The so called return of the Jews to their homeland is just a smoke bomb

Mondo games Updated on 2024-01-19

After the outbreak of the new round of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I did a number of programs. However, attentive friends may find a strange detail: I have given two accounts of the origin of the outbreak of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Statement 1:

About 4,000 years ago, a branch of the Hebrews, the ancestors of the Jewish people of Israel, inhabited this part of Palestine. Later, they were repeatedly expelled and expelled, and by about the second century A.D., the Romans had a more complete expulsion of them, and most of the Israeli Jews** fell to the rest of the world, which was nearly 2,000 years. Around the time of World War II in the last century, they returned to Palestine one after another.

So the focus of the Israeli-Palestinian question is this: about 2,000 years ago, and about 2,000 years further back, the ancestors of the Israeli Jews lived in this part of Palestine. But then for about 2,000 years, it was the current Palestinians who lived in this place. So, when Israeli Jews returned to Palestine one after another at the beginning of the last century, they were outsiders.

But they had to say that their ancestors had lived here, so this place was theirs. Moreover, they also said that the gods they believed in had said that this place was theirs. Their formulation was that Palestine was God's "Promised Land" to the Jews of Israel. They also put the term "Promised Land" in a very serious and formal setting such as the United Nations Security Council, and they also said it in a righteous and strict manner.

So I think it's:

First, your ancestors lived here 2,000 years ago, and I lived in the last 2,000 years, and you suddenly came back, how can you say that this place is yours?

Second, it's even more ridiculous, you said that the gods said that this land is yours, so this place is really yours?Where are the immortals?Why don't I know the gods?We also have immortals in our family, and the gods in our family still say that this is mineWhat age are you still talking about the gods?

This is the first statement of the origin of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and it is also the mainstream statement in the world.

The second statement:

Around the second century C.E., the so-called more complete expulsion of Israeli Jews by the Romans did not drive out most of the Israeli Jews. There should have been a small number of people who left, and then some of them came back, but in short, not many people left in the end. In short, the majority of Israeli Jews have remained in Palestine.

It's just that this place was later conquered by the Arab Empire, so the Jews of this place later did not follow Judaism, but embraced Islam and became Arabs. But in terms of kinship, the Palestinians who have lived in this part of Palestine for the last 2,000 years are the true descendants of Israeli Jews 2,000 years ago.

That's interesting.

If, according to the Jews today, Palestine is God's "Promised Land" to the Jews, then to whom should this land be promised?It is not for the Jews of today, but for the Palestinians of today. Because the Palestinians now are the real Jews.

So, who are the people who claim to be Jews now?

The logical starting point for this is that the Jews who were expelled in the second century C.E. were in the minority. But in any case, a few people are also people, and there are still some in short. And these people are indeed wandering around the world.

The question is, they have been wandering for 2,000 years, how can there be a large group of modern Jews all over the world?Was it the small group of Jews who were driven out in the second century C.E. who were particularly reproductive?

No. A closer look at the origins of modern Jews will make us clear. The origin of the so-called modern Jews is what kind of people are called Jews.

The answer to this question is slightly different among the several factions within the modern Jew.

For example, both Orthodox and Conservative Judaism follow Jewish law, and if a mother is Jewish or has undergone a Haraka conversion, then they are considered Jewish. The key point is that either the mother is Jewish or converted to Judaism.

Reformed Judaism and Re-established Judaism, on the other hand, believe that if one of them, whether a mother or a father, is a Jew, then the child is Jewish. At the same time, there is another rule, as long as I convert to Judaism, I am a Jew.

This is from a religious point of view.

From a legal point of view, in 1970 Israel amended their Law of Return by amending paragraph 4 (b) to mean "a person whose mother is Jewish, or who has converted to Judaism, but who does not belong to another religion".

Although these three statements are slightly different, they also have a lot in common: the first similarity is that if one of the fathers or mothers is Jewish, then the child is Jewish. The second similarity is that whoever converts to Judaism is a Jew.

And let's think about it a little deeper: if a person's father or mother is Jewish, then why is his father or mother Jewish?Not necessarily because they were descendants of Jews 2,000 or 4,000 years ago, but because they were from other nationalities, but then they converted to Judaism and became Jews, and the children born to them were naturally Jews.

So it makes it clear that whether your ancestors were Jews for 2,000 or 4,000 years, as long as your ancestors converted to Judaism in the last 2,000 years, then you are a Jew.

In short, to be a Jew.

That's a bit of a.

For example, a certain group of people, whose ancestors were obviously Anglos or Saxons in northwestern Europe, later went to the Celts of British Island and occupied the British Island, and they became the current British. Then, a handful of people went to North America in the Age of Discovery.** Indians occupied North America, and became the Americans and Canadians today. But one day, he met a man who believed in Judaism--- of course it is difficult to say whether this person's ancestors were Jews or not, but now he believes in Judaism even if he is a Jew, and he listened to this man who believes in Judaism, and thinks that Judaism still has some truth, so he converts to Judaism, and he becomes a Jew.

Of course, there are more nonsense, such as: he fell in love with a woman, this woman is Jewish--- of course in essence his ancestors are not necessarily Jewish, but because his mother or father converted to Judaism, so he became a Jew, in short, this woman is Jewish. The woman made a request to the man who liked her, and if she wanted her to marry him, he would ask him to convert to Judaism. So the man converted to Judaism because of love. So the man became a Jew.

Let's talk about the latest news: On November 25, Argentina's newly elected ** Milley attended a Jewish ceremony in Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina, and received the blessing of the rabbis. He was dressed in black and dressed in Jewish attire. After this performance, he converted from Catholicism to Judaism. Then, according to the rules of modern Jews, Milley the man becomes a Jew. We don't care who he is, he wasn't a Jew, but he's a Jew now.

We can turn our brains a little: how many people like Milley have become Jews in the last 2,000 years? Once a Jew, he is qualified to say that God said thousands of years ago that the land of Palestine was the "Promised Land" for their Jews. It seems that any earthling, if he wants to say that the land of Palestine belongs to them, the method is actually very simple, as long as he believes in Judaism, he becomes a Jew. When they became Jews, they dared to say that the land of Palestine was theirs.

And even more nonsense: Jews have historically been very good at lending, and they have a preferential policy for Jews when they lend: lower interest rates. So, a reasonable reasoning is how many people choose to convert to Judaism and become Jews for the sake of lower interest

In this way, we can conclude that the ** of modern Jews is actually a hodgepodge, and it is not clear who their ancestors are.

Of course, it is generally clear, because the Jews are so-called wanderers all over the world, mainly in Europe and North America.

So there is a saying that modern Jews are mainly white in Europe and the United States by blood.

Someone else posted on the Internet that it was a scene of an Israeli female soldier arguing with a Lebanese man. The Israeli female soldier said she was Jewish, but she actually looked exactly like a white European person. And the Lebanese man, who is said to be an Arab, actually looks very similar to the Jews of 2,000 years ago. Friends can take a look at the pictures in the article.

The real Jews are actually the Palestinians today, and the so-called Jews today are mainly white Europeans. Of course, there are people from all over the world, such as the Western Turks who were driven from northern China to Central Asia by Tang Taizong during the Tang Dynasty.

I am not alone in saying this, but it is the conclusion of many authoritative professors. The most famous of these is Schromer Sander, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University in Israel. His most famous books are three, namely: "The Fictional Jewish Nation", "The Fictional Land of Israel", and "Why Did I Give Up Being a Jew?".》

A closer look at the titles of his three books will reveal what he wants to say: "The Fictional Jewish Nation", "The Fictional Land of Israel", and "Why Did I Give Up Being a Jew?".》

So now the question is: which of these two statements is true?

I think that's a good question to answer.

Back to the modern Jewish **: as long as you convert to Judaism, or if someone of your ancestors converted to Judaism, then you are a Jew. Combined with the fact that the so-called Jews have been wandering around the world for the past 2,000 years, you can naturally think that the second statement is actually more accurate.

If you think this kind of reasoning still doesn't make you sure, in fact, modern science can prove it. For example, a random number of modern Jews and Palestinians were genetically identified, and then compared with the DNA of some ancient Jews left over from history, and the results came out quickly. In fact, some scholars have done something similar to prove the second statement to be true.

Then the new question arises again: since the second statement is correct, why are the mainstream ** in the world still using the first statement?

The reason is that it doesn't matter who is really of Jewish descent. The important thing is that both modern Jews and modern Palestinians need the land of Palestine.

And it is also clear to whom the land of Palestine belongs now. Obviously, it belongs to the Palestinians, because it is the Palestinians who have lived here for the past 2,000 years.

But the Western powers and the modern Jews have to say that the land is his, so what do you say?Then I have to make up a story, and this story is the so-called, 2,000 years ago, they were banished and wandered, and 4,000 years ago their god said that this land had been given to them.

That's how the saying came about. That's why it's said because it's needed.

So what's next?Then I have to talk about it.

There are two ways to hit the mouth cannon:

One way is to use the second argument mentioned above, and tell the other person, you are not a Jew at all, don't pretend to be a Jew, so, what Promised Land?It's none of your business.

The second way is to assume that what you say is right, even if you are a descendant of the Jews from 2,000 or 4,000 years ago, let's theorize, should the land of Palestine belong to you?

The second way is a bit similar to the counterproof in mathematics: if we want to prove that a=b is wrong, I know that a is not equal to b, but I assume a=b, and then I reason, and I reason This proves that a=b is wrong.

The advantage of refuting the other party in this way is that it does not detour around the bend, does not create new problems, has clear boundaries, fights-for-tat, and uses your spear against your shield, which is simple and clear.

Speaking of which, we can be very depressed. The world's ** quarreled and quarreled about who belonged to the land of Palestine, but in fact, it was lonely and noisy.

This illustrates the problem from another angle: the fundamental question is not who the Jews are, but who owns the land of Palestine. But the answer to this question is so clear.

It can be seen from this that the question of who are the Jews is actually just a statement that serves the modern so-called Jewish occupation of the land of Palestine, and it is just a smokescreen.

And we all know that Israel's ability to continue to encroach on the land of Palestine in the past 100 years as an outsider is due to the support of the United States and Western powers. Without the support of the great powers, Israel wants to gain a foothold in the land of Palestine, but there is no door.

The first is that at the beginning of the last century, the so-called Israeli Jews returned to this place of Palestine from the European and American continents, and the British authorities, who ruled this part of Palestine at that time, agreed. After the end of World War II, the United Nations, manipulated by the United States and the United Kingdom, passed Resolution 181, which formally qualified Israel to establish a state here. Moreover, in the division of land, the Jews, who made up only 1 3 percent of the population and 6% of the land, were given 56% of the land, which was extremely unreasonable.

Then the first Middle East war broke out, the Arab coalition forces in the early stage of the war momentum, Israel is all over the ground, Israel is gone, as a result, the United Nations manipulated by the United States and Britain passed a resolution demanding that they cease fire, in the ceasefire for about 20 days, Israel carried out a national mobilization and received military assistance from the United States, after fighting again, Israel crushed the Arab coalition forces. This has allowed Israel to gain a foothold in this part of Palestine.

In the subsequent wars in the Middle East, the United States has strongly supported Israel. Since the founding of the United Nations, the United States, as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations, has used its veto power 83 times, 53 of which were in favor of Israel.

Even in the current new round of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, if the United States had not deployed two aircraft carriers, an amphibious assault ship, a command ship, a nuclear submarine, as well as unmanned reconnaissance aircraft and special forces near the conflict, then Iran or Turkey would have taken action long ago.

To put it simply, without the support of the United States and Europe, Israel would not have been able to gain a foothold in Palestine.

This has been true for the past 100 years, and it is still true today.

So, the question of the Jews, the question of the Promised Land of God, and the question of the expulsion of the Jews in 2000 are all nonsense, in a word:

The problem of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the problem of the United States.

So, what is the problem of the United States with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

To answer this question, it is necessary to talk about the word we are familiar with: colonialism.

We all know that since the Age of Discovery 500 years ago, the Western powers have been engaged in colonialism all over the world, including old China, which has also become a semi-colony of the Western powers.

Let's take a closer look at what colonization is.

The etymology of the word colonization derives from the Latin word conolia, which originally meant "to migrate and settle in a foreign land". When translated into Chinese, the word "breeding" is used, which also means breeding. Combined with the original meaning of Latin, we can understand the word "colonization" in Chinese as follows: a group of outsiders breed in a new place. Of course, this outsider will definitely multiply, and slowly, if it is not stopped, the land may eventually be taken over by outsiders.

This is the most basic and fundamental understanding of the word colonization.

Of course, we all know that on the basis of this most basic and original meaning, colonialism naturally also includes ** and plunder.

Why?If outsiders want to occupy other people's territory, others will definitely disagree and will definitely resist, so it is natural to do so.

And colonialists are not just **, not just to occupy other people's territory, but also to other people's cheap resources, so plundering is a natural thing.

This is just a positive plunder, and there is a reverse plunder, that is, selling their goods, which is naturally definitely ** sales.

Therefore, my simple summary of colonialism is 4 words: relocation, occupation, and plunder.

And relocation is the most original meaning of colonization.

However, when we read a large number of literatures, we often ignore this most original meaning, and pay attention to the later extended meanings, such as occupancy, ** and plunder.

Colonialism is a tradition of the Anglo-Saxons. I told my friends about the history of the Anglo-Saxons in previous shows:

They were originally two branches of the Germanic peoples of northwestern Europe, one called the Anglos and the other called the Saxons, collectively known as the Anglo-Saxons. There are two ancestors similar to the Chinese people, one is the Yan Emperor and the other is the Yellow Emperor, collectively known as the descendants of Yan and Huang.

The Anglo-Saxons originally stayed in northwestern Europe, but later crossed the English Channel,** and the Celts, who originally lived on the island of Britannia, took possession of other people's lands and then migrated. So we know that the British, who live on the island of Britain today, are Anglo-Saxons. The word Britannica originally meant the land of the Britannians, who were a branch of the Celts, so the word Britannica was translated as the land of the Celts. But in this land of the Celts, do you still see the Celts?We saw all the Anglo-Saxons. This was the earliest colonization.

By the Age of Discovery, the Anglo-Saxons, who had set out from England and continental Europe, crossed the Atlantic to the American continent, the local Indians. So the North Americans we see now are Anglo-Saxons, not Indians. The majority of South Americans were also European immigrants, and the native Indians were nowhere to be found.

Then, around the 19th century, Australia became a place of British exile. But even these prisoners are also aboriginal people on Australian soil. Australia's Aboriginal people are now in **?How many of us know?What we do know is that the people in this land of Australia now are Anglo-Saxons.

So, it is their tradition for the Anglo-Saxons to colonize the whole world.

Let's take a look at what's going on in the land of Palestine

The so-called Jews went to the European and American continents, and those who converted to Judaism became Jews, and they were still white Europeans in essence. These people have been running to this part of Palestine since the beginning of the last century. Isn't this the original meaning of the word colonization: migratory population?

Migrants must have land to support them, so they have to occupy other people's land. So at the beginning of the last century, the area of Palestine owned by modern Jews was almost zero, and by the end of World War II, it was about 6%, and today, it is about 94%.

This is a textbook-level relocation and occupation. As for ** and plunder, we will not analyze it in detail. If we look at the fact that the number of Palestinian civilians in Israel has stabilized at more than 10 times its own death toll in previous Israeli-Israeli conflicts, we can understand everything.

So we find out that the Palestinian issue is what is the specific problem of the United States?It is the problem of American colonialism. Of course, not only American, but also his ** and vassal Europe.

Therefore, through the fog of the return of the Jewish waves, and through the nonsense of the Promised Land of God, we will find that after World War II, the tide of anti-colonialism in the world has surged, and the vast majority of countries and regions in the world have achieved national and national independence, but the remnants of colonialism are still there, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a typical example.

The essence of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is that the United States wants to realize colonialism in the Middle East.

This angle is much deeper and closer to the essence than the usual claim that Israel is a nail hammered by the United States in the Middle East.

From this we can understand why we should stand in solidarity with Palestine

Colonialism has long since waned around the world, but it has not disappeared from the face of the earth. The Anglo-Saxon bloc, led by the United States, is still doing its best to promote colonialism. Despite his struggles and setbacks, it is not completely extinct, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the forefront of anti-colonialism on our planet.

By holding this front line, colonialism would not have spread in the world. On the other hand, if we fail to hold this front line, colonialism may sink into the dregs of the earth, and use all kinds of excuses and heavy fog to cover it, and quietly multiply and develop in a certain corner of the earth.

Who can guarantee that he will not choose this place where we live as its new battleground?

To show solidarity with and support the Palestinians in their struggle against colonialism is to support the Palestinians in holding the front line against colonialism throughout the world and thus to the security of our great rear.

Once the front line is lost, it will be our rear that will suffer. Although we don't know where it was the first to suffer;We don't know how it will suffer, and we don't know what kind of big lie the Anglo-Saxon clique will make up to plunge the world into another airy and boring argument......What we do know is that colonialism, if you don't resist him, he will come back. And colonialism will not only harm the Palestinians, but will also include those of us. If you don't believe it, if you look at the history since the Age of Discovery, have you ever been kind to any corner of the earth?

Related Pages