Thread: Liberation Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024214
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Call me uninformed, but when the Hamas leader speaks about 'when the whole Palestine is liberated.'
When he is says 'today is Gaza, tomorrow is Jerusalem and Haifa', what exactly does he mean?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Call me uninformed, but when the Hamas leader speaks about 'when the whole Palestine is liberated.'
When he is says 'today is Gaza, tomorrow is Jerusalem and Haifa', what exactly does he mean?
He means that the whole of what is now Israel will be under his rule, and the Jews have all been driven into the Mediterranean or worse. He probably envisages much the same fate for several other groups, Christian Arabs, Druses, the present administration in Ramallah etc.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Call me uninformed, but when the Hamas leader speaks about 'when the whole Palestine is liberated.'
When he is says 'today is Gaza, tomorrow is Jerusalem and Haifa', what exactly does he mean?
He means that the whole of what is now Israel will be under his rule, and the Jews have all been driven into the Mediterranean or worse. He probably envisages much the same fate for several other groups, Christian Arabs, Druses, the present administration in Ramallah etc.
Odd, I thought it would be rather different, namely that the Arabs who had left their homes in Haifa, Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel, back around 1947-1948, some at bayonet point, could get them back.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
So you would deny Israel's right to exist and the Jews the right to possess their ancient homeland?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I could equally say, Mudfrog, "So you'd support the right of people to force people out of the lands their families have lived in for generations because their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago?"

Would you mind being chucked out of your house because the Welsh suddenly get uppity and point out that they were there before the rotten Anglo-Saxons pushed them out (yes, I know, I'm using the traditional, probably false, model to make a point)

To me, Israel has a right to exist because it has done so for over 50 years and therefore there are many people who consider themselves Israeli and have no other home, and it would be wrong to chuck them out. Similarly, it was wrong to chuck the Arabs out and continues to be wrong to push the Palestinians around within Palestine.

I do not believe any group has a right to take over someone else's country because their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago, no.

[ 09. December 2012, 20:22: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
No group took over - were they not given the land by common consent of the UN? The internationally agreed plan was that there was to be a Jewish state, an Arab state and an internationally controlled Jerusalem. The Jews accepted it but the Arabs didn't and the Arabs started to attack the Jews.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No group took over - were they not given the land by common consent of the UN? The internationally agreed plan was that there was to be a Jewish state, an Arab state and an internationally controlled Jerusalem. The Jews accepted it but the Arabs didn't and the Arabs started to attack the Jews.
In the OP you state you are "uninformed". Now you seem pretty sure of yourself. If we had some idea what you know about the state of Israel and its foundation we could have a meaningful debate, though we would be unlikely to reach a conclusion as it has been a troubled place since at least the time Moses' people crossed the Jordan.

FWIW, I reckon the modern state of Israel was formed in haste, against the background of The Holocaust, with little thought for the then inhabitants of any ethnicity or religion.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you would deny Israel's right to exist and the Jews the right to possess their ancient homeland?
Don't you think it's dangerous to say that people who have not had that "homeland" for two millennia are the ones with the "right to exist," while the people who have lived there for those thousands of years have no rights. Out of interest, if this principle were applied to England, how might that upset the social order?

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
Unless everyone , Israeli & Palestinian can sit down and agree how to share tha sliver of land peace will never happen. And do I hope my pesimession is wrong . Pray for the peace oof Jerusalem [Votive] [Angel] [Smile]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
This joke goes back a long way:

John Kennedy, Nikita Krushchev and Golda Meir have a chance to have a conference with God.

Kennedy asked, "Will there ever be peace between whites and blacks in the US?" God answered, "Yes, but not in your life time."

Krushchev then asked, "Will there ever be peace between Russia and the United States?" God answered, "Yes, but not in your life time."

Meir then asked, "Will there ever be peace between Israel and (the Palestinians)?" God answered, "Not in my life time."

Enoch, I will have to disagree with you about the Palestinian Authority wanting to drive Christian Arabs and Druze into the sea along with the Isrealis. The Druze and Arab Christians have long been a part of Palestine. 17% of Palestinians are Christian, even 8% of Palestinians are Jewish. Yes, 75% are Muslim. But Muslims would say as religions of The Word, the right of Christians and Druze should be respected. (They just cannot evangelize).

What the Palestinian Authority wants is that the land be liberated from the Israelis and be returned to the "original" Palestinian owners or their families. They would want all the Jews who have immigrated to the area to return where they came from, but they do not want to throw out the Christians or Druze who were already there.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No group took over - were they not given the land by common consent of the UN?
"Common consent" included the people who actually LIVED THERE? Perhaps not?

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I do not believe any group has a right to take over someone else's country because their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago, no.
This. The formation of Israel in 1948 was a terrible tragedy, but it's too late now to take it back.

[ 10. December 2012, 03:18: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Don't you think it's dangerous to say that people who have not had that "homeland" for two millennia are the ones with the "right to exist," while the people who have lived there for those thousands of years have no rights.
What is dangerous is to frivolously toss around the concept of the “right to exist”.

The Palestine/Israel issue is a classic illustration of Hegel’s definition of tragedy as the clash between right and right.

The Jews are entitled to a secure home in a land to which they have more title than any other piece of real estate on earth, and where the state of Israel has existed for sixty-four years.

The Palestinians are justifiedly aggrieved that they lost their land and their homes.

It is to be hoped that eventually some sort of viable two-state solution will be implemented.

In the mean time, “right to exist” for Palestinians means no more than the present lack of an independent nation, but for Jews it is infinitely more serious, because they have known an attempt to literally end their existence as a people, and there are elements in organizations such as Hamas which are virulently anti-Semitic, Holocaust denialist, and opposed to any two-state solution involving any form of Jewish state.

It is wrong for Western dispensationalists to ignore the grievances of the Palestinians and the heavy-handedness of some Israeli policies, but it is also wrong for Westerners in safe, secure countries to pontificate to Israelis to whom a “right to exist” as a people, and as a tiny, beleagured, vulnerable country, is starkly real in ways which most of us can barely conceive of.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No group took over - were they not given the land by common consent of the UN? The internationally agreed plan was that there was to be a Jewish state, an Arab state and an internationally controlled Jerusalem. The Jews accepted it but the Arabs didn't and the Arabs started to attack the Jews.
It may have been a consent common to many, but surprisingly, not that of the people actually living on the land.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I would think some Native Americans/First Nations people would love to see their land liberated.

But, fact is, many people have been displaced from lands by other invading nations. I can imagine the Celts would have loved to see the Anglo Saxons forced off their land and the Anglo Saxons would have loved to seen the Normans return to where they came too.

The Semitic sense of justice is much different from the Western Sense of Justice. There is a definite problem with two peoples claim legitimate rights to the same land.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Enoch, I will have to disagree with you about the Palestinian Authority wanting to drive Christian Arabs and Druze into the sea along with the Isrealis. The Druze and Arab Christians have long been a part of Palestine. 17% of Palestinians are Christian, even 8% of Palestinians are Jewish. Yes, 75% are Muslim. But Muslims would say as religions of The Word, the right of Christians and Druze should be respected. (They just cannot evangelize).

What the Palestinian Authority wants is that the land be liberated from the Israelis and be returned to the "original" Palestinian owners or their families. They would want all the Jews who have immigrated to the area to return where they came from, but they do not want to throw out the Christians or Druze who were already there.
Two replies.

First, the question isn't about the official Palestinian Authority position. It's about the leader of Hamas. Hamas does appear to regard everyone who does not unconditionally side with them as their enemy.

Second, even your answer acknowledges that the Palestinian aspiration is a Judenfrei Israel. As long as that is the case, there can be no peace between the two sides - and there is no point in discussing the subject.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No group took over - were they not given the land by common consent of the UN?
So if the UN and the American government decide to remove you from your house and farm and country and send you somewhere else that's fine by you just because its official?

And why start a thread with a fake question and then give your own inevitable answer? Why not say what you think straight out? Are you ashamed of your opinions on the subject, worried that no-one will pay attention if you stated them clearly?

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

First, the question isn't about the official Palestinian Authority position. It's about the leader of Hamas. Hamas does appear to regard everyone who does not unconditionally side with them as their enemy.

Second, even your answer acknowledges that the Palestinian aspiration is a Judenfrei Israel. As long as that is the case, there can be no peace between the two sides - and there is no point in discussing the subject.
First, that's exactly why the government of Israel (and everyone else interested) needs to talk to Hamas, and to other Palestinians about Hamas, instead of just posturing and eery now and again killing a few.

Second, now you are confusing Hamas with all Palestinians, just as you warned about in the previous paragraph.

[ 10. December 2012, 08:52: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
were they not given the land by common consent of the UN?...The Jews accepted it but the Arabs didn't
Looks like you've answered your own question there. That's not common consent Mudfrog. That's the dictat of a foreign body, and one group of inhabitants taking over against the wishes of the majority inhabitants.

That's why consent of the inhabitants is so important in questions of legitimacy and statehood. The UN made a terrible error in acting like an old colonial power - dictating, shifting borders and drawing lines on a map from thousands of miles away without taking any notice of the actual inhabitants.
 
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :
 
This may or may not be a tangent. In discussion yesterday with a proponent of the Friends of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem an organization that has done humanitarian work not only in Jerusalem but throughout the Middle East. She was pressing the argument about the mistreatment and brutal subjugation of the Palestinians by Israel.

I came to the thought that of the two entities, the most intransigent was the Palestinian/Hamas who have vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Israel has, many times, agreed to softer positions than harsh. How do you get an change in Palestine to reject their "off the map" stance? I don't think it will be to pressure Israel.

In South Africa an intransigent government policy of apartheid was changed by applying pressure on that government in tangible but more importantly in framing their position as morally wrong.

Why is there no public pressure on the Palestinians/Hamas as morally wrong from the world community? Could the Arab states be persuaded to do this?
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
This map might help folks understand the way Palestinians react.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
That map has been recycled a series of times. It is a political statement, not factual. Here's two for starters.

The west bank was occupied by Jordan until 1967, Israel invaded after attacked. It was never independent or no occupied.

The map also needs to show the lands that were Palestine before Trans-Jordan was partitioned from what it called Palestine today.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Holy Shit. [Eek!]

Is that map for real Josephine? Source please?

[ x-posted with no prophet ]

[ 10. December 2012, 14:01: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No group took over - were they not given the land by common consent of the UN?
"Common consent" included the people who actually LIVED THERE? Perhaps not?
For the record the shape of Israel as in the UN plan was so odd because it was cut to be majority Jewish. Gerrymandering rather than non-consent. (And that they hadn't been there for very long is another story).
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you would deny Israel's right to exist and the Jews the right to possess their ancient homeland?
What about the Cherokee?
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
What about the Cherokee? [/QUOTE]

What about the Cherokee? They had nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian religion which has driven the rise of modern Europe and arguably the modern western world.

Israel is important. The Jews are important. The Cherokee – nice as I’m sure they are – just don’t have the same geo-political importance that Israel does to the Western world.

If you want to start a thread about red Indians I’m sure you will get plenty of responses.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
red Indians
Probably you don't know this given your location. But this is not an appropriate term today and would certainly get you told off or much worse if you used it here. I understand what you mean.

The comparison is actually valid. There have been attempts to compare the Palestinians to North American Indians and Pacific Islanders before. I think there are some problems with the comparison, but one point is quite clear. We have a large of number of First Nations in Canada. Not every nation qualifies to be a national country. Does the Palestinian nation qualify to be a country? Good question.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
red Indians
Probably you don't know this given your location. But this is not an appropriate term today and would certainly get you told off or much worse if you used it here.
It is well known in the UK that "red Indians" is not an acceptable term. I haven't heard anyone use it for years.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Holy Shit. [Eek!]

Is that map for real Josephine? Source please?
Its arguably sort-of accurate. As others said, East Jerusalem and most ofthe West Bank were administered by Jordan in the 50s & 60s, there was no autonomous Palestinian government, though it was in a sense Palestinian land. At least they were allowed to live there. And the fourth map is taking the most pessimistic view of the expansion of Israeli settlements. Though the government of Israel is showing no sign that that view is going to turn out to be wrong. The most recent land grab - the one that even the British and American governments formally objected to - completely encircles Jerusalem and joins it to Jericho - so the only between Bethelehm and Ramah, six miles apart, is through Israeli military-occupied territories on the Dead Sea. (As well as their own settlements, the Israelis also restrict Palestinian access to the Dead Sea, the Jordan, and to the borders with Egypt, Joprdan, and Syria)
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
What about the Cherokee?
What about the Cherokee? They had nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian religion which has driven the rise of modern Europe and arguably the modern western world.

Israel is important. The Jews are important. The Cherokee – nice as I’m sure they are – just don’t have the same geo-political importance that Israel does to the Western world.

If you want to start a thread about red Indians I’m sure you will get plenty of responses.
You seem to have the Judeo Christian religion confused with the Roman Empire.

ETA: fixed code.

[ 10. December 2012, 16:47: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is wrong for Western dispensationalists to ignore the grievances of the Palestinians and the heavy-handedness of some Israeli policies, but it is also wrong for Westerners in safe, secure countries to pontificate to Israelis to whom a “right to exist” as a people, and as a tiny, beleagured, vulnerable country, is starkly real in ways which most of us can barely conceive of.
What makes this complete BS is that Israel, left to its own devices, would have ceased to exist years ago. It is the US that has maintained its existence. We in the US must determine whether or not it is appropriate for us to continue to do so.

If you truly believe that we should stay out of it, then you are of the view that Israel should cease to exist. If, OTOH, you believe that we should continue to prop up an artificial state, then it is precisely "Westerners in safe, secure countries" who will "pontificate" on Israel's right to exist.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
What makes this complete BS is that Israel, left to its own devices, would have ceased to exist years ago.
And what would have become of the Jews in the Israel that ceased-to-be, Tom?

If it’s an “artificial state”, how come I read about it in the Bible daily?

That is not something you can ignore or sweep under the carpet. In any case, the Jewish lobby is – thankfully – pretty powerful in the US, so it’s fairly moot. Israel is here to stay.

Any peace will be on Israel’s terms, whether you, me, the Palestinians or the UN likes it or not. Any accommodation will be at the sufferance of Israel. If they decide to grant peace then it will happen, and if the deal isn’t acceptable to her then it won’t. To pretend otherwise is naïve.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I can read about any number of countries that have disappeared in books over a thousand years old. I don't really think that proves anything. If I shipped all the Romani back to India and declared a nation state for them I doubt that would work terribly well either.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:

If it’s an “artificial state”, how come I read about it in the Bible daily?
You are seriously not conflating the ancient nation of Israel with the present day State of Israel?

They are two different realities. The ancient Kingdom of Israel was a theocratic monarchy with a national sacrificial cult and strict purity laws. The secular State of Israel is a democratic modern, state which had constitutional freedoms and modern western jurisprudence.

To use an analogy, that would be like saying that the present day UK is the same as Anglo-saxon Britannia.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The secular State of Israel is a democratic modern, state which had constitutional freedoms and modern western jurisprudence.
And is less than 70 years old.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I can read about any number of countries that have disappeared in books over a thousand years old. I don't really think that proves anything. If I shipped all the Romani back to India and declared a nation state for them I doubt that would work terribly well either.
That's an old argument and as specious now as it was when it was first used.

Find me a few million Romani agitating for their own nation state back in India and I’ll listen.

Israel existed in the Levant region until the diaspora in the 1st Century AD. The Jews were scattered, but the concept of Israel never went away. Is there an equivalent concept for your Romani? Are they pining as a nation to return home? Where is that home?

It isn’t a question you can duck I’m afraid. Some of us believe that Israel pre-dates Palestine and that’s when the clock should start running from, not 1948, or 636 AD.

I’d like to see peace as much as anyone, but it must be acceptable to Israel, because if it isn’t there can be no peace.
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
If you read Samuel to Kings, it's arguable that the entire establishment of a Jewish nation state was a mistake to begin with, one that God only allowed begrudgingly.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
If you read Samuel to Kings, it's arguable that the entire establishment of a Jewish nation state was a mistake to begin with, one that God only allowed begrudgingly.
And yet it did, so never mind.

It is the land where Christ was born, lived, minstered and died, and it isn't going to be swept away again because some people don't like it. Israel is back, and the Jews are back.

My question hasn't been answered. What will happen to the Jews if Israel ceases to exist?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I find the idea that the Israelis have been more willing to give way than the Palestinians a laughable one. Palestinians have, on a number of occasions, agreed to give up any claim to their historic lands in what is now Israel, and have simply wanted to keep those lands that were Palestinian in 1967. They've even been prepared to concede some of the settlements developed since then. Israel, meanwhile, has continued to pursue colonial policies and a significant faction, including members of the current government, favour "greater Israel" covering all the territory of Biblical Israel. A significant chunk of the Israeli population support removing the Palestinian population to make this happen (i.e. ethnic cleansing).
EDIT: I'm pretty sure Jesus ministered in the Roman province of Judea, not the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Not that it is in any way relevant to a modern state that most Orthodox Jews think is not that country.

[ 10. December 2012, 20:03: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
If you read Samuel to Kings, it's arguable that the entire establishment of a Jewish nation state was a mistake to begin with, one that God only allowed begrudgingly.
And yet it did, so never mind.

It is the land where Christ was born, lived, minstered and died, and it isn't going to be swept away again because some people don't like it. Israel is back, and the Jews are back.

My question hasn't been answered. What will happen to the Jews if Israel ceases to exist?
Which Jews?
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
Well let's start with those in Israel right now.

What will happen to them if Israel ceases to exist?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Well let's start with those in Israel right now.

What will happen to them if Israel ceases to exist?
I would hope they would be equal citizens alongside the Palestinians in a single, secular state guaranteeing the rights of both.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
If you read Samuel to Kings, it's arguable that the entire establishment of a Jewish nation state was a mistake to begin with, one that God only allowed begrudgingly.
And yet it did, so never mind.

It is the land where Christ was born, lived, minstered and died, and it isn't going to be swept away again because some people don't like it. Israel is back, and the Jews are back.

My question hasn't been answered. What will happen to the Jews if Israel ceases to exist?
Probably nothing if you are talking about Jews living outside Israel.

In terms of Israel itself, if you mean that it ceases to exist as a Jewish state, then I suppose Jews will have to adapt to living in a multi-ethnic state and seeing Arabs and other people as equal, fellow citizens. Which is exactly the same thing as what they do in the UK and other countries.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
It would be a bit like Northern Ireland - rumblings would continue on and off,, but overall violence would eventually reduce.
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
It'd depend on how this hypothetical settlement worked out.
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I came to the thought that of the two entities, the most intransigent was the Palestinian/Hamas who have vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Israel has, many times, agreed to softer positions than harsh. How do you get an change in Palestine to reject their "off the map" stance? I don't think it will be to pressure Israel.
It is indeed intransigent and harmful of Hamas to be so opposed to Israel's basic right to exist. Equally intransigent and harmful though is Israel's refusal to recognise Palestine's basic right to exist as a self-governing, unoccupied state. Many pro-Israeli commentators laugh at the very notion of Palestine, considering it nothing more than a myth, as though before the Jews arrived it was just a blank space. Just a jaw-droppingly arrogant attitude. Witness Israel's over-the-top hostility to even such a minor non-event as the UN changing Palestine from a 'non-member observing entity' to a 'non-member observing state'.

When two people refuse to even accept the other one exists, it is very hard to have a conversation, let alone agree anything.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Any peace will be on Israel’s terms, whether you, me, the Palestinians or the UN likes it or not. Any accommodation will be at the sufferance of Israel. If they decide to grant peace then it will happen, and if the deal isn’t acceptable to her then it won’t. To pretend otherwise is naïve.
Only while Israel continues to dominate militarily. As soon as the Palestinians get the upper hand, and surely, as with any occupying force, it's only a matter of time, the peace will decidedly not be on their terms. It's in Israel's interests to make concessions to create a viable peace while they still hold all the trump cards.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If you truly believe that we should stay out of it
I don't want Westerners to "stay out of it".

I want them to support Israel's right to exist.

We are entitled to point out what we see as any lack of wisdom or justice in Israel's policies, and encourage progress toward possible solutions such as separate Israeli and Palestinian states.

What we are not entitled to do is sit back in safety at a comfortable distance and make moralistic demands on Israel which might look brilliant to us, but which might appear very different to Israelis who live constantly on the brink of oblivion.
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
How much existence are they entitled to?

ETA: A bit of tact.

[ 11. December 2012, 01:49: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I can read about any number of countries that have disappeared in books over a thousand years old. I don't really think that proves anything. If I shipped all the Romani back to India and declared a nation state for them I doubt that would work terribly well either.
That's an old argument and as specious now as it was when it was first used.

Find me a few million Romani agitating for their own nation state back in India and I’ll listen.
I can find you a few million Greeks that want Constantinopolis back. Do they "have enough to do with the Judeo-Christian religion which has driven the rise of modern Europe and arguably the modern western world?"

And as for the 'geopolitical importance' of Israel... well, we lasted two millennium without an Israeli state, how important could it be?

Why can't you guys just admit that you want Israel to exist because of a (misplaced) religious belief that they are more important that everyone? Why can't you just admit that you think the life of a Jew is worth more than the life of a Palestinian?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Israel existed in the Levant region until the diaspora in the 1st Century AD. The Jews were scattered, but the concept of Israel never went away. Is there an equivalent concept for your Romani? Are they pining as a nation to return home? Where is that home?
Who gives a fuck if they were pining? How does pining give them a right to scrape other people off their land and subjugate them and treat them like dogs? Pining doesn't create rightness.
 
Posted by Ruudy (# 3939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
This map might help folks understand the way Palestinians react.
And this map may help people understand the way the Israelis react
UAE airline Etihad erases Israel from the map.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Well let's start with those in Israel right now.

What will happen to them if Israel ceases to exist?
I would hope they would be equal citizens alongside the Palestinians in a single, secular state guaranteeing the rights of both.
If you can believe that, you can believe anything.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I believe it would take a long time to achieve that, but that it is not impossible.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Well let's start with those in Israel right now.

What will happen to them if Israel ceases to exist?
I would hope they would be equal citizens alongside the Palestinians in a single, secular state guaranteeing the rights of both.
Funny! Because that has been the experience of Jews down the ages hasn’t it.

No seriously, what do you think will happen to them. In real life this time.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
It's not what the Muslims want.

[Projectile] THIS

A two state solution was offered in 1947 - the Arabs rejected it.

They don't want it now - they want an entirely Muslim Middle East (apart from wanting an entirely Muslim world!).

If Islam gets hold of Israel there will be a massacre. The whole thing is anti-Semitism writ large.

The church is, once again, displaying the antisemitism it displayed since the second and third centuries.
Israel must be suported - they, with us, are the people of YHWH and it is a disgrace that Christians do not stand with Israel.

That doesn't mean we have to agree with their policies, but our default position should be solidarity with them.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Mudfrog - what future does your ideal solution offer the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank?

Just asking - seriously.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's not what the Muslims want.

[Projectile] THIS

A two state solution was offered in 1947 - the Arabs rejected it.

They don't want it now - they want an entirely Muslim Middle East (apart from wanting an entirely Muslim world!).

If Islam gets hold of Israel there will be a massacre. The whole thing is anti-Semitism writ large.

The church is, once again, displaying the antisemitism it displayed since the second and third centuries.
Israel must be suported - they, with us, are the people of YHWH and it is a disgrace that Christians do not stand with Israel.

That doesn't mean we have to agree with their policies, but our default position should be solidarity with them.
Firstly, I'm not really sure why Muslims wanting a Muslim world is such a big deal - as a Christian I would like a Christian world.

Secondly, there are plenty of Muslim Israelis so what do you mean by Islam 'getting a hold of' Israel? As for anti-Semitism, Palestinians are Semites too! Saying that a) Palestinians deserve a safe homeland of their own and b) saying that Israel has behaved badly towards Palestinians is not anti-Semitism any more than saying that Pakistan has treated Christians badly is Islamophobia. Palestinians being forced from their homes to make way for Americans who have a country of their own is something Christians should be in favour of, really? My opposition to modern Israel (again, no relation to the Biblical Israel) is based purely on their behaviour as a country and has nothing to do with Israel being a mostly Jewish nation (not entirely, don't pretend Israel is some kind of Jewish haven - gay rights for example are on par with secular countries).

If Christians are supposed to defend Israel so much, why does Israel deny rights to Christians and Messianic Jews? Why do American Orthodox Jews have more rights than Israeli Messianic Jews?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Seriously? You think a Muslim world would be just as desirable as a Christian world? You want the whole world to look and behave like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Egypt?

Also I write about Islam taking over, not Muslims. Most Muslims would want an Islamic caliphate but I am talking about Islamic law not individual Muslims.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
No, I said as a Christian I would want a Christian world - I'm just pointing out that Muslims desiring a Muslim world is quite a natural part of being a Muslim.

Islam isn't some big bogeyman that somehow operates without individual Muslims behind it - it takes Muslim theologians, imams etc to enact Islamic law, which in turn requires shifts in thinking in particular strands of Islamic theology. Islam is not a single homogenous system, it cannot function without individual Muslims just as Christianity cannot function without individual Christians. Comparing an Islamic world to individual mostly-Muslim nations is like comparing a Christian world to Vatican City.
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A two state solution was offered in 1947 - the Arabs rejected it.
Damn straight. If the UN offered to split England and give half of it as a homeland for a minority group of people who've recently immigrated here I'd reject it as well.

It's like someone breaking into your home and offering to cut only one of your legs off, rather than both. And then claiming in court that you rejected his offer and tried to fight him off, so that meant he was perfectly justified in cutting both your legs off and your arms as well.

And the court agreeing.

Why the hell do you think the Palestinians should have accepted such an outrageous 'offer'?
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's not what the Muslims want.

[Projectile] THIS

A two state solution was offered in 1947 - the Arabs rejected it.

They don't want it now - they want an entirely Muslim Middle East (apart from wanting an entirely Muslim world!).

If Islam gets hold of Israel there will be a massacre. The whole thing is anti-Semitism writ large.

The church is, once again, displaying the antisemitism it displayed since the second and third centuries.
Israel must be suported - they, with us, are the people of YHWH and it is a disgrace that Christians do not stand with Israel.

That doesn't mean we have to agree with their policies, but our default position should be solidarity with them.
Why shouldn't we be in solidarity with our Palestinian Christian brothers and sisters?

After all, they are fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, are they not?
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
This map might help folks understand the way Palestinians react.
And this map may help people understand the way the Israelis react
UAE airline Etihad erases Israel from the map.
Their map doesn't include South Sudan either. Or Lichenstein, Andora, Puerto Rico, or Trinidad and Tobago. It doesn't show the Solomon Islands, which is a larger country than Israel.

Israel is marked on the map, with it's borders. But it just isn't labelled. Neither is the West Bank or Gaza, though their areas are just as defined as Israel's.

However, since Etihad doesn't have any flights to Israel, (or any of the countries I've mentioned above) and it is very small, in a very crowded area, perhaps it's not that surprising the mapmakers didn't bother to label it.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Israel must be suported - they, with us, are the people of YHWH and it is a disgrace that Christians do not stand with Israel.
1) "Israel" is a country, so there is no "they" about it. Also, there's no necessary link between "Israel" and "Jews". If you mean "Jews" at least have the nous to say so.

2) Muslims are also followers of the God of Abraham.

3) If there's any value in the sort of link or alliance between religions you're trying to encourage, then surely Muslims are closer to Christians than Jews given that they also recognise Jesus as the Messiah. OK, they don't recognise Him as God - but Jews don't recognise Him at all.

4) Given all that, and also your "they want to make the whole world Muslim" rhetoric, it's hard not to conclude that your "we must support Israel" stance owes more to Islamophobia than anything else.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A two state solution was offered in 1947 - the Arabs rejected it.
Damn straight. If the UN offered to split England and give half of it as a homeland for a minority group of people who've recently immigrated here I'd reject it as well.

It's like someone breaking into your home and offering to cut only one of your legs off, rather than both. And then claiming in court that you rejected his offer and tried to fight him off, so that meant he was perfectly justified in cutting both your legs off and your arms as well.

And the court agreeing.

Why the hell do you think the Palestinians should have accepted such an outrageous 'offer'?
Don't you think that the partition of Ireland is a better comparison than this convoluted parallel? Two populations, each of which deem the other to be less authentic to the place, unable to get on with each other, and partitioned by an external authority?

Eventually, the two sides realized that rehashing the past just made for more funerals, and that they had to look to the future. Having spent my university years in Ireland, I was certain that this would never happen, that the desire for turmoil and absolute victory was so strong, but I was wrong.
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A two state solution was offered in 1947 - the Arabs rejected it.
So did the Israelis.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Why shouldn't we be in solidarity with our Palestinian Christian brothers and sisters?

After all, they are fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, are they not?
Yes, all ten of them. Oop’s no, nine. One has just been killed by an Islamic Fundamentalist.

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My opposition to modern Israel (again, no relation to the Biblical Israel) is based purely on their behaviour as a country and has nothing to do with Israel being a mostly Jewish nation (not entirely, don't pretend Israel is some kind of Jewish haven - gay rights for example are on par with secular countries).
So you wouldn’t have a problem with Israel existing if they were a little nicer?

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
2) Muslims are also followers of the God of Abraham.
Yes, but then there is a pretty significant swing away. That’s the elephant in the room, Muslims believe their interpretation of what God wanted is right, and the Jews and Christians believe their interpretation is right. These days, however it seem as though the Islamic interpretation is being shouted out the loudest, and being defended by those who have the other interpretation.

In the end, it comes down to which one you choose. Me, I’m of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, so I think Israel should be a Jewish state. Muslims should be welcome to live there, but not to turn it into a Muslim state.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Why shouldn't we be in solidarity with our Palestinian Christian brothers and sisters?

After all, they are fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, are they not?
Yes, all ten of them. Oop’s no, nine. One has just been killed by an Islamic Fundamentalist.

Educated yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Christians
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
2) Muslims are also followers of the God of Abraham.
Yes, but then there is a pretty significant swing away. That’s the elephant in the room, Muslims believe their interpretation of what God wanted is right, and the Jews and Christians believe their interpretation is right.
You've got that a bit wrong. Muslims, Christians and Jews all believe that their interpretation is right. There's no theological reason to lump Christians and Jews in together as you do.

quote:
In the end, it comes down to which one you choose. Me, I’m of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, so I think Israel should be a Jewish state. Muslims should be welcome to live there, but not to turn it into a Muslim state.
Surely as a Christian your preference should be for all states to be Christian? Saying another country should have a state religion that's not Christianity (or no state religion at all) is perfectly fine, of course, but I'm not sure what part of Christianity requires you to decide that that other religion should be Judaism rather than Islam.
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Don't you think that the partition of Ireland is a better comparison than this convoluted parallel?
Perhaps, but the situation in 1949 was different in important ways. The Jews were largely recent immigrants then, arriving from the late 19th century in small numbers and increasing throughout the early 20th (although there was a very small population of natives). In 1914 the Jews made up 7% of the population of the total territory of Palestine and Israel combined, which increased to 16% in 1931, 29% in 1941 and lept to fully 50% by 1950, after the 1949 war (including the ethnic cleansing and dislocation of the Arab populace into permanent refugee camps). The Jews were purposefully emigrating in order to increase their demographics so they could justify their takeover of the land - it was their stated aim at the time. The native inhabitants were angry at this projected takeover of their land (justifiably I think) and even angrier when this recent immigrant group were awarded the rule of a large portion of the land by foreign dictat rather than the native Arabs who had lived there for generations.

What is interesting is that although it is true that pre-1949 Jews purchased the land legally, this still caused justifiable anger from the inhabitants. Look at the case of the Jezreel Valley, a place that travellers in the 19th century described as the richest land on earth. It was owned however by absentee landlords such as the Sursock family (who bought the land from the Ottoman government in 1870), and the 8000 Arabs who lived there were legally only tenant farmers, though they had lived there for generations. The American Zion Commonwealth, a Jewish settlement corporation, approached the Sursock family and bought large tracts of the land from them, before sending the police in to forcibly expel the inhabitants so Jewish settlers could take habitation of the farmland for themselves. The Arab farmers who once lived in this beautiful and fertile valley were forced to move to the coast in search of work and ended up in shanty towns. This caused widespread riots from the disposessed Arab farmers in 1929.

The trouble is, this is still going on, Pro-Jewish agencies using the letter of the law to dispossess Arabs from their homes and farms in order to give the land to Jewish settlers. This isn't the distant past that needs to be forgotten and forgiven, this is still happening right now. No wonder there's no peace.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The church is, once again, displaying the antisemitism it displayed since the second and third centuries.
Maybe in Britain. The majority of American Protestants are pro-Israel.

AND being against Zionism is not the same thing as being anti-semitic. That is the Grand Lie of Zionism. Unless you think the anti-Zionist groups of Rabbis are self-hating? You just go ahead and tell them that. I'd say that is a smug and paternalistic attitude, however.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What is interesting is that although it is true that pre-1949 Jews purchased the land legally, this still caused justifiable anger from the inhabitants. Look at the case of the Jezreel Valley, a place that travellers in the 19th century described as the richest land on earth. It was owned however by absentee landlords such as the Sursock family (who bought the land from the Ottoman government in 1870), and the 8000 Arabs who lived there were legally only tenant farmers, though they had lived there for generations.
It needs also to be said that the reason the Ottoman government "owned" the land is that they purposely increased the taxes until the inhabitants had to sell their land to pay them. Not unreasonably, the inhabitants thought the Ottoman government's "ownership" of their land was bogus, so the selling of that land to absentee landlords, and in turn to Zionist immigrants, was not recognized as valid. "We bought the land fair and square" doesn't hold much truck if you bought it from someone who stole it in the first place.

ETA: What the absentee Christian Zionists cannot or will not see is that the Zionist take-over of the holy land is seen by the inhabitants as the equivalent of a new crusade. A bunch of Europeans coming in and stealing the land from the locals. (Far and away the vast majority of the Zionist settlers at first came from Europe.) That the European "immigrants*" were Jewish instead of Christian, why would that matter?

_____
* "Immigrants" in the same sense that the Viking raiders in the Led Zeppelin song "The Immigrant Song" are "immigrants."

[ 11. December 2012, 13:15: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I rather think, Mudfrog, that this is a rather different and more complex issue than the deleterious anti-Semitism that developed in the early Church and is typified by the Epistle of Barnabas which may have been written to counteract Judaising Christians - but which ended up asserting that the Jews never had any Covenantal rights in the first place ...

Nobody is arguing that the Church hasn't been guilty of dreadful anti-Semitism.

Nor, I think, is anyone suggesting that if militant Hamas-style Palestinians did get the upper-hand there wouldn't be atrocities against the Jews in Israel. I believe there would be.

However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try for some kind of solution and to appeal to moderates on both sides. There are both Jews and Palestinians who would support a two-state solution. It seems the only viable way to go, difficult as it would be to broker and maintain.

Nobody has clean hands on this one. The Jews massacred entire Palestinian villages in 1948. That doesn't make any subsequent Palestinian atrocities acceptable - of course it doesn't.

I really don't get this kind of 'support-Israel-at-all-costs' mentality. What would you have said to the widows of British soldiers tortured and murdered by the Stern Gang and other Jewish terrorists back in the days of the Mandate?

'Oh, don't worry, it was the Jews who carried out these atrocities but it doesn't matter because they're God's chosen people and they have a right to this land ... so it doesn't really matter that they've killed your son/husband/brother ...'

Sure, there are double-standards all ways round. Some people who are very anti-Israel would have been reasonably pro-IRA - or at least the Republican movement to some degree.

Terrorism is terrorism, murder is murder, irrespective of the cause and who perpetrates it.

There have been Jewish murderers and terrorists and there have been Palestinian murderers and terrorists.

Equally, there are voices calling for peace and moderation on all sides.

But we are where we are. I wouldn't want to see Israel over-run by militant Islamists - but neither do I like extreme Zionists that much.

There has to be a more excellent way.

And an over-realised and over-literal eschatology isn't helping IMHO.
 
Posted by Ruudy (# 3939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
This map might help folks understand the way Palestinians react.
And this map may help people understand the way the Israelis react
UAE airline Etihad erases Israel from the map.
Their map doesn't include South Sudan either. Or Lichenstein, Andora, Puerto Rico, or Trinidad and Tobago. It doesn't show the Solomon Islands, which is a larger country than Israel.

Israel is marked on the map, with it's borders. But it just isn't labelled. Neither is the West Bank or Gaza, though their areas are just as defined as Israel's.

However, since Etihad doesn't have any flights to Israel, (or any of the countries I've mentioned above) and it is very small, in a very crowded area, perhaps it's not that surprising the mapmakers didn't bother to label it.
Hawk, I went to the Etihad website itself to zoom in on their map and you are correct. Israel is there, but not labeled. Sensationalist reporting. Thanks for pointing it out.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Don't you think that the partition of Ireland is a better comparison than this convoluted parallel?
Perhaps, but the situation in 1949 was different in important ways. The Jews were largely recent immigrants then, arriving from the late 19th century in small numbers and increasing throughout the early 20th (although there was a very small population of natives). *snip*

This isn't the distant past that needs to be forgotten and forgiven, this is still happening right now. No wonder there's no peace.
Indeed, this is so ---the catalogue of wrongs is fairly long and, while specifics are arguable, the general line of mutually-dealt out violence and intransigence is not -- but I am not certain that it disproves my point.

On the basis of on-the-ground observation on my own part, a careful review of historical evidence, and close attention to spokesmen on both sides, I had by the end of my time in Ireland in the 1970s, concluded that the situation was unsolvable, and could never be resolved. I was proven wrong when a number of historical circumstances came into play at a time when both populations realized that their visions could not be realized.

There were ancient wrongs and current ones, just as you have described. They did not find it easy, or comfortable, and those I know in Northern Ireland are still unhappy about much of the resolution. However, they found a common hope and mechanisms by which some of the graver wrongs could be addressed, and are building a future.

We can continue to keep score on the deadly badminton match, totting up one set of wrongs against another and keep track of the death count, and both sides can continue to deny the other its right to exist, or we can take steps in another direction. This will be the most difficult path, but 65 years of mutual attacking has not resolved the problem--- neither side will disappear without unspeakable atrocity, neither side is conquerable, neither vision can be sustained --- it's time to try something else.

Was it here or in another thread where I wondered if Freud was the source of the saw that the definition of insanity was repeating an action with the expectation of different results?

[ 11. December 2012, 14:16: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
If you read Samuel to Kings, it's arguable that the entire establishment of a Jewish nation state was a mistake to begin with, one that God only allowed begrudgingly.
And yet it did, so never mind.

It is the land where Christ was born, lived, minstered and died, and it isn't going to be swept away again because some people don't like it. Israel is back, and the Jews are back.

My question hasn't been answered. What will happen to the Jews if Israel ceases to exist?
Probably nothing if you are talking about Jews living outside Israel.
Diaspora Jews believe that Israel is a safe bolthole in which to escape 'when (not if) they come for us again.

The loss of the state of Israel would be catastrophic to them.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
2) Muslims are also followers of the God of Abraham.
Yes, but then there is a pretty significant swing away. That’s the elephant in the room, Muslims believe their interpretation of what God wanted is right, and the Jews and Christians believe their interpretation is right.
You've got that a bit wrong. Muslims, Christians and Jews all believe that their interpretation is right. There's no theological reason to lump Christians and Jews in together as you do.

quote:
In the end, it comes down to which one you choose. Me, I’m of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, so I think Israel should be a Jewish state. Muslims should be welcome to live there, but not to turn it into a Muslim state.
Surely as a Christian your preference should be for all states to be Christian? Saying another country should have a state religion that's not Christianity (or no state religion at all) is perfectly fine, of course, but I'm not sure what part of Christianity requires you to decide that that other religion should be Judaism rather than Islam.
Well there is because Christ was a Jew, and the early church was started with Jews, and Jewish teachings pervaded the early church.

There is more that unites Jew and Christian than divides us.

That isn’t true of Islam, in my opinion.

I recognise that Israel will never be Christian. I’m being realistic and not idealistic, and ignoring objective realities is never a good thing. Therefore I have to choose the next best solution, and that is Israel as a Jewish state run by pro-Western, democratic Israeli’s.

I would like the Palestinians to have peace, prosperity and a stable home, but not at the cost of a Palestinian Islamic state. Which in turn means, for me at any rate, that the Palestinians will have to accept a less than perfect solution. They are never going to be given the keys to Jerusalem. It quite simply will not happen.

A number of people over the years have suggested that an ersatz Israel could have been created in Canada or Australia or wherever. Why not go further and have an ersatz Palestine in one of those places? Why not put the idea to the Palestinians that they would be better off going there? Because they would refuse, that’s why, on the basis that they are defined as Palestinians by coming from that region of the Levant, exactly the same reason that Jews define themselves as coming from the same region. They are “of” that region.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
There is more that unites Jew and Christian than divides us.

That isn’t true of Islam, in my opinion.
Islam developed out of Christianity, just as Christianity developed out of Judaism.

And as I said previously, Islam recognises Christ as the Messiah. I'd say that's a fairly significant similarity, wouldn't you?

Of course, Muslims in general don't look as similar to "us" as Jews generally do. I realise that's a big factor going against them.

quote:
I recognise that Israel will never be Christian. I’m being realistic and not idealistic, and ignoring objective realities is never a good thing. Therefore I have to choose the next best solution, and that is Israel as a Jewish state run by pro-Western, democratic Israeli’s.
Oh yes, that's the other big way in which Muslims aren't as similar to "us" as Jews - they're not "pro-Western". How very dare they?!? No wonder we need to support a country that's trying to ethnically cleanse them from its borders! All shall obey our Western cultural norms or die!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
2) Muslims are also followers of the God of Abraham.
Yes, but then there is a pretty significant swing away. That’s the elephant in the room, Muslims believe their interpretation of what God wanted is right, and the Jews and Christians believe their interpretation is right.
You've got that a bit wrong. Muslims, Christians and Jews all believe that their interpretation is right. There's no theological reason to lump Christians and Jews in together as you do.

quote:
In the end, it comes down to which one you choose. Me, I’m of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, so I think Israel should be a Jewish state. Muslims should be welcome to live there, but not to turn it into a Muslim state.
Surely as a Christian your preference should be for all states to be Christian? Saying another country should have a state religion that's not Christianity (or no state religion at all) is perfectly fine, of course, but I'm not sure what part of Christianity requires you to decide that that other religion should be Judaism rather than Islam.
Well there is because Christ was a Jew, and the early church was started with Jews, and Jewish teachings pervaded the early church.

There is more that unites Jew and Christian than divides us.
You know, I'm never been convinced of this. Christianity (the clue's in the name) is founded on the belief that Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah. That is the reason it exists. Judaism continued to exist because the majority of Jews at that time rejected this belief. It's a pretty damned big division, really.

I should add that's it's absolutely bleedin' irrelevant to the subject at hand; I try to judge how nations should act on concepts like justice and fairness rather than which particular set of propositions about God or gods they happen to subscribe to.

[ 11. December 2012, 15:16: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
A number of people over the years have suggested that an ersatz Israel could have been created in Canada or Australia or wherever. Why not go further and have an ersatz Palestine in one of those places?
This would be because at the time, the vast vast vast majority of Jews were not from or in the Levant. They were largely in Europe or the United States, and had been there (in the case of Europe) for untold centuries. Moving Palestinians out of their homeland and into some other country so that other people can come in and take their fathers' fathers' fathers' lands isn't the same thing as European Jews deciding to move to somewhere "in Canada or Australia or wherever" to escape actual or potential persecution.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
neither side is conquerable, neither vision can be sustained
Not sure about this. If Israel continues to chew up the West Bank with illegal settlements, eventually there will be nothing left of it, and Israel will have won. I believe this is their goal, and this is why they sabotage the peace process repeatedly.* The United States hasn't the spine to tell them to knock it off and back it up with withdrawal of funds.

______________
*Yes I know the Palestinians have also sabotaged the peace process. That is irrelevant to whether or not Israel has done so.

[ 11. December 2012, 15:28: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
A number of people over the years have suggested that an ersatz Israel could have been created in Canada or Australia or wherever. Why not go further and have an ersatz Palestine in one of those places?
This would be because at the time, the vast vast vast majority of Jews were not from or in the Levant. They were largely in Europe or the United States, and had been there (in the case of Europe) for untold centuries. Moving Palestinians out of their homeland and into some other country so that other people can come in and take their fathers' fathers' fathers' lands isn't the same thing as European Jews deciding to move to somewhere "in Canada or Australia or wherever" to escape actual or potential persecution.
As well, as detailled in Irving Abella's None Is Too Many, Canadian immigration policy at the time was careful in restricting and preventing Jewish immigration to Canada. I don't know about Oz.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Call me uninformed, but when the Hamas leader speaks about 'when the whole Palestine is liberated.'
When he is says 'today is Gaza, tomorrow is Jerusalem and Haifa', what exactly does he mean?
He means that the whole of what is now Israel will be under his rule, and the Jews have all been driven into the Mediterranean or worse. He probably envisages much the same fate for several other groups, Christian Arabs, Druses, the present administration in Ramallah etc.
This. It is a fact avoided by many that Hamas want a Judenrein Middle East. If they had their way the Hebron massacre would happen again but on a much bigger scale.

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's not what the Muslims want.

[Projectile] THIS

A two state solution was offered in 1947 - the Arabs rejected it.

They don't want it now - they want an entirely Muslim Middle East (apart from wanting an entirely Muslim world!).

If Islam gets hold of Israel there will be a massacre. The whole thing is anti-Semitism writ large.

The church is, once again, displaying the antisemitism it displayed since the second and third centuries.
People like me who highlight anti-semitism among the likes of Hamas sometimes are guilty of this kind of comment. "The Muslims want", like all Muslims like that, or that one group expressed the wishes of all Muslims.

I know plenty Muslims who don't want a "Muslim world". Mudfrog, your wording is scaremongering.

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As for anti-Semitism, Palestinians are Semites too!
That's a commonly held false view. Anti-semitism always was directed only against Jews

quote:
My opposition to modern Israel (again, no relation to the Biblical Israel) is based purely on their behaviour as a country and has nothing to do with Israel being a mostly Jewish nation (not entirely, don't pretend Israel is some kind of Jewish haven - gay rights for example are on par with secular countries).
That suggests a dichotomy between Jews and gays. That is false. I know plenty LGBT Jewish people from Israel, some of whom are believers.

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A two state solution was offered in 1947 - the Arabs rejected it.
Damn straight. If the UN offered to split England and give half of it as a homeland for a minority group of people who've recently immigrated here I'd reject it as well.

It's like someone breaking into your home and offering to cut only one of your legs off, rather than both. And then claiming in court that you rejected his offer and tried to fight him off, so that meant he was perfectly justified in cutting both your legs off and your arms as well.

And the court agreeing.

Why the hell do you think the Palestinians should have accepted such an outrageous 'offer'?
As you rightfully say later, some Jews had been living there for centuries.

From my understanding of history I believe that, on the whole, Jewish immigrants during the 19th and 20th century (pre-war) were largely welcomed or ignored, either as they brought some skills along with them (as migrants tend to do) or because they settled in areas where few were living. I do know that Jews and Muslims were living peacefully with each other and it was only when al-Husseini came on the scene that anti-Jewish feeling arose.

This isn't to negate any crimes done during the War of Indepdence, but the fact is that opposition to two states from the Arab side was partly due to anti-semitism.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe in Britain. The majority of American Protestants are pro-Israel.
I believe this is partly helped by Islamophobia. As seen here.

quote:
AND being against Zionism is not the same thing as being anti-semitic. That is the Grand Lie of Zionism. Unless you think the anti-Zionist groups of Rabbis are self-hating? You just go ahead and tell them that. I'd say that is a smug and paternalistic attitude, however.
It's been debated here many times, but still it's not so clear to many that:

Anti-Zionism is not necessarily anti-semitic
Some of anti-Zionism is anti-semitic
Some of anti-Zionism is naive about anti-Semitism in the region

I'll just add:
Some of support for Israel is Islamophobic
Not all of support for Israel is anti-Palestinian
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
If you read Samuel to Kings, it's arguable that the entire establishment of a Jewish nation state was a mistake to begin with, one that God only allowed begrudgingly.
And yet it did, so never mind.

It is the land where Christ was born, lived, minstered and died, and it isn't going to be swept away again because some people don't like it. Israel is back, and the Jews are back.

My question hasn't been answered. What will happen to the Jews if Israel ceases to exist?
Probably nothing if you are talking about Jews living outside Israel.
Diaspora Jews believe that Israel is a safe bolthole in which to escape 'when (not if) they come for us again.

The loss of the state of Israel would be catastrophic to them.
With all due respect, living in perpetual fear does not create conditions for thinking rationally.

Of course, anti-Semitism exists. It exists now when the State of Israel is in existence. We can oppose anti-Semitism vigorously, like opposing all other forms of prejudice or hatred.

But using the fear as motivation for a political action is wrought with danger. We know that the United States have clamped down on civil liberties since 9/11. The justification? Fear of another attack.

Fear as a rationale for political action is an invitation to cease thinking. Its very nature trumps all other rational considerations. Discrimination against sexual minorities was justified on a "fear for children." Discrimination and hatred against immigrants is justified on a fear of the loss of identity.

Our faith as Christians begins with the angel pronouncing to the shepherds, "Fear not."
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Jews in Israel are right to fear, given that Hamas have on their charter the following words:

Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!

Source
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Not all of support for Israel is anti-Palestinian
Not intentionally. But if someone watches their home being bulldozed by the IDF, why should they care if the Americans who vote to send money to support Israel are intentionally anti-Palestinian? De facto anti-Palestinianism, which is what Zionism is, is enough to drive people from their homes.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Jews in Israel are right to fear, given that Hamas have on their charter the following words: [snip]
It would behoove Israel, then, not to drive the Palestinians into the arms of Hamas.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Indeed. Not building extra homes in the West Bank would help.

Zionism is not per-se anti-Palestinian. Part of it is the desire to have a Jewish nation state. Of course, it's complicated how it worked out, but still.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Channel 4 has a slot, just before 8.00 pm, where anyone can briefly express a view that means a lot to them. Last week an Orthodox view was explaining his opposition the the state of Israel, on religious grounds. Not all Jews (religiously speaking) are Zionists; just as not all Zionists are Jews (religiously speaking).
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What is interesting is that although it is true that pre-1949 Jews purchased the land legally, this still caused justifiable anger from the inhabitants. Look at the case of the Jezreel Valley, a place that travellers in the 19th century described as the richest land on earth. It was owned however by absentee landlords such as the Sursock family (who bought the land from the Ottoman government in 1870), and the 8000 Arabs who lived there were legally only tenant farmers, though they had lived there for generations.
It needs also to be said that the reason the Ottoman government "owned" the land is that they purposely increased the taxes until the inhabitants had to sell their land to pay them. Not unreasonably, the inhabitants thought the Ottoman government's "ownership" of their land was bogus, so the selling of that land to absentee landlords, and in turn to Zionist immigrants, was not recognized as valid. "We bought the land fair and square" doesn't hold much truck if you bought it from someone who stole it in the first place
And it's also worth adding as well that the Zionist Corporation didn't just buy ownership, they also went out of their way to make sure that the land was completely dispossessable by the Arabs for ever more. They sold the land to the settlers on the strict proviso, as written in the contracts, that they were only allowed to employ Jews, not Arabs on the land, that no Arab could ever buy the land back, or inherit it in any way. In the words of the Hope Simpson Royal Commission of 1930
quote:
"the result of the purchase of land in Palestine by the Jewish National Fund has been that land has been extraterritorialised. It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advantage either now or at any time in the future. Not only can he never hope to lease or to cultivate it, but, by the stringent provisions of the lease of the Jewish National Fund, he is deprived for ever from employment on that land. Nor can anyone help him by purchasing the land and restoring it to common use. The land is in mortmain and inalienable. It is for this reason that Arabs discount the professions of friendship and good will on the part of the Zionists in view of the policy which the Zionist Organisation deliberately adopted...The present position, precluding any employment of Arabs in the Zionist colonies, is undesirable, from the point of view both of justice and of the good government of the country...It is impossible to view with equanimity the extension of an enclave in Palestine from which all Arabs are excluded. The Arab population already regards the transfer of lands to Zionist hands with dismay and alarm. These cannot be dismissed as baseless in the light of the Zionist policy which is described above."
The report seems tragically prescient now.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
I have just got up, gone online, and checked, inter alia, the Ship, and the headlines in our local left-wing broadsheet (known as the Guardian On The Yarra) which normally would not print anything which could be used in support of Israel.

The latter reports that there will be a Muslim conference held here next year, at which the guest speaker will be the prominent Saudi imam Dr Abdul Rahman Al-Dudais, from Mecca and Medina – clearly not some dismissable, unrepresentative, hole-in-a-corner, deranged Islamist loony.

It claims he has called for violent jihad, and is on record as having prayed to God to “terminate” the Jews, whom he refers to as “scum of the earth” and “monkeys and pigs”.

I have cautioned ad infinitum that Islam is huge and heterogeneous, but nonetheless this imam’s views represents one important strand within the religion, and one which is over-represented in organizations such as Hamas.

Certainly anti-Semitism is not the only factor in the opposition to Israel, but it exists and cannot be ignored.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Jews in Israel are right to fear, given that Hamas have on their charter the following words: [snip]
It would behoove Israel, then, not to drive the Palestinians into the arms of Hamas.
Heck, Israel was funding and supporting the predecessors of Hamas (in an attempt to fracture the Palestinian coalition and to weaken Arafat) until the late 1980s. They gave aid and encouragement to them for decades.

Wall Street Journal: How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas

(...and there are many other publications, including Haartez who have published similar articles. It's not much of a secret...)

The reason why the Gazans elected Hamas was because it had done an effective job at setting up and running social institutions: medical clinics, hospitals, schools, charities, etc. which were not effectively run by the Palestinian Authority or didn't exist at all. Unlike FATAH they did not tolerate corruption. So many Gazans thought they would do a better job at managing the economy and raising living standards than what they'd dealt with before. I'm sure there are all kinds of viewpoints about the existence of Israel amongst Palestinians, but Hamas came into power mostly because of bread and butter issues. It was Israel that gave the initial support to make that happen.

[ 11. December 2012, 19:32: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
As you rightfully say later, some Jews had been living there for centuries.

From my understanding of history I believe that, on the whole, Jewish immigrants during the 19th and 20th century (pre-war) were largely welcomed or ignored, either as they brought some skills along with them (as migrants tend to do) or because they settled in areas where few were living. I do know that Jews and Muslims were living peacefully with each other and it was only when al-Husseini came on the scene that anti-Jewish feeling arose
Actually Al-Husseini probably played on existing tensions. Read the report I linked to in my previous email. Its a fascinating picture of the time. It explains that the previous settler organisation, the P.I.C.A. had ensured that friendly relations with the existing inhabitants was high on their priorities. When developing the land for the settlers and building colonies they ensured they also invested in the Arab land as well. However, this changed in the 1920's with the advent of a new, explicitly Zionist organisation that began to buy land, found settlements, and dictate policy in 1920 called the Keren Hayesod.

quote:
the policy of the P.I.C.A. was one of great friendship for the Arab. Not only did they develop the Arab lands simultaneously with their own, when founding their colonies, but they employed the Arab to tend their plantations, cultivate their fields, to pluck their grapes and their oranges. As a general rule the P.I.C.A. colonisation was of unquestionable benefit to the Arabs of the vicinity.
It is also very noticeable, in travelling through the P.I.C.A. villages, to see the friendliness of the relations which exist between Jew and Arab. It is quite a common sight to see an Arab sitting in the verandah of a Jewish house. The position is entirely different in the Zionist colonies.
The report goes into detail that this old way of settlement building, with its care about ensuring friendly relations with the Arabs, was starting to disappear even by 1930. And the Zionist policy of dispossessing the Arabs completely in favour of the Jews was dominating as Zionists put pressure even on existing settlements to follow their way.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Certainly anti-Semitism is not the only factor in the opposition to Israel, but it exists and cannot be ignored.
I don't see that anybody on this thread has said otherwise. But I would rephrase what you have said to read that anti-Semitism is not the only factor in SOME opposition to Israel. It is not a factor at all in some other people's opposition.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Certainly anti-Semitism is not the only factor in the opposition to Israel, but it exists and cannot be ignored.
I don't see that anybody on this thread has said otherwise. But I would rephrase what you have said to read that anti-Semitism is not the only factor in SOME opposition to Israel. It is not a factor at all in some other people's opposition.
Fair enough.

Admittedly syntactically infelicitous, though I imagine most readers would have understood what I meant in context.
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Israel must be suported - they, with us, are the people of YHWH and it is a disgrace that Christians do not stand with Israel.
Aren't all human beings God's children? Does He place more value on the well-being of a Jew than of a Palestinian? Did Christ not come for the Muslims as well?

Do you really think he cares that much about nationalistic, ethnocentric pissing matches?

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That doesn't mean we have to agree with their policies, but our default position should be solidarity with them.
Okay, so the fact that the Israeli's actively persecutes Christians should not deter Christian Churches from sending them a shitload of cash each year? We can disagree with their bullheadedness, but God forbid we do anything to alter their actions?
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
So the 8% of Palestinians that are Christians (and have been for centuries) are not the people of YHWH and should be thrown under the bus? Am I really understanding this correctly?

Ummmm... Doesn't evangelical Salvationist orthodoxy say that Christians are saved through faith in Christ and Jews who deny Christ are not saved? (That was certainly taught in the Salvationist university I went to.) Yet in this case, Jews are the people of YHWH and Christians are not? Wow. Pretty mixed up.

[ 12. December 2012, 02:52: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
I think for some it has less to do with the salvation of the Jews and more to do with the presumed Jewish role in immanentizing the eschaton.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I would agree. It's the only thing that makes sense: Christians aren't supposed to stand with other Christians in the face of persecution, but with the non-Christians who are persecuting Christians.

But this disturbing belief ultimately turns Jews into objects, who are being used to usher in some hyper-literal Revelation vision of the apocalypse and then cast away into hell, instead of people. Both groups of people end up being screwed over.

It's pretty crap theology all around and this theology causes suffering on both sides.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
A couple of things I didn't know.

1. The PLO were expelled from Jordan in 1970.

2. Egypt wants to isolate the PLO and Palestinians outside of Egyptian territory.

I did know that sectarian violence between groups and sects of Islam is a very real problem. If Israel was erased, then the remaining groups could keep on killing each other. Remember the Iran-Iraq war?

On another topic in this thread, if you want to read about Jews being relocated outside of Israel, try Michael Chabon's The Yiddish Policemen's Union. The Jews were defeated in 1948 and relocated to Alaska. Its a murder mystery set in the Jewish settlement.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I would agree. It's the only thing that makes sense: Christians aren't supposed to stand with other Christians in the face of persecution, but with the non-Christians who are persecuting Christians.
But Palestinian Christians aren't REAL Christians. They're primarily Orthodox or Roman Catholic or worse. Not Jesus-loving Protestants.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So the 8% of Palestinians that are Christians (and have been for centuries)....
Not 8% for centuries. It was more than that in the recent past. No-one knows for sure when Syria and Palestine became majority Muslim but it was well after the Arab conquest. Possibly even in early modern times.

The Islamicisation of Palestine speeded up inthe 20th century, possibly partly because of the resistance to Israel. In at least some quarters being Muslim was seen as part of being really Arab, so as Aran nationalism grew, so did pressure to convert. Also Arabs with a Christian background emigrated more.

But yes, it does seem odd that some Christians are using the Bible as grounds for driving the descendents of the Apostles from the Holy Land. Whatever religion they now profess.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I didn't say that 8% of Palestine have been Christian for centuries (the % was higher until recently - the % lowered because of emmigration) but that those who are Christian have been Christian for centuries. They aren't new converts - or converts for convenience.

I probably should have been clearer.

[ 12. December 2012, 17:43: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Arab nationalism was mounting under the Ottomans and really came to a head during and following the First World War, and had far more to do with chafing under the Ottoman yoke than Zionism. Lawrence of Arabia wasn't an antisemitic crusader.
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I would agree. It's the only thing that makes sense: Christians aren't supposed to stand with other Christians in the face of persecution, but with the non-Christians who are persecuting Christians.
But Palestinian Christians aren't REAL Christians. They're primarily Orthodox or Roman Catholic or worse. Not Jesus-loving Protestants.
That, and we can't pass up the chance to persecute the 92% that's Muslim. They do want world domination, after all, and must be stopped. [Roll Eyes]

However, I've also been told by missionaries to Israel that Jews who convert to Christianity (usually Protestant/Evangelical) are removed from government jobs, find the government suddenly very hostile towards them, and are persecuted socially and sometimes physically by ex-friends and family members.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I've also been told by missionaries to Israel that Jews who convert to Christianity (usually Protestant/Evangelical) are removed from government jobs, find the government suddenly very hostile towards them, and are persecuted socially and sometimes physically by ex-friends and family members.
That's impossible. Israel can do no wrong.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I'm most sympathetic to cultures that reject those from among them that reject them by embracing an alien and indeed inimical one.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I'm most sympathetic to cultures that reject those from among them that reject them by embracing an alien and indeed inimical one.
This could almost be used as an apologia for the Inquisition.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/world/middleeast/leader-of-hamas-calls-for-palestinian-unity.html?ref=middleeast

A NY Times article in which the Hamas leader is quoted as saying, "Resistance is a path and not a goal. ... We are not fighting the Jews because they are Jews; we are fighting the Zionists, the Jews that are colonists, and we shall fight all those who oppress and plunder our land, regardless their religion, regardless of their race."

and in other news . . . . .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/23/israeli-poll-majority-apartheid-policies

More than two-thirds of Israeli Jews say that 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank should be denied the right to vote if the area was annexed by Israel, in effect endorsing an apartheid state, according to an opinion poll reported in Haaretz. . . . A commentary by Gideon Levy, which accompanied the results of the poll, described the findings as disturbing. "Israelis themselves … are openly, shamelessly and guiltlessly defining themselves as nationalistic racists," he wrote.

The original Ha'aretz article is at http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/survey-most-israeli-jews-wouldn-t-give-palestinians-vote-if-west-bank-was-annexed.premiu m-1.471644?block=true but a paid subscription is required to read the full article.

Also "wiping the State of Israel off the map" doesn't at all mean wiping out people within the boundaries of the political entity.

[ 14. December 2012, 02:28: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QBThat's impossible. Israel can do no wrong. [/QB]
Its complicated. The leader of Hamas,Khaled Meshal,was thrown out of Jordan along with other leaders because of weapons charges, fraud, among other things. Wikipedia quotes media sources quoting Meshal

quote:
On Sunday, 9 December 2012, Mashaal said at the Gaza Islamic University, "we do not accept the two-state solution," or Palestinian statehood alongside Israel.
Mashaal’s statements stood in sharp contrast to a recent interview he gave to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, where he said that Hamas accepted a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 lines.
Neither side of this thing are really trying very hard. Both can do great wrong and are.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0