders.

From 1920 to 1948, the Jews realized that being surrounded by some (not all) hostile Muslim Arabs - they would need weapons and to defend themselves.

It became much clearer by 1936, when the 1936-39 "war" happened between the Arabs and Jews.

There was not a time from 1920 to 1948 when Arabs were not rioting and attacking Jews at the incitement of the Husseini Clan.

Therefore, just like doing Roman times, the Jews had to find ways to arm themselves in order to protect themselves against the Arabs who did not want them to recreate their nation on their ancient land, just as the Jews had done before against the Greeks and Persians.

You speak as if the Jews, upon attempting to recreate their sovereign nation on their ancient land, should not have expected the Arabs to turn against them - which started in 1920 - or that the Jews should not have been able to think about acquiring weapons of any kind to protect themselves.


1948 was not 2017.

Israel then, did not have the weapons it has now.
Nor did it have the weapons it had in 1973, 1967, or 1956.

Whichever weapons or tanks, etc the Jews were able to acquire, considering the danger which was more than clear after what was discovered happened to a huge number of Jews during WWII, they went ahead and acquired them.

Is there any difference in survival from the time against the Romans and the time now against the Muslims?

No.

Outnumbered, outgunned, they only had their need to survive to fight.

The Jews lost in 135 CE.

By one or more miracles, and the loss of more than 6000 Jews during the 1948.....it survived.

And it continues to survive......WHY?

Because the Jewish people have no other choice but to survive this time, considering not only the history of the past 100 years against Jews and Israel, but the whole history which has unfolded for the past 1700 years against Jews at any time, by any one who has decided that it is time to beat up Jews.

Do you have any other questions about the Jews' right to arm themselves in order to protect their lives and land and the sovereignty over their ancient homeland which they have every right to, regardless of the number of invaders wanting that land and put an end to them?

It is more than enough that the invaders got a hold of 80% of the ancient Jewish homeland (TranJordan and Gaza).

The rest belongs to the Jews, and it includes their most ancient land known as Judea and Samaria and their ancient 3000 year old capital known as Jerusalem.

Questions?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Considering how much they were outnumbered and outgunned, sheer luck and lots of balls.

Potentially. They had more to fight for.

However it wasn't like they didn't have arms.

1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia

"In 1946, Ben-Gurion decided that the Yishuv would probably have to defend itself against both the Palestinian Arabs and neighbouring Arab states and accordingly began a "massive, covert arms acquisition campaign in the West", and acquired many more during the first few months of hostilities."

Though they probably weren't outnumber in terms of troops.

"The effective number of Arab combatants is listed at 12,000 by some historians[59] while others calculate a total Arab strength of approximately 23,500 troops, and with this being more of less or roughly equal to that of the Yishuv. However, as Israel mobilized most of its most able citizens during the war while the Arab troops were only a small percentage of its far greater population, the strength of the Yishuv grew steadily and dramatically during the war."

Let me make things simple for you.

1900 years before, the Jewish people were surrounded by the invading, conquering Roman Empire.
They revolted against the Romans a couple of times.
In 70 CE they lost badly.
From 132 until 135 CE the Jewish revolt headed by Bar Kochba managed to keep the Romans out of their sovereign land.

Clearly they had arms, made arms, or got them somehow exactly because they knew that they would have to protect their land from the Romans who would want to take it back.
No different than it had been during any other time before with the Philistines, Greeks, etc.
One protects one's land as best as one can from invaders.

From 1920 to 1948, the Jews realized that being surrounded by some (not all) hostile Muslim Arabs - they would need weapons and to defend themselves.

It became much clearer by 1936, when the 1936-39 "war" happened between the Arabs and Jews.

There was not a time from 1920 to 1948 when Arabs were not rioting and attacking Jews at the incitement of the Husseini Clan.

Therefore, just like doing Roman times, the Jews had to find ways to arm themselves in order to protect themselves against the Arabs who did not want them to recreate their nation on their ancient land, just as the Jews had done before against the Greeks and Persians.

You speak as if the Jews, upon attempting to recreate their sovereign nation on their ancient land, should not have expected the Arabs to turn against them - which started in 1920 - or that the Jews should not have been able to think about acquiring weapons of any kind to protect themselves.


1948 was not 2017.

Israel then, did not have the weapons it has now.
Nor did it have the weapons it had in 1973, 1967, or 1956.

Whichever weapons or tanks, etc the Jews were able to acquire, considering the danger which was more than clear after what was discovered happened to a huge number of Jews during WWII, they went ahead and acquired them.

Is there any difference in survival from the time against the Romans and the time now against the Muslims?

No.

Outnumbered, outgunned, they only had their need to survive to fight.

The Jews lost in 135 CE.

By one or more miracles, and the loss of more than 6000 Jews during the 1948.....it survived.

And it continues to survive......WHY?

Because the Jewish people have no other choice but to survive this time, considering not only the history of the past 100 years against Jews and Israel, but the whole history which has unfolded for the past 1700 years against Jews at any time, by any one who has decided that it is time to beat up Jews.

Do you have any other questions about the Jews' right to arm themselves in order to protect their lives and land and the sovereignty over their ancient homeland which they have every right to, regardless of the number of invaders wanting that land and put an end to them?

It is more than enough that the invaders got a hold of 80% of the ancient Jewish homeland (TranJordan and Gaza).

The rest belongs to the Jews, and it includes their most ancient land known as Judea and Samaria and their ancient 3000 year old capital known as Jerusalem.

Questions?

Yes, my question is why do you think that I would not expect them to take up arms to defend themselves?

You talk as if you know what to expect from me, and the answers you give aren't in response to what I write, but in response to what you think I would have written were I anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Considering how much they were outnumbered and outgunned, sheer luck and lots of balls.

Potentially. They had more to fight for.

However it wasn't like they didn't have arms.

1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia

"In 1946, Ben-Gurion decided that the Yishuv would probably have to defend itself against both the Palestinian Arabs and neighbouring Arab states and accordingly began a "massive, covert arms acquisition campaign in the West", and acquired many more during the first few months of hostilities."

Though they probably weren't outnumber in terms of troops.

"The effective number of Arab combatants is listed at 12,000 by some historians[59] while others calculate a total Arab strength of approximately 23,500 troops, and with this being more of less or roughly equal to that of the Yishuv. However, as Israel mobilized most of its most able citizens during the war while the Arab troops were only a small percentage of its far greater population, the strength of the Yishuv grew steadily and dramatically during the war."

Let me make things simple for you.

1900 years before, the Jewish people were surrounded by the invading, conquering Roman Empire.
They revolted against the Romans a couple of times.
In 70 CE they lost badly.
From 132 until 135 CE the Jewish revolt headed by Bar Kochba managed to keep the Romans out of their sovereign land.

Clearly they had arms, made arms, or got them somehow exactly because they knew that they would have to protect their land from the Romans who would want to take it back.
No different than it had been during any other time before with the Philistines, Greeks, etc.
One protects one's land as best as one can from invaders.

From 1920 to 1948, the Jews realized that being surrounded by some (not all) hostile Muslim Arabs - they would need weapons and to defend themselves.

It became much clearer by 1936, when the 1936-39 "war" happened between the Arabs and Jews.

There was not a time from 1920 to 1948 when Arabs were not rioting and attacking Jews at the incitement of the Husseini Clan.

Therefore, just like doing Roman times, the Jews had to find ways to arm themselves in order to protect themselves against the Arabs who did not want them to recreate their nation on their ancient land, just as the Jews had done before against the Greeks and Persians.

You speak as if the Jews, upon attempting to recreate their sovereign nation on their ancient land, should not have expected the Arabs to turn against them - which started in 1920 - or that the Jews should not have been able to think about acquiring weapons of any kind to protect themselves.


1948 was not 2017.

Israel then, did not have the weapons it has now.
Nor did it have the weapons it had in 1973, 1967, or 1956.

Whichever weapons or tanks, etc the Jews were able to acquire, considering the danger which was more than clear after what was discovered happened to a huge number of Jews during WWII, they went ahead and acquired them.

Is there any difference in survival from the time against the Romans and the time now against the Muslims?

No.

Outnumbered, outgunned, they only had their need to survive to fight.

The Jews lost in 135 CE.

By one or more miracles, and the loss of more than 6000 Jews during the 1948.....it survived.

And it continues to survive......WHY?

Because the Jewish people have no other choice but to survive this time, considering not only the history of the past 100 years against Jews and Israel, but the whole history which has unfolded for the past 1700 years against Jews at any time, by any one who has decided that it is time to beat up Jews.

Do you have any other questions about the Jews' right to arm themselves in order to protect their lives and land and the sovereignty over their ancient homeland which they have every right to, regardless of the number of invaders wanting that land and put an end to them?

It is more than enough that the invaders got a hold of 80% of the ancient Jewish homeland (TranJordan and Gaza).

The rest belongs to the Jews, and it includes their most ancient land known as Judea and Samaria and their ancient 3000 year old capital known as Jerusalem.

Questions?

Yes, my question is why do you think that I would not expect them to take up arms to defend themselves?

You talk as if you know what to expect from me, and the answers you give aren't in response to what I write, but in response to what you think I would have written were I anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish.

Why do you think that they WOULD NOT have taken arms to defend themselves ?

And why do you put it as in "why do you think that I would not expect them to take up arms to defend themselves?"

That is such a deceitful question.

Why should it matter what you think about the Jewish people, or any other people taking up arms to defend themselves?

My answers are to encourage you to think beyond what you have read or been told.
Something you very clearly have no wish to do. Think beyond.

Why are you the only one who does not seem to be able to realize that you are making a huge issue about the Jews having to take up arms against the aggressive Arabs?

"However it wasn't like they didn't have arms."

Is what you posted above.

Actually, the Jews should have taken up knitting and made some beautiful scarves for them. Then, there might have been peace.

When a group of people swear to kill you and come at you with weapons, again and again......you take up arms to defend yourself.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Considering how much they were outnumbered and outgunned, sheer luck and lots of balls.

Potentially. They had more to fight for.

However it wasn't like they didn't have arms.

1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia

"In 1946, Ben-Gurion decided that the Yishuv would probably have to defend itself against both the Palestinian Arabs and neighbouring Arab states and accordingly began a "massive, covert arms acquisition campaign in the West", and acquired many more during the first few months of hostilities."

Though they probably weren't outnumber in terms of troops.

"The effective number of Arab combatants is listed at 12,000 by some historians[59] while others calculate a total Arab strength of approximately 23,500 troops, and with this being more of less or roughly equal to that of the Yishuv. However, as Israel mobilized most of its most able citizens during the war while the Arab troops were only a small percentage of its far greater population, the strength of the Yishuv grew steadily and dramatically during the war."

Let me make things simple for you.

1900 years before, the Jewish people were surrounded by the invading, conquering Roman Empire.
They revolted against the Romans a couple of times.
In 70 CE they lost badly.
From 132 until 135 CE the Jewish revolt headed by Bar Kochba managed to keep the Romans out of their sovereign land.

Clearly they had arms, made arms, or got them somehow exactly because they knew that they would have to protect their land from the Romans who would want to take it back.
No different than it had been during any other time before with the Philistines, Greeks, etc.
One protects one's land as best as one can from invaders.

From 1920 to 1948, the Jews realized that being surrounded by some (not all) hostile Muslim Arabs - they would need weapons and to defend themselves.

It became much clearer by 1936, when the 1936-39 "war" happened between the Arabs and Jews.

There was not a time from 1920 to 1948 when Arabs were not rioting and attacking Jews at the incitement of the Husseini Clan.

Therefore, just like doing Roman times, the Jews had to find ways to arm themselves in order to protect themselves against the Arabs who did not want them to recreate their nation on their ancient land, just as the Jews had done before against the Greeks and Persians.

You speak as if the Jews, upon attempting to recreate their sovereign nation on their ancient land, should not have expected the Arabs to turn against them - which started in 1920 - or that the Jews should not have been able to think about acquiring weapons of any kind to protect themselves.


1948 was not 2017.

Israel then, did not have the weapons it has now.
Nor did it have the weapons it had in 1973, 1967, or 1956.

Whichever weapons or tanks, etc the Jews were able to acquire, considering the danger which was more than clear after what was discovered happened to a huge number of Jews during WWII, they went ahead and acquired them.

Is there any difference in survival from the time against the Romans and the time now against the Muslims?

No.

Outnumbered, outgunned, they only had their need to survive to fight.

The Jews lost in 135 CE.

By one or more miracles, and the loss of more than 6000 Jews during the 1948.....it survived.

And it continues to survive......WHY?

Because the Jewish people have no other choice but to survive this time, considering not only the history of the past 100 years against Jews and Israel, but the whole history which has unfolded for the past 1700 years against Jews at any time, by any one who has decided that it is time to beat up Jews.

Do you have any other questions about the Jews' right to arm themselves in order to protect their lives and land and the sovereignty over their ancient homeland which they have every right to, regardless of the number of invaders wanting that land and put an end to them?

It is more than enough that the invaders got a hold of 80% of the ancient Jewish homeland (TranJordan and Gaza).

The rest belongs to the Jews, and it includes their most ancient land known as Judea and Samaria and their ancient 3000 year old capital known as Jerusalem.

Questions?

Yes, my question is why do you think that I would not expect them to take up arms to defend themselves?

You talk as if you know what to expect from me, and the answers you give aren't in response to what I write, but in response to what you think I would have written were I anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish.

Why do you think that they WOULD NOT have taken arms to defend themselves ?

And why do you put it as in "why do you think that I would not expect them to take up arms to defend themselves?"

That is such a deceitful question.

Why should it matter what you think about the Jewish people, or any other people taking up arms to defend themselves?

My answers are to encourage you to think beyond what you have read or been told.
Something you very clearly have no wish to do. Think beyond.

Why are you the only one who does not seem to be able to realize that you are making a huge issue about the Jews having to take up arms against the aggressive Arabs?

"However it wasn't like they didn't have arms."

Is what you posted above.

Actually, the Jews should have taken up knitting and made some beautiful scarves for them. Then, there might have been peace.

When a group of people swear to kill you and come at you with weapons, again and again......you take up arms to defend yourself.

Okay, the point here was that you're just making shit up about what you think I think.

I didn't say, and never have said, that Israel wouldn't take arms up to defend itself.

So who the fuck are you arguing with?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Considering how much they were outnumbered and outgunned, sheer luck and lots of balls.

Potentially. They had more to fight for.

However it wasn't like they didn't have arms.

1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia

"In 1946, Ben-Gurion decided that the Yishuv would probably have to defend itself against both the Palestinian Arabs and neighbouring Arab states and accordingly began a "massive, covert arms acquisition campaign in the West", and acquired many more during the first few months of hostilities."

Though they probably weren't outnumber in terms of troops.

"The effective number of Arab combatants is listed at 12,000 by some historians[59] while others calculate a total Arab strength of approximately 23,500 troops, and with this being more of less or roughly equal to that of the Yishuv. However, as Israel mobilized most of its most able citizens during the war while the Arab troops were only a small percentage of its far greater population, the strength of the Yishuv grew steadily and dramatically during the war."

Let me make things simple for you.

1900 years before, the Jewish people were surrounded by the invading, conquering Roman Empire.
They revolted against the Romans a couple of times.
In 70 CE they lost badly.
From 132 until 135 CE the Jewish revolt headed by Bar Kochba managed to keep the Romans out of their sovereign land.

Clearly they had arms, made arms, or got them somehow exactly because they knew that they would have to protect their land from the Romans who would want to take it back.
No different than it had been during any other time before with the Philistines, Greeks, etc.
One protects one's land as best as one can from invaders.

From 1920 to 1948, the Jews realized that being surrounded by some (not all) hostile Muslim Arabs - they would need weapons and to defend themselves.

It became much clearer by 1936, when the 1936-39 "war" happened between the Arabs and Jews.

There was not a time from 1920 to 1948 when Arabs were not rioting and attacking Jews at the incitement of the Husseini Clan.

Therefore, just like doing Roman times, the Jews had to find ways to arm themselves in order to protect themselves against the Arabs who did not want them to recreate their nation on their ancient land, just as the Jews had done before against the Greeks and Persians.

You speak as if the Jews, upon attempting to recreate their sovereign nation on their ancient land, should not have expected the Arabs to turn against them - which started in 1920 - or that the Jews should not have been able to think about acquiring weapons of any kind to protect themselves.


1948 was not 2017.

Israel then, did not have the weapons it has now.
Nor did it have the weapons it had in 1973, 1967, or 1956.

Whichever weapons or tanks, etc the Jews were able to acquire, considering the danger which was more than clear after what was discovered happened to a huge number of Jews during WWII, they went ahead and acquired them.

Is there any difference in survival from the time against the Romans and the time now against the Muslims?

No.

Outnumbered, outgunned, they only had their need to survive to fight.

The Jews lost in 135 CE.

By one or more miracles, and the loss of more than 6000 Jews during the 1948.....it survived.

And it continues to survive......WHY?

Because the Jewish people have no other choice but to survive this time, considering not only the history of the past 100 years against Jews and Israel, but the whole history which has unfolded for the past 1700 years against Jews at any time, by any one who has decided that it is time to beat up Jews.

Do you have any other questions about the Jews' right to arm themselves in order to protect their lives and land and the sovereignty over their ancient homeland which they have every right to, regardless of the number of invaders wanting that land and put an end to them?

It is more than enough that the invaders got a hold of 80% of the ancient Jewish homeland (TranJordan and Gaza).

The rest belongs to the Jews, and it includes their most ancient land known as Judea and Samaria and their ancient 3000 year old capital known as Jerusalem.

Questions?

Yes, my question is why do you think that I would not expect them to take up arms to defend themselves?

You talk as if you know what to expect from me, and the answers you give aren't in response to what I write, but in response to what you think I would have written were I anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish.

Why do you think that they WOULD NOT have taken arms to defend themselves ?

And why do you put it as in "why do you think that I would not expect them to take up arms to defend themselves?"

That is such a deceitful question.

Why should it matter what you think about the Jewish people, or any other people taking up arms to defend themselves?

My answers are to encourage you to think beyond what you have read or been told.
Something you very clearly have no wish to do. Think beyond.

Why are you the only one who does not seem to be able to realize that you are making a huge issue about the Jews having to take up arms against the aggressive Arabs?

"However it wasn't like they didn't have arms."

Is what you posted above.

Actually, the Jews should have taken up knitting and made some beautiful scarves for them. Then, there might have been peace.

When a group of people swear to kill you and come at you with weapons, again and again......you take up arms to defend yourself.

Okay, the point here was that you're just making shit up about what you think I think.

I didn't say, and never have said, that Israel wouldn't take arms up to defend itself.

So who the fuck are you arguing with?

A smart aleck serpent.
With very poor command of English.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Potentially. They had more to fight for.

However it wasn't like they didn't have arms.

1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia

"In 1946, Ben-Gurion decided that the Yishuv would probably have to defend itself against both the Palestinian Arabs and neighbouring Arab states and accordingly began a "massive, covert arms acquisition campaign in the West", and acquired many more during the first few months of hostilities."

Though they probably weren't outnumber in terms of troops.

"The effective number of Arab combatants is listed at 12,000 by some historians[59] while others calculate a total Arab strength of approximately 23,500 troops, and with this being more of less or roughly equal to that of the Yishuv. However, as Israel mobilized most of its most able citizens during the war while the Arab troops were only a small percentage of its far greater population, the strength of the Yishuv grew steadily and dramatically during the war."

Let me make things simple for you.

1900 years before, the Jewish people were surrounded by the invading, conquering Roman Empire.
They revolted against the Romans a couple of times.
In 70 CE they lost badly.
From 132 until 135 CE the Jewish revolt headed by Bar Kochba managed to keep the Romans out of their sovereign land.

Clearly they had arms, made arms, or got them somehow exactly because they knew that they would have to protect their land from the Romans who would want to take it back.
No different than it had been during any other time before with the Philistines, Greeks, etc.
One protects one's land as best as one can from invaders.

From 1920 to 1948, the Jews realized that being surrounded by some (not all) hostile Muslim Arabs - they would need weapons and to defend themselves.

It became much clearer by 1936, when the 1936-39 "war" happened between the Arabs and Jews.

There was not a time from 1920 to 1948 when Arabs were not rioting and attacking Jews at the incitement of the Husseini Clan.

Therefore, just like doing Roman times, the Jews had to find ways to arm themselves in order to protect themselves against the Arabs who did not want them to recreate their nation on their ancient land, just as the Jews had done before against the Greeks and Persians.

You speak as if the Jews, upon attempting to recreate their sovereign nation on their ancient land, should not have expected the Arabs to turn against them - which started in 1920 - or that the Jews should not have been able to think about acquiring weapons of any kind to protect themselves.


1948 was not 2017.

Israel then, did not have the weapons it has now.
Nor did it have the weapons it had in 1973, 1967, or 1956.

Whichever weapons or tanks, etc the Jews were able to acquire, considering the danger which was more than clear after what was discovered happened to a huge number of Jews during WWII, they went ahead and acquired them.

Is there any difference in survival from the time against the Romans and the time now against the Muslims?

No.

Outnumbered, outgunned, they only had their need to survive to fight.

The Jews lost in 135 CE.

By one or more miracles, and the loss of more than 6000 Jews during the 1948.....it survived.

And it continues to survive......WHY?

Because the Jewish people have no other choice but to survive this time, considering not only the history of the past 100 years against Jews and Israel, but the whole history which has unfolded for the past 1700 years against Jews at any time, by any one who has decided that it is time to beat up Jews.

Do you have any other questions about the Jews' right to arm themselves in order to protect their lives and land and the sovereignty over their ancient homeland which they have every right to, regardless of the number of invaders wanting that land and put an end to them?

It is more than enough that the invaders got a hold of 80% of the ancient Jewish homeland (TranJordan and Gaza).

The rest belongs to the Jews, and it includes their most ancient land known as Judea and Samaria and their ancient 3000 year old capital known as Jerusalem.

Questions?

Yes, my question is why do you think that I would not expect them to take up arms to defend themselves?

You talk as if you know what to expect from me, and the answers you give aren't in response to what I write, but in response to what you think I would have written were I anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish.

Why do you think that they WOULD NOT have taken arms to defend themselves ?

And why do you put it as in "why do you think that I would not expect them to take up arms to defend themselves?"

That is such a deceitful question.

Why should it matter what you think about the Jewish people, or any other people taking up arms to defend themselves?

My answers are to encourage you to think beyond what you have read or been told.
Something you very clearly have no wish to do. Think beyond.

Why are you the only one who does not seem to be able to realize that you are making a huge issue about the Jews having to take up arms against the aggressive Arabs?

"However it wasn't like they didn't have arms."

Is what you posted above.

Actually, the Jews should have taken up knitting and made some beautiful scarves for them. Then, there might have been peace.

When a group of people swear to kill you and come at you with weapons, again and again......you take up arms to defend yourself.

Okay, the point here was that you're just making shit up about what you think I think.

I didn't say, and never have said, that Israel wouldn't take arms up to defend itself.

So who the fuck are you arguing with?

A smart aleck serpent.
With very poor command of English.

It's not your fault.

Hey, we can spend all day doing this.

Or you could actually discuss with me what I actually said, rather than what I didn't say.

What I didn't say was that Israel wouldn't or shouldn't take up arms to defend itself.

Is that clear? Or are we just going to have to keep attacking me for positions I don't hold?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Let me make things simple for you.

1900 years before, the Jewish people were surrounded by the invading, conquering Roman Empire.
They revolted against the Romans a couple of times.
In 70 CE they lost badly.
From 132 until 135 CE the Jewish revolt headed by Bar Kochba managed to keep the Romans out of their sovereign land.

Clearly they had arms, made arms, or got them somehow exactly because they knew that they would have to protect their land from the Romans who would want to take it back.
No different than it had been during any other time before with the Philistines, Greeks, etc.
One protects one's land as best as one can from invaders.

From 1920 to 1948, the Jews realized that being surrounded by some (not all) hostile Muslim Arabs - they would need weapons and to defend themselves.

It became much clearer by 1936, when the 1936-39 "war" happened between the Arabs and Jews.

There was not a time from 1920 to 1948 when Arabs were not rioting and attacking Jews at the incitement of the Husseini Clan.

Therefore, just like doing Roman times, the Jews had to find ways to arm themselves in order to protect themselves against the Arabs who did not want them to recreate their nation on their ancient land, just as the Jews had done before against the Greeks and Persians.

You speak as if the Jews, upon attempting to recreate their sovereign nation on their ancient land, should not have expected the Arabs to turn against them - which started in 1920 - or that the Jews should not have been able to think about acquiring weapons of any kind to protect themselves.


1948 was not 2017.

Israel then, did not have the weapons it has now.
Nor did it have the weapons it had in 1973, 1967, or 1956.

Whichever weapons or tanks, etc the Jews were able to acquire, considering the danger which was more than clear after what was discovered happened to a huge number of Jews during WWII, they went ahead and acquired them.

Is there any difference in survival from the time against the Romans and the time now against the Muslims?

No.

Outnumbered, outgunned, they only had their need to survive to fight.

The Jews lost in 135 CE.

By one or more miracles, and the loss of more than 6000 Jews during the 1948.....it survived.

And it continues to survive......WHY?

Because the Jewish people have no other choice but to survive this time, considering not only the history of the past 100 years against Jews and Israel, but the whole history which has unfolded for the past 1700 years against Jews at any time, by any one who has decided that it is time to beat up Jews.

Do you have any other questions about the Jews' right to arm themselves in order to protect their lives and land and the sovereignty over their ancient homeland which they have every right to, regardless of the number of invaders wanting that land and put an end to them?

It is more than enough that the invaders got a hold of 80% of the ancient Jewish homeland (TranJordan and Gaza).

The rest belongs to the Jews, and it includes their most ancient land known as Judea and Samaria and their ancient 3000 year old capital known as Jerusalem.

Questions?

Yes, my question is why do you think that I would not expect them to take up arms to defend themselves?

You talk as if you know what to expect from me, and the answers you give aren't in response to what I write, but in response to what you think I would have written were I anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish.

Why do you think that they WOULD NOT have taken arms to defend themselves ?

And why do you put it as in "why do you think that I would not expect them to take up arms to defend themselves?"

That is such a deceitful question.

Why should it matter what you think about the Jewish people, or any other people taking up arms to defend themselves?

My answers are to encourage you to think beyond what you have read or been told.
Something you very clearly have no wish to do. Think beyond.

Why are you the only one who does not seem to be able to realize that you are making a huge issue about the Jews having to take up arms against the aggressive Arabs?

"However it wasn't like they didn't have arms."

Is what you posted above.

Actually, the Jews should have taken up knitting and made some beautiful scarves for them. Then, there might have been peace.

When a group of people swear to kill you and come at you with weapons, again and again......you take up arms to defend yourself.

Okay, the point here was that you're just making shit up about what you think I think.

I didn't say, and never have said, that Israel wouldn't take arms up to defend itself.

So who the fuck are you arguing with?

A smart aleck serpent.
With very poor command of English.

It's not your fault.

Hey, we can spend all day doing this.

Or you could actually discuss with me what I actually said, rather than what I didn't say.

What I didn't say was that Israel wouldn't or shouldn't take up arms to defend itself.

Is that clear? Or are we just going to have to keep attacking me for positions I don't hold?

This is what you said:

"So, are you saying this just happened? That Israel didn't expect a war? How did they win the war if they didn't have an army in the first place?"

So, it was tried to explain to you that from 1920 to 1948, because of the endless attacks on the Jewish community, the Jews began to build up their weapons, and organize themselves as an army. British Captain Wingate was very instrumental in that, by the way. One of the only British to help the Jews (Just an historical fact and oddity, considering how the British really behaved).

Teddy told you that even though Israel was outnumbered and outgunned, that the Jews persevered out of sheer balls.
And I explained it as well, that they had no other choice but to survive.

Outgunned, outnumbered, without a real army to speak of, unlike Jordan and the other Arab countries which were also being aided by the British........but with some tanks and weapons they had acquired.....

Israel won.

As the saying goes:

"By the skin of its teeth"

And that is all there is to it.

 

[fncceo]

Hey, we can spend all day doing this.

Please don't.

 

[Indeependent]

Yes, my question is why do you think that I would not expect them to take up arms to defend themselves?

You talk as if you know what to expect from me, and the answers you give aren't in response to what I write, but in response to what you think I would have written were I anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish.

Why do you think that they WOULD NOT have taken arms to defend themselves ?

And why do you put it as in "why do you think that I would not expect them to take up arms to defend themselves?"

That is such a deceitful question.

Why should it matter what you think about the Jewish people, or any other people taking up arms to defend themselves?

My answers are to encourage you to think beyond what you have read or been told.
Something you very clearly have no wish to do. Think beyond.

Why are you the only one who does not seem to be able to realize that you are making a huge issue about the Jews having to take up arms against the aggressive Arabs?

"However it wasn't like they didn't have arms."

Is what you posted above.

Actually, the Jews should have taken up knitting and made some beautiful scarves for them. Then, there might have been peace.

When a group of people swear to kill you and come at you with weapons, again and again......you take up arms to defend yourself.

Okay, the point here was that you're just making shit up about what you think I think.

I didn't say, and never have said, that Israel wouldn't take arms up to defend itself.

So who the fuck are you arguing with?

A smart aleck serpent.
With very poor command of English.

It's not your fault.

Hey, we can spend all day doing this.

Or you could actually discuss with me what I actually said, rather than what I didn't say.

What I didn't say was that Israel wouldn't or shouldn't take up arms to defend itself.

Is that clear? Or are we just going to have to keep attacking me for positions I don't hold?

This is what you said:

"So, are you saying this just happened? That Israel didn't expect a war? How did they win the war if they didn't have an army in the first place?"

So, it was tried to explain to you that from 1920 to 1948, because of the endless attacks on the Jewish community, the Jews began to build up their weapons, and organize themselves as an army. British Captain Wingate was very instrumental in that, by the way. One of the only British to help the Jews (Just an historical fact and oddity, considering how the British really behaved).

Teddy told you that even though Israel was outnumbered and outgunned, that the Jews persevered out of sheer balls.
And I explained it as well, that they had no other choice but to survive.

Outgunned, outnumbered, without a real army to speak of, unlike Jordan and the other Arab countries which were also being aided by the British........but with some tanks and weapons they had acquired.....

Israel won.

As the saying goes:

"By the skin of its teeth"

And that is all there is to it.

I see you are educating someone who I have on Ignore or has me on Ignore.
Who's the jackass?