|
|
|
|
|
| Israeli Occupation?
Posted: 10/11/2007 9:20:54 AM | | i am so sick of this stuff. this is the usa if you want to non stap fight with the jewish people.then go home and do it there we did not invite you here. you are welcome to stay if you want to be one of us.but damn i am so tired of hearing this crap over and over. the jews the jews ect ect ect. shut up for gods sake! you guys blame the jews for every thing....hot damn. it rained the jews did it. its to hot the jews did it. its to cold out the jews did it. on and on. go home and take all this anti jewish crap with you. or stay here as in north america and live your life in peace. | |
|
| Israeli Occupation?
Posted: 10/11/2007 12:02:18 PM | Middle east's narcissistic immigrant, poor Isreal just can't be the aggressor. One has to wonder at the logic (or is it drama) of a nation who continually sticks her hand into the hornet's nest - then blames the hornet because she got stung.
Steve | |
|
| Israeli Occupation?
Posted: 10/11/2007 12:20:12 PM |
i am so sick of this stuff. this is the usa if you want to non stap fight with the jewish people.then go home and do it there we did not invite you here. you are welcome to stay if you want to be one of us.but damn i am so tired of hearing this crap over and over.
Actually THIS - meaning where this site is hosted and these words including yours are virtually broadcast from - is Canada. Bienvenue!  Welcome to Canada.
You're welcome to stay and continue the debate but if you intend to "occupy" us do remember you are in Canada...not the USA, our lovely neighbours to the south.
Back to your scheduled program  | |
|
| Israeli Occupation?
Posted: 10/11/2007 7:25:31 PM |
Middle east's narcissistic immigrant, poor Isreal just can't be the aggressor. One has to wonder at the logic (or is it drama) of a nation who continually sticks her hand into the hornet's nest - then blames the hornet because she got stung. They're not poor. They're not immigrant any longer. They're not narcissistic. They wanted to stay in Europe. But Hitler exterminated most of them. They wanted to go to Britain and America and just anywhere to escape extermination, but the other countries closed their doors. So they made a home, where they were promised by the Balfour Declaration, and was later on developed by the UN into the UN Partition Plan of 29th November 1947.
The majority of the Jews and Jewish groups accepted the proposal, in particular the Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation.
...
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it.
The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal from the Mandate Territory of Palestine. Both the United States and Soviet Union supported the resolution.
The 33 countries that voted in favour of the partition were: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukrainian SSR, United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Venezuela.
...
On the day after the vote, a spate of Arab attacks left seven Jews dead and scores more wounded. Shooting, stoning, and rioting continued apace in the following days. The consulates of Poland and Sweden, both of whose governments had voted for partition, were attacked. Bombs were thrown into cafes, Molotov****ails were hurled at shops, a synagogue was set on fire.
On December 3, at the instigation of the Palestinian leadership, a large mob ransacked the new Jewish commercial center in Jerusalem, looting and burning shops and stabbing and stoning whomever they happened upon. The next day, some 120–150 armed Arabs attacked Kibbutz Efal, on the outskirts of Tel Aviv, in the first large-scale attempt to storm a Jewish village.[12]
The United Kingdom refused to implement the plan arguing it was unacceptable to both sides. It also refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN Palestine Commission during the transitional period. It terminated the British mandate of Palestine on May 15, 1948.
Fighting began almost as soon as the plan was approved, beginning with the Arab Jerusalem Riots of 1947. The fighting would have an effect on the Arab population of Palestine, as well the Jewish populations of neighboring Arab countries.
Meeting in Cairo in November and December of 1947, the Arab League adopted a series of resolutions aimed at a military solution to the conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
The UN voted for Israel to be partitioned. The Jews accepted it. The Arabs started bombing the Jews immediately after. They even went after the Poles and the Swedes, and all they did was be 2 of 33 countries who voted for it. The British abstained, and then claimed that both sides didn't want it, when only the Arabs were against it.
The Jews were given nowhere else to go. The UN told them they could go there. The Arabs kept attacking the Jew who had a right to be there. How is that sticking your hand in a hornet's nest? | |
|
| Israeli Occupation?
Posted: 10/11/2007 8:19:00 PM | Look up the definition for narcissist then tell me it doesn't define Israel's good neighbour policies. Yes, the Arab world has been hostile. Retaliation is a two-way street and it only goes so far....
Steve | |
|
| Israeli Occupation?
Posted: 10/12/2007 1:07:02 AM | Considering the active campaign by the entirety of Christendom to exterminate or convert the Jew since the foundation of this religion, I am prepared to cut them some political slack...especially when it comes to the closed door policy most of the western nations had prior to the Holocaust looming in Nazi Germany, including the USA and Canada who had full and complicit knowledge that Jews were fleeing Germany en masse but did nothing to open their doors to them during wartime and in fact turned them away...
Arab hostility began long before Israel's establishment as a state...it wasn't always the case as can be seen under the Caliphate. But the first sign that a democratic state would exist in the Middle East was the harbinger of doom for theocratic or despotic states that Arab run Islamist states had enjoyed up to that point and had to be combatted at all costs and for all its faults, for all its miseries, treacheries and blood on its hands- and there is a lot, Israel represents that state, flawed as it is, it represents a constitutional democracy - the last kind of state an Islamic theocracy wants in the region. | |
|
| Israeli Occupation?
Posted: 10/13/2007 4:31:51 PM | As with all arguments concerning Israel, we all must agree if they even have the right to exist, first. It would tell me all about one’s bias regarding wider issues like the occupied territories and the Palestinian question in general by how one answers this basic question.
I believe they have a right to exist, but would like to see a separate homeland for the Palestinians, *if it could somehow be made to work.
That’s a rather deep and important caveat because of all the past and present animosity, hate, and intransigence. Personally, I can’t see how Israel would allow having a hostile population bent in its destruction to create a sovereign nation right on its doorstep? | |
|
| American Occupation? (sic)
Posted: 10/21/2007 5:51:40 PM |
hate do disappoint the uneducated but the Jews were there first.
chiny asks:
Oh....prey tell what historical record did you glean that little tit-bit from?
Most grateful info so I can also read up on it. You may have the source material on your own book shelf. It's documented in the Bible.
Of course, It's also separately documented in other historical records as well, such as those of Rome, and much other material, both archaeological and from historical.
However, I'll accept that being first is not the only criterion. I feel that there are two legitimate claims to the land. Both have merit, and neither claim is so strong as to exclude the other. Thus some partion of the land is reasonable. Since the Arab claim was most recent, this has been justly recognized primarily by the creation of the state of Jordan on what was originally the part of the middle east known as Palestine. This leaves the rest as to be further partioned between Arab and Jewish sections.
I don't know what sort of partion would be considered fair. I felt that what was offered under President Clinton by Barak, and turned down by Arafat was more than fair. This is not to be confused with what the Arabs later reported was turned down, but what actually was offered and refused, as reported by neutral sources such as the American, Dennis Ross. It was virtually all that the Palestinians said they wanted, except for unlimited right of return of refugees, which would mean that Israel would no longer be a Jewish Democracy. Obviously, national suicide is a non-negotiable demand.
At some point, perhaps, the Palestinians will accept that there are indeed two sides to this. Everything I read so far, however, is that they feel that theirs is the only side. Thus peace remains unattainable. | |
|
| keep theology out of public issues
Posted: 6/15/2008 10:49:02 AM | Regardless of whether the Israelis or the Palestinians are right, please don't use the Bible as an argument. That is your private belief system. The Bible is just the ancient Jewish equivalent of Greek mythology. If you want to believe it's "the word of God" and all that stuff, fine--- but don't expect public policy or foreign policy to be made on the basis of it. To do that would reduce the United States to a Christian version of Iran.
Evangelical Christians are, too often, a sort of Christian Taliban who would like to subvert the Constitution and set up a theocracy here. I basically support Israel, though I am not happy with certain things it does. But my reasons are all earthly. | |
|
| keep theology out of public issues
Posted: 6/15/2008 11:18:27 AM | ^Uh , no, the Bible is most definitely a legitimate historical document in this case. What the Bible says about Jews isn't what's being referred to here : it's simply proof positive that well yeah, the Jews were definitely in Israel before the people who would one day be called "Palestinians". Nevermind religion or any belief system , it's simply an historical document that clearly states that Jews were in what is now called Israel two thousand years ago (well, quite a bit further back than that actually) Granted, the Bible wouldn't pass the acid test as any sort of historical document based on today's criteria but overall, it's the first best source for plenty of historical studies. On the other hand, it was never intended to be any sort of history book per se : it just so happens that in this case, that particular fact actually lends it a certain amount of authority because it makes it something of an unbiased source. After two thousand years of persecution at the hands of the most zealous Christians, nobody in Christianity thought it worthwhile to revise the Bible to exclude the fact that what we now call Israel was a Jewish homeland.
That said, the Jewish people are not indigenous to Israel. However, nobody knows exactly who is or was so that makes the Jewish claim to the land the first (even if not necessarily the best) Let's not forget here after all that it wasn't a Jewish idea to leave Israel in the first place and it most definitely wasn't their plan to be nearly exterminated in the lands they were forced to reside in since the expulsion. Considering that they clearly had to go somewhere and that there it was , written in the most widely-distributed book in the history of the world, Israel was supposed to be a Jewish homeland (and is/was) it's tough to deny the Jewish claim. Doesn't mean they can't share the land of course but until their nation-state neighbours get a little friendlier, for strategic reasons, nothing is going to change in Israel's foreign and domestic policies. | |
|
| fair enough
Posted: 6/15/2008 11:56:31 AM | | Fair enough; the Bible definitely shows that the Jewish people were there in ancient times. The secular aspects of the Bible are also useful sources of information on the ancient Near East. As long as we're not hearing the argument that people have a right to take somebody else's land because some imagined God allegedly gave it to them. | |
|
| fair enough
Posted: 6/15/2008 1:34:42 PM |
As long as we're not hearing the argument that people have a right to take somebody else's land because some imagined God allegedly gave it to them. That it is God-given is not the argument. The idea is that there are two legitimate claims to the land, rather than just one. Both claims have some faults, of course. Otherwise there would be no controversy. But some of both peoples have been on the land from time immemorial, and neither side has an unblemished claim. In the case of the Arabs, prior to 1900, there is little history there as well, despite claims to the contrary. The land was part of the Ottoman Empire, and solemly promised to both sides.
So some form of partition seems reasonable. I have yet to hear from anyone on the other side an acknowledgement that there might be two sides to this. Instead I hear over and over about how the Arabs are the victims, and how the land was "stolen" from them. So long as this mentality exists, there will not be a solution.
Quite simply, the land was not stolen. There are two sides to this. Until we can approach the problem from that perspective we're not going to solve it.
The Jews are not going away, and neither are the Arabs. A little understanding of their respective stories might go a long way. | |
|
| fair enough
Posted: 6/15/2008 7:21:54 PM | Arri, I don’t know where to start. To answer all the distortions, disinformation, and outright lies just from the first page of this thread would take all night, so I’ll just touch on a few….
They would be glad to exterminate all Palestinians ... if it weren't for the international reaction and most likely a global nuclear war.
Utter hogwash. No Israeli government has said they want to exterminate the Palestinians. The PLO, on the other hand, had the extermination of Israel as a MAIN tenet of their manifesto, for decades! Arafat did more to set back the cause of Palestinian nationalism than anyone in the Israeli government ever did.
Jordan has a sizeable Palestinian population, and was the home of a sort of Palestinian government in exile for years. But even Jordan grew tired and weary of PLO shenanigans and destabilization and finally kicked them out. Unfortunately, this only drove the pollution to other Arab states and disrupted the peace process for decades.
Maybe you’ve also forgotten the major wars of Israeli extermination since 1948, whereby the surrounding Arab nations tried to drive Israel into the sea??? I don’t know about you, but if I were an Israeli I might be a tad paranoid and profoundly suspicious of “anything” coming from my Arab neighbors.
Maybe that’s too distant for you...how about present day? Resident Middle East kook Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's shocking denial the Holocaust ever happened and wanting Israel to be “wiped off the face of the earth”, among other very public and very official remarks, and these not by some obscure crackpot cleric but by a prominent Arab leader of a powerful Middle Eastern nation.
Need I go on, ad nauseum, or do you get it???
...but it is the American tax payers money that runs through Israel ... and at what cost?
And it’s the oil-rich Arab states that continually support Palestinian terrorist organizations that always seem to block progress and sabotage the peace process, thus fueling the anger and fear of Israeli extremists to answer in kind by never giving an inch or be charged with contributing to what many believe would be another Holocaust.
I can't understand the support of the United States.
Maybe because of all the nations in the Middle East, Israel is the only democracy -- the only nation that at least shares our political foundations and mindset. The coziness we have with Saudi Arabia is one of economic necessity and geopolitical expediency, and NOT because of any affinity for their political institutions or government structure. If my fellow Americans would finally wean themselves off our endless thirst and dependency on foreign oil (which comes from many other sources than the Middle East, btw), I for one would be happy to let the Arab nations squabble and fight amongst themselves to their heart’s content and be rid of the area once and for all.
| |
|
| fair enough
Posted: 6/15/2008 11:21:30 PM | I bet almost all of you would much rather live in Israel than an Iman run state. Please compare the quality of life and freedoms. Please dont tell me you want a Palestinian Mulsim state. We have enough already. Israel is one of the only democracies in the Middle East, and without their influence it would be a worse place to be.
Coexistance is the Israeli policy...but...the Arab position has always been..rejection. | |
|
| fair enough
Posted: 6/18/2008 9:47:07 PM | The Palestinians and the Arab world rejected the partition plan because they wanted a democratic state.
The zionists wanted a jews only state and by arm-twisting, threats and bribery got the UN to vote for the partition plan.
"compare the quality of life and freedoms" Life is very good if you are a first class citizen like the ashkanazi. You get the best jobs and first choice for housing. For the second class, the sephardic, it is not so good, You can lose a good job if an ashkanazi wants it and housing is, naturally, second class. For the third class, the indiginous Arabs, it is barbaric. They are what is called, "present absentees" . They are allowed an existence, (who's going to hew the wood and draw the water?) but they are not allowed to return to the homes they were driven from in the Nakba.
You seem to disagree with Jimmy Carter, who pointed out that israel is far from being a democracy and is, rather, an apartheid state. | |
|
| keep theology out of public issues
Posted: 6/19/2008 4:32:52 AM | Regardless of whether the Israelis or the Palestinians are right, please don't use the Bible as an argument. That is your private belief system. The Bible is just the ancient Jewish equivalent of Greek mythology. If you want to believe it's "the word of God" and all that stuff, fine--- but don't expect public policy or foreign policy to be made on the basis of it. To do that would reduce the United States to a Christian version of Iran.
Evangelical Christians are, too often, a sort of Christian Taliban who would like to subvert the Constitution and set up a theocracy here. I basically support Israel, though I am not happy with certain things it does. But my reasons are all earthly.
==========================================================
Well said.
Many American ring wing religous fanatics dont realise they r just as bad as the taliban at times.
The bible is just a moral guide, not historical fact. | |
|
| keep theology out of public issues
Posted: 6/19/2008 4:37:39 AM | i am so sick of this stuff. this is the usa if you want to non stap fight with the jewish people.then go home and do it there we did not invite you here. you are welcome to stay if you want to be one of us.but damn i am so tired of hearing this crap over and over. the jews the jews ect ect ect. shut up for gods sake! you guys blame the jews for every thing....hot damn. it rained the jews did it. its to hot the jews did it. its to cold out the jews did it. on and on. go home and take all this anti jewish crap with you. or stay here as in north america and live your life in peace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many ppl, abroad and in the US do not like the excessive influence Israel has on American foreign and domestic policy.
What happened to so called free speech?
As soon as somone criticizes Israel....
Out comes the Anti Semitism card and they are labelled a Nazi. | |
|
| keep theology out of public issues
Posted: 6/19/2008 5:19:21 AM | The only reasonable solution is for two states – one for Israel, one for Palestine. With all the built up hatred, distrust, and intransigence you will never fully integrate one people within another. That's why I disagree with Carter's assertions of Israeli "apartheid". If Israel wants to survive as a nation, it shouldn't willingly welcome any radical political base bent on its overthrow and ultimate destruction. I'd say the same for any nation, regardless of ethnicity or religious makeup. If that means a homogeneous state mostly for Jews, so be it. Same goes for any Palestinian state. I can't see Arab nations fully integrating large Jewish populations and giving them equal political influence and economic superiority, either. Many Arab nations have practiced a form of "apartheid" for decades, but I don't see Carter charging them with anything?
The problem is how to make a two state system a reality. That's what's held up this whole thing for the last 60 years.
And I for one have no problem criticizing Israel when warranted. I think they're rich and stable enough to stop receiving the billions in taxpayer aid we give them. But that can go for a lot of countries on the dole from Uncle Sam. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 94 | |
| keep theology out of public issues
Posted: 6/19/2008 8:41:28 AM | QUOTE: Regardless of whether the Israelis or the Palestinians are right, please don't use the Bible as an argument. That is your private belief system. The Bible is just the ancient Jewish equivalent of Greek mythology. If you want to believe it's "the word of God" and all that stuff, fine--- but don't expect public policy or foreign policy to be made on the basis of it.
^^ Exactly. It's actually tragic and positively absurd that there's been so much suffering in the world for so long already due to the fact that a significant portion of the modern American voting bloc takes so literally what was originally simply an ancient oral tradition about (and only specifically meant for) one ancient desert tribe. I agree 100% with whoever stated, "please don't use the Bible as an argument...your private belief system." If you support Israel due to the fact that you feel it's an ally to the US and the West and it's a democracy , as opposed to most of the Muslim nations, then fine , that at least is a realistic political reason. But I for one lose all respect for the credibility of a speaker (or typer in this case) when he or she states anything such as, "God promised that land to them...", and so on.
If the modern world needed lunatic-sounding opinion informing foreign policy we could perhaps bypass commentators from the Trinity Broadcasting Network, John Hagee, et.al., and have our world leaders simply solicit diplomatic advice from residents of psych wards who believe that a god (or gods) literally speaks to them and others. The modern nuclear-armed world is simply far too dangerous a place nowadays to allow an ancient religious dogma from millenia ago to actually influence a modern superpower's policy decisions. That is what I feel the "W" Bush administration has been guilty of (ONE of the things they've been guilty of, I should say). | |
|
| Might be worthwhile to READ the posts
Posted: 6/19/2008 1:01:06 PM |
I agree 100% with whoever stated, "please don't use the Bible as an argument...your private belief system." Doesn't anyone read the posts? The claim is not because the Bible says it is God given! Simply that the Bible is a historical document that among many others proves the claim that the Jewish people were there at the time claimed. If they weren't, they certainly got framed with that Pontius Pilate/Jesus business. 
I note whiskeypapa's claim that
The Palestinians and the Arab world rejected the partition plan because they wanted a democratic state.
The zionists wanted a jews only state and by arm-twisting, threats and bribery got the UN to vote for the partition plan. The "democratic state" would have been overwhelmingly Islamic, leaving the Jews with nothing. We see how Jews are treated in such states.
It does not seem unreasonable that there being two legitimate but conflicting claims to the land, that some form of partition should occur.
A two state solution is just. I believe that it is right that the Arabs should have the majority, as has occurred, since they have all of Jordan, the majority of the original area of Palestine. The rest is being debated.
I think there needs to be some recognition that there are two sides to this, not just one.
Logical replies are welcome, even those in disagreement. Replies that ignore history and facts ought to be discarded. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 96 | |
| Might be worthwhile to READ the posts
Posted: 6/19/2008 1:30:11 PM | QUOTE: the Bible is a historical document that among many others proves the claim that the Jewish people were there at the time claimed.
^^ The Hebrew Bible shows the ancient Jews in fact displacing another people for that land, the Canaanites. Jews were there at the time indeed, but as raiders and attackers from the desert wastelands who were unsettling and displacing a previously settled people. So what of the Canaanites? If they are, or were, as some anthropologists seem to think, perhaps the ancestors of the Phoenicians, then therefore should anyone who, by modern DNA testing, comes up bearing one of the (so-called) suspected "Phoenician DNA" types (for ex, paternal DNA haplogroup K2-M70/ T-M70, commonly found today in the Arab world, North Africa, and some of southern Italy and Spain) have a claim on that strip of land as well? There is after all at least the possibility that someone in their very distant paternal line was among those who were displaced by marauding land-stealing Hebrews who collectively believed at the time that their god had given them the right to do so and promised them victory over the previous inhabitants. The victor writes history, naturally. This is why this strip of land is the "Jewish promised land" and no one cares about Canaanites or Philistines and Baal is a mere "demon" while Yahweh (the Jewish god) is now the "Judeo-Christian" god. | |
|
| Might be worthwhile to READ the posts
Posted: 6/19/2008 2:07:28 PM |
QUOTE: the Bible is a historical document that among many others proves the claim that the Jewish people were there at the time claimed.
^^ The Hebrew Bible shows the ancient Jews in fact displacing another people for that land, the Canaanites. Jews were there at the time indeed, but as raiders and attackers from the desert wastelands who were unsettling and displacing a previously settled people. So what of the Canaanites? If they are, or were, as some anthropologists seem to think, perhaps the ancestors of the Phoenicians, then therefore should anyone who, by modern DNA testing, comes up bearing one of the (so-called) suspected "Phoenician DNA" types (for ex, paternal DNA haplogroup K2-M70/ T-M70, commonly found today in the Arab world, North Africa, and some of southern Italy and Spain) have a claim on that strip of land as well? There is after all at least the possibility that someone in their very distant paternal line was among those who were displaced by marauding land-stealing Hebrews who collectively believed at the time that their god had given them the right to do so and promised them victory over the previous inhabitants. The victor writes history, naturally. This is why this strip of land is the "Jewish promised land" and no one cares about Canaanites or Philistines and Baal is a mere "demon" while Yahweh (the Jewish god) is now the "Judeo-Christian" god.
Excellent post, but I must point out that where ancient people lived has little or no precedence in International politics today. If we use the sense that Jews deserve it because they lived there before the Arabs did is not only stupid, but if applied in modern day international affairs is unheard of. I'm sure your averaga white or black American would be pretty pissed off if he was told that since this land originally belonged to Native Americans, they're gonna have to leave it now because the world has decided to give it back to the Native Americans, the rightful owners of this country. I'm sure the reaction would be laughable if anything like this was to ever occur.
Also, most of the Jews today in Israel are NOT Hebrew directly by descent. They are European and Russian Jews with a small number of Ethiopian Jews. The Palestinians on the other hand have been on that land for the past 1,000 years at the very least. | |
|
| Might be worthwhile to READ the posts
Posted: 6/19/2008 2:21:48 PM | Most of the terrorism that we are faced with now really doesn't have at it's heart the cause of the Palestinians even if it's often stated.
Al Qaeda came into being mostly in response to the American military presence in Saudi Arabia from Desert Storm as well as American support for the Saudi regime which is considered to be extremely oppressive of it's people. Bin Laden often mentions the Palestinians but that seems to be more of a recruitment tactic. We've not seen nor heard of any evidence of Al Qaeda involvement in terrorism directed at Israel nor on the side of Palestinian extremists. It's mostly directed at the West for it's own direct perceived and actual meddling and support of oppression in the Middle East separate from support for Israel.
I once thought that terrorists kill just for the thrill of killing or to eradicate the Infidels as many in Washington want us to believe. Then someone pointed out to me that if that was the case, why haven't Muslims always made seeking out and killing Infidels a part of their everyday lives? Why do most of the more prolific suicide bombers in history not have any motivation based in religion such as the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka or the Cuban revolutionaries of Cuba in the 50s? Suicide "martyrdom" is relatively new to Islam and it can be argued that while religion is at the fore in Islamic terrorism, the fact is that Muslim terrorism is also politically motivated. People with hope and contentment aren't going to kill themselves for virgins in paradise as those devout enough to even do it on those conditions are devout enough to feel they have a pretty good shot at paradise anyway. | |
|
| Might be worthwhile to READ the posts
Posted: 6/19/2008 3:20:21 PM |
Suicide "martyrdom" is relatively new to Islam and it can be argued that while religion is at the fore in Islamic terrorism, the fact is that Muslim terrorism is also politically motivated. People with hope and contentment aren't going to kill themselves for virgins in paradise as those devout enough to even do it on those conditions are devout enough to feel they have a pretty good shot at paradise anyway.
Good post and adding to what you said in the last point from the religious point of view of many scholars in the Muslim world, including the Wahabbi clerics in Saudi Arabia have denounced suicide bombing as being against the tennets of Islam. Suicide bombing is a military tactic that uses religion to motivate young men who are usually brainwashed for the most part to believe that Islam permits such acts.
I always laughed at the fact that people actually believe that suicide bombers do what they do because they wanna get laid in heaven by virgins. Shows how much people are willing to understand this phenomenon and confronting it. | |
|
| Might be worthwhile to READ the posts
Posted: 6/19/2008 9:07:33 PM |
The Hebrew Bible shows the ancient Jews in fact displacing another people for that land, the Canaanites. Jews were there at the time indeed, but as raiders and attackers from the desert wastelands who were unsettling and displacing a previously settled people. So what of the Canaanites? If they are, or were, as some anthropologists seem to think, perhaps the ancestors of the Phoenicians, then therefore should anyone who, by modern DNA testing, comes up bearing one of the (so-called) suspected "Phoenician DNA" types (for ex, paternal DNA haplogroup K2-M70/ T-M70, commonly found today in the Arab world, North Africa, and some of southern Italy and Spain) have a claim on that strip of land as well? There is after all at least the possibility that someone in their very distant paternal line was among those who were displaced by marauding land-stealing Hebrews who collectively believed at the time that their god had given them the right to do so and promised them victory over the previous inhabitants. The victor writes history, naturally. This is why this strip of land is the "Jewish promised land" and no one cares about Canaanites or Philistines and Baal is a mere "demon" while Yahweh (the Jewish god) is now the "Judeo-Christian" god.
Also, most of the Jews today in Israel are NOT Hebrew directly by descent. They are European and Russian Jews with a small number of Ethiopian Jews. The Palestinians on the other hand have been on that land for the past 1,000 years at the very least.
I can address the second one first. Not true at all. Commonly repeated but due to the very strict almost xenophobic religious restrictions on marrying within the culture the heredity is easily traceable...the Cohen or Kohainim gene for instance...but here's the funny catch:
They are almost entirely identical to the other people that live in the region genetically. The Hebrews are essentially a split-off culture from the Caananites. When the "Sea People" arrived in that region, they brought a relatively advanced culture to the area. The locals, including whatever herdsmen that eventually became the Hebrews were intermingled culturally and linguistically with the Caananites.
According to archaeology there was no marauding, mass migrations, land stealing, vanishing Caananites or Philistines. This is retrograde mythologizing on the part of the collators of the Biblical texts who, frankly, did not even have literacy until after the arrival of the Caananites - the far more advanced society. The funny part is they are the demonized culture in the Bible, depicted as savages, child sacrificers and horribly evil...history paints a different picture however. It's entirely likely that the Abraham myth was a way of explaining the departure of the old ways of child sacrifice to those of the new Yahweh cult that required ram sacrifice instead.
Now do I think anyone has a right to the land because of a book of essentially mythology and religious beliefs? Not a chance.
But every group does have a right to a land where they can practice their culture unmolested for it. Two millenia of treating the Jews as pariah for the imagined and wrongly accused crime of deicide is more than enough. The surrounding Arab nations have not come to the table to assist in providing peaceful solutions to help the Palestinian people because they do not want a democratically fairly elected regime in Palestine because despotism and theocracy suits their purpose better. The stated agenda of most of the extremist groups is to drive Israel into the sea.
Israel is clearly notgoing anywhere. That is a done deal. As soon as it was recognized by the U.N. it was there to stay, but frankly even before that, I believe it was there to stay and frankly with the Shoah revealed to all the world, I'm afraid I have to say it needs to be there. But the Arab people in that region deserve to live there as well, with self determination, and all the rights and privileges of every other citizen.
First they will have to accept however, Israel is not moving. That is truly not something I see being negotiated away ever. Two thousand years of pushing Jews around...I think they have schlepped about as far as they will schlep and frankly no one has any business pushing them any further. Claims that they completely displaced others or stole all the land...irrational, baldfaced lies and distortions to make the story as simplistic and one-sided as possible for an easy soundbite and a driven agenda. It's far more complex than that. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
