Post by: zmix on January 12, 2009, 02:53:38 PM
Post by: MDM, on January 12, 2009, 03:19:55 PM
I like the comment he makes on Israel being born as a result of the Holocaust, and then Israel doing the same thing to Palestinians.
behind it all there are people who cannot be called Jewish, or Christian or Muslim.. because no religious man goes around killing and exploiting on purpose.
We are dealing with the instigators of war and destruction, the same kind of people who backed up major wars in the past, including the nazi war and the Holocaust.. people with no national or religious identity.. motivated only by power, money etc.. ready to blame the weak and defenceless for their own evil.
sick.
I wonder, now that the war has gone past the 'trickle mode' of the past what are they planning to do next? must be a political reason .. no?
Post by: ssltech on January 12, 2009, 05:10:41 PM
Thank the lord that "Joe" (real name Samuel) "the Plumber" (not a licensed plumber) has been sent out there to "uncover the real truth".
Yep. That's what we need. Untrained "reporters" being 'snowed' by the Israelis. 'Unbiased' reporting (from someone who declared before the election that: 'a vote for Obama would be a vote for the destruction of Israel')... -Thank the lord for Joe the Plant.
That's who I want to be doing my thinking for me. -Not one of those "thinkers" like Mr. Eno.
Keith
Post by: YZ on January 12, 2009, 10:12:44 PM
well, how about this: the people living in Judea and Samaria have not been launching missiles against Israeli children and civilians, and Israel is not counter-attacking there.
Some people, members of a group supported by Iran and known for murdering those of their own people who have a different opinion, have been launching missiles against Israeli children and civilians from Gaza.
They launch their attacks from and store their weapons in schools, residential neighborhoods, near hospitals and such.
Israel is counter-attacking.
If the Israeli missiles/bombs were not carefully aimed and sized, the death toll would have reached by now the tens of thousands, not the hundreds that both sides and the UN mention.
It is easy to blame Israel for everything, it is easy to say that the problems of Gaza are solely a result of Israeli actions; it is not easy to actually do some research and find out what had happened there over the last 60 or so years.
Post by: zmix on January 12, 2009, 10:34:44 PM
1 Brian Eno's Mother was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp.
2: Please watch this:
Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land: Media & the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Post by: Bill_Urick on January 12, 2009, 11:00:16 PM
From
http://www.shardmedia.com/journalismandthearabworld/index.ph p?option=content&pcontent=1&task=view&id=38& Itemid=43
| Quote: |
Bathsheba Ratzkoff is a producer and editor at the Media Education Foundation. She is the producer, co-director and co-editor of the documentary “Peace Propaganda & the Promised Land: U.S. Media & the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” She is also an associate producer on the documentary “Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire.” Ratzkoff is currently producing a film called “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies A People.” |
http://www.mediaed.org/wp/staff
Post by: Bill_Urick on January 12, 2009, 11:12:05 PM
| zmix wrote on Mon, 12 January 2009 22:34 |
2 comments. 1 Brian Eno's Mother was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp. 2: Please watch this: Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land: Media & the Israel-Palestine Conflict |
Re point one, can you verify this? How did the mother of "Brian Peter George St. John le Baptiste de la Salle Eno...born in Woodbridge, England, on May 15, 1948." Come to be imprisoned by the Nazis? Not necessarily disputing this, it just seems incongruous.
Post by: maxim on January 12, 2009, 11:54:57 PM
"the end justifies the means" is EXACTLY the philosophy that resulted in the murder of innocent civillians, jews and otherwise, throughout human history
that is why i don't want to see israel going down the same path
white phosphorus missiles?
what the hell!!!
.
Post by: zmix on January 13, 2009, 12:18:02 AM
| Bill_Urick wrote on Mon, 12 January 2009 23:12 | ||
Re point one, can you verify this? How did the mother of "Brian Peter George St. John le Baptiste de la Salle Eno...born in Woodbridge, England, on May 15, 1948." Come to be imprisoned by the Nazis? Not necessarily disputing this, it just seems incongruous. |
Inconguous?
How so?
PS: Why did you post the photo and link of Ms. Ratzkoff above?
Post by: YZ on January 13, 2009, 01:03:08 AM
| maxim wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 02:54 |
"the end justifies the means" |
That's not what I am saying.
I am saying: if a country gets repeatedly attacked by a group that has sworn to obliterate that country, it has to defend itself; diplomatic means have been tried, unsuccessfully; there's no option left, Hamas gave no other option to Israel.
In the past, the Gaza government justified their non-action against terrorists by saying that the attacks were perpetrated by 'rebel' groups, that they were too weak and if Israel gave them weapons and training maybe they could control such rebels (yeah right) but now... Hamas IS the government.
This makes it all different: we do not have the case of a faction or rogue group attacking a country, we now have one official government (Hamas/Gaza) using its armed forces to attack another country; this has been traditionally seen during the history of mankind as a de facto declaration of war and the other country has to counter-attack and destroy the menace.
A nation cannot sit idle when bombed daily, specially by an organization that has sworn to destroy that nation and kill all of the population like Hamas did.
Contrast this against Samaria and Judea, where there's peace right now.
I would prefer no war at all, I am quite saddened by the happenings, people are dying and this is not good.
Post by: Careful Collapse on January 13, 2009, 06:23:59 AM
A significant Palestinian population needs to stop supporting myopic, hamfisted, counterproductive organizations like Hamas.
Israeli military needs to stop using the myopic, hamfisted, counterproductive bullshit of Hamas and similar groups as an excuse to engage in their own myopic, hamfisted, counterproductive overreactions.
A significant Palestinian population needs to stop using the myopic, hamfisted, counterproductive military excesses of Israel as an excuse to throw myopic, hamfisted, counterproductive terror-tantrums, which leads back to the first point which leads to the second point, etc, etc, cycle through (Yes, I'm being redundant and longwinded now)
Is any of this going to happen? Probably not. Both sides make me absolutely sick to my ass and are embarassing to humanity, frankly. I find it puzzling that ANYONE can take a side in this.
Post by: Bill_Urick on January 13, 2009, 08:24:10 AM
| zmix wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 00:18 |
Inconguous? How so? PS: Why did you post the photo and link of Ms. Ratzkoff above? |
Chuck, happy new year. I've made a couple of resolutions regarding my interactions at REP and here in the Saloon in particular. First, try to know a little more about the people I'm talking to, and second, use this as an opportunity to learn about different points of view rather than to confront and pontificate.
Toward that end I checked out your website and, wow, nice body of work.
In general, I've always been very supportive of Israel and I've never understood why the political left has not.
Although the Nazis imprisoned lots of people for different reasons, they mainly imprisoned Jews. Your assertion about Mr. Eno's mother might be taken, in the context presented, that she was imprisoned for being Jewish, is that correct? She certainly could have been released and subsequently given birth to Mr. Eno in Woodbridge, but can you verify the facts? Also, if true, does a Jewish heritage make someone's criticism of Israel beyond question?
Regarding Ms. Ratzkoff, I wanted to see who produced the video you referenced. Her work could be seen as consistently pro-Arab and anti-west. But she's a cutie!
Post by: YZ on January 13, 2009, 08:52:30 AM
| Careful Collapse wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 09:23 |
A significant Israeli population needs to refrain from myopic, hamfisted, counterproductive conduct like treating the Palestinieans as subhumans. |
The majority of Israelis do not think or behave the way you myopically and ignorantly described above.
I lived in Israel for two years and I know it from personal experience.
| Quote: |
A significant Palestinian population needs to stop supporting myopic, hamfisted, counterproductive organizations like Hamas. |
A significant palestinian population has been subjected to brainwashing from an early age and were raised to hate Jews and Israel; there's substantial evidence of that.
| Quote: |
Israeli military needs to stop using the myopic, hamfisted, counterproductive bullshit of Hamas and similar groups as an excuse to engage in their own myopic, hamfisted, counterproductive overreactions. |
On the contrary, Israel has been surprisingly restrained; their armed forces could have obliterated the enemies (causing tens of thousands of deaths in the process) but Israel chooses always to minimize death.
| Quote: |
A significant Palestinian population needs to stop using the myopic, hamfisted, counterproductive military excesses of Israel(snip) |
See above.
| Quote: |
Is any of this going to happen? Probably not. Both sides make me absolutely sick to my ass and are embarassing to humanity, frankly. I find it puzzling that ANYONE can take a side in this. |
You are entitled to an opinion.
But do not forget that Hamas and other organizations have sworn to kill all Jews and to destroy Israel, and they put that as the first priority, above the actual creation of a state for them. Hard to negotiate under such circumstances.
As Golda Meir once said: "Peace will only happen when the arabs start loving their children more than they hate us".
Please note that at the time the above was said, there was no talk of a 'palestinian people' amongst arabs (nor by anyone else); Israel's neighboring states were engaged in the destruction of Israel to later divide the land amongst them.
When Gaza was a part of Egypt, there was no talk of giving it away for the local population; when Judea and Samaria were under Jordanian control, there was no talk of creating there a state for the locals either. That's why Meir said 'arabs' instead of 'palestinians'.
It was only after Israel's enemies lost the 1967 war and Israel conquered those places that the notion of a 'palestinian people', separated from the other arab populations and with an 'historic right to the land' emerged.
It is sad to note that until today the priority of the so-called pro-palestine terrorists is still the destruction of Israel and not the creation of their state.
Post by: zmix on January 13, 2009, 09:00:51 AM
| Bill_Urick wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 08:24 | ||
Chuck, happy new year. I've made a couple of resolutions regarding my interactions at REP and here in the Saloon in particular. First, try to know a little more about the people I'm talking to, and second, use this as an opportunity to learn about different points of view rather than to confront and pontificate. Toward that end I checked out your website and, wow, nice body of work. In general, I've always been very supportive of Israel and I've never understood why the political left has not. Although the Nazis imprisoned lots of people for different reasons, they mainly imprisoned Jews. Your assertion about Mr. Eno's mother might be taken, in the context presented, that she was imprisoned for being Jewish, is that correct? She certainly could have been released and subsequently given birth to Mr. Eno in Woodbridge, but can you verify the facts? Also, if true, does a Jewish heritage make someone's criticism of Israel beyond question? Regarding Ms. Ratzkoff, I wanted to see who produced the video you referenced. Her work could be seen as consistently pro-Arab and anti-west. But she's a cutie! |
Bill,
Thanks for the kind words and the new approach.
Ms. Ratzkoff is not "pro-Arab, anti-west", please watch her work, then decide. Also, note that she herself is Jewish.
Eno is not Jewish. The fact that his mother was in a Nazi concentration camp should not lead to that assumption. There were as many non Jews as there were Jews in the concentration camps. Some studies indicate that there were more non Jews killed in the camps.
The documentary linked above attempts to dispel several myths about the situation between Israel and Palestine, one important point (noted by Rabbis, Jewish scholars and Israeli politicians in the film) is that "Anti-Israel policy" does NOT equate with anti-semitism, and that this argument trivializes REAL anti semitism.
Watch the film.
Post by: sui-city on January 13, 2009, 10:05:31 AM
Post by: Careful Collapse on January 13, 2009, 10:49:19 AM
| Quote: |
The majority of Israelis do not think or behave the way you myopically and ignorantly described above. |
I was, of course, referring to refugee camps and the massacres taken place in many of them, check points, re-occupation of Palestinian territory, and other dehumanizing efforts that have happened and continue to happen.
| Quote: |
A significant palestinian population has been subjected to brainwashing from an early age and were raised to hate Jews and Israel; there's substantial evidence of that. |
| Quote: |
On the contrary, Israel has been surprisingly restrained; their armed forces could have obliterated the enemies (causing tens of thousands of deaths in the process) but Israel chooses always to minimize death. |
Yet we have the Human Rights Watch saying
"We're not ready to say that there were definite laws-of-war violations, but the weaponry used and the manner in which it has been used in such a densely populated area, together with the high civilian casualties, raises a huge flag for us"
and EU aid chief saying
"One simple fact, acknowledged and denounced by established experts in the field, is that Israel is not respecting international humanitarian law"
I could go on. In any case, the data is as follows: 4 dead Israelis, 900 dead Palestinians.
What's with the discrepancy?
| Quote: |
But do not forget that Hamas and other organizations have sworn to kill all Jews and to destroy Israel, and they put that as the first priority, above the actual creation of a state for them. Hard to negotiate under such circumstances. |
Again, to suggest that "with nearly 900 people killed, some 3,400 wounded and tens of thousands displaced" is NOT going to result in *more* decent Palestinians turning to hatred is absurd. Christ, that's pretty much what Hamas *wanted*, and they *gave* it to them. The cycle repeats itself. Pick any "But he started it!" you'd like, the history of voilence practically insists both sides' seemingly unquenchable desire for revenge and retribution is not going to lead to anything good.
| Quote: |
Please note that at the time the above was said, there was no talk of a 'palestinian people' amongst arabs (nor by anyone else) |
| Quote: |
It is sad to note that until today the priority of the so-called pro-palestine terrorists is still the destruction of Israel and not the creation of their state. |
Post by: YZ on January 13, 2009, 11:10:06 AM
| Bill_Urick wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 11:24 |
In general, I've always been very supportive of Israel and I've never understood why the political left has not. |
I can't say much about the political left in the USA, but here is my view of the reasons the left in Europe and Latin America aren't 'supportive' of Israel now:
Europe was generally pro-Israel until 1967, so were most Latin-American countries; The general feeling was that Israel was a young and frail country facing great national challenges, having to develop a barren, desertic piece of land, with a very decided and young population, a democratic regime with leaders that were thinkers, where socialism was advanced and communal farms abounded.
Amidst the cold war, Israel was a non-aligned country, having relations with East and West; the USSR was particularly interested and by the mid-1960s they were pushing for military co-operation, offering access to modern soviet weaponry accompanied by their 'military advisers' (a precursor to ingression in the soviet block); European Communist parties, notably the French and Italian, were openly friendly with Israel and often published supportive words on their newspapers.
Israel resisted the soviet advances diplomatically.
Then tensions with the neighboring nations began by 1965, culminating in the 1967 war; when it broke up, most of the European press was sure that Israel would be wiped out and published sorrowful articles about the 'end of a noble state'.
Then the unexpected happened: the mouse has roared... Israel won, against all odds.
After the Israeli victory, things changed; Israel put an end to the soviet's diplomatic advances, bitter feelings emerged with France (due to France's refusal to send, during the war, the Mirage fighters that Israel had bought and paid in advance), Israel went politically closer to the USA; the soviets, now closer to the Arab countries, realized that Israel was putting in effect the unthinkable: they were building a country were one could choose if he wanted to live in a capitalist society (the cities) or in a communist society (the Kibbutzim and Moshavim); this went against all communist thinking, no option should be possible and such a country could not be allowed to succeed, so they instructed their satellites (the Western Communist parties) to start bashing Israel and use all possible means of negative propaganda.
Sectors of the Catholic Church were also uneasy with the conquest of Jerusalem by Israel, the Pope went as far as stating that Jerusalem should be turned into an 'international free territory' not belonging to any nation; the Israeli conquest would upset the status quo carefully weaved between the church and the 'moors' over centuries of underground negotiations; the Jews now 'owned' the Holy City again and this was hard to swallow. This feeling affected the most the two extremes of the catholic Church: the most traditionalists and the left-wing 'progressive church', quite active in Latin America where they often harbored communist guerrillas.
Also, the question of the palestinians started to get more space in the international press, due to the soviet influence.
All of the above contributed to Europeans and Latin-Americans to become less and less supportive of Israel as time went by.
How it affected the north-american left, I can't say.
Post by: YZ on January 13, 2009, 11:24:20 AM
| Careful Collapse wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 13:49 |
According to NPR, Hamas and other islamic fundamentalist unmovable anti-Israel crazies were not the ones in power until Arafat was exiled and a vacuum of sorts was created. |
Oh yes, only Israel is to blame for all evil that happens there.
It's all Israel's fault.
Always.
And is was very interesting to see which parts of my post you decided not to comment on.
Post by: Jay Kadis on January 13, 2009, 11:41:29 AM
Post by: mgod on January 13, 2009, 12:45:57 PM
| MDM, wrote on Mon, 12 January 2009 12:19 |
I like the comment he makes on Israel being born as a result of the Holocaust, and then Israel doing the same thing to Palestinians. |
He quite clearly did NOT say that. You are putting your own thoughts into someone else's mouth.
| zmix wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 06:00 |
Eno is not Jewish. The fact that his mother was in a Nazi concentration camp should not lead to that assumption. There were as many non Jews as there were Jews in the concentration camps. Some studies indicate that there were more non Jews killed in the camps. |
I'd like to know from where you derive this factoid, Chuck - its a hell of an historical assertion. The total numbers killed by the Germans, including Russians starved to death and Allies killed in combat is enormous. But the concentration camps were a specific thing and this is an assertion I've never heard.
In the meantime, I've emailed Brian to see if he would care to confirm this assertion that his mother was in a camp.
But I think there's very little connection. I get his point, his and so many others - its an old canard - but I see it as a change of subject, and an easy one, a kind of lazy accusation. If southern Texas were bring bombed across the border from Mexico, I think that the US might do something about it, despite our long history of fucking around in there and the fact that most of the southern US used to be Mexico.
I hate to say it, but every time this war flares up the world gets up in arms about it in a way it simply don't bother itself with anywhere else. Why is Israel the sole exception? Do we give a fuck about Africa, or Kashmir?
Its up to each person who has such strong objections to the actions in this one specific region of the world to look inside themselves and ask themselves why they care more about Israel/Palestine than anywhere else.
The Palestinian people are as varied as the Israeli people are, and in most societies the right-wing controls the use of the military simply due to its interest in war - in maintaining and furthering war and in this case as everywhere else, in maintaining its own power through war. We have the same problem here, as does Eno's country.
"The Palestinians" will not stop shelling Israel until they have a civil war of their own (well, they already do, but one that stands a chance of resolving) and decide collectively to stop giving the Israeli right-wing an excuse to dominate at home. Who benefits? Hamas, Likud, and all the Arab states that have "the Palestinian issue" as a justification for all sorts of crap.
DS
PS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT1fI
Post by: zmix on January 13, 2009, 01:15:12 PM
| mgod wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 12:45 | ||
I'd like to know from where you derive this factoid, Chuck - its a hell of an historical assertion. The total numbers killed by the Germans, including Russians starved to death and Allies killed in combat is enormous. But the concentration camps were a specific thing and this is an assertion I've never heard. |
Dan,
It's true and sadly it's fading into history. 11+ million killed in the camps, 4-6 million Jews.
My father was in WWII as a medic in the US Army. His company (Thunderbirds) were the first to discover a concentration camp (Dachau). Up until then it was widely believed that these camps were a propaganda myth. As today, the US did nothing to intervene. Then Dachau was liberated and everything began to change.
Here is a website set up by a (jewish, in case you're wondering) woman in LA, it features a few pages about the non jewish victims, but she is barely scratching the surface
Here is an early interview Eno gave with Lester Bangs in which he states:
"My mother is Flemish; she was in a concentration camp during the war, in labor camps mostly, actually building planes. She met my father at the end of the war and came to England, and in 1948 they gave birth to me."
Post by: mgod on January 13, 2009, 02:01:22 PM
DS
Post by: zmix on January 13, 2009, 02:17:53 PM
| mgod wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 14:01 |
I've asked for his OK to post his reply to me. DS |
While you're waiting, here is a link to a book you may find interesting:
The Other Victims: First-Person Stories of Non-Jews Persecuted by the Nazis by Ina R. Friedman
Post by: mgod on January 13, 2009, 02:38:09 PM
DS
Post by: zmix on January 13, 2009, 02:46:09 PM
| mgod wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 14:38 |
None of this is news to me. I learned from my parents the famous phrase, "Juden, Negern und Zigeuner sind untermenschen." But I question your assertion that more non-Jews than Jews were murdered in the concentration camps. I also think its a very weird assertion to make, as it suggests that we are making comparisons of relative victim-hood (which in itself is downright creepy), and further that this somehow has an impact on what is going on in the middle east at the moment. Since this is the implication I think cards should be on the table. Else-wise, it has no relevance. DS |
Dan,
Please refer to the links above to validate the claim
I was merely pointing out (to Bill) a common fallacy : to assume that the Holocaust was only a Jewish tragedy. I think any comments about relative victim-hood are unthinkable and very creepy. However, I think that it's inhumane to ignore the other victims of the Holocaust, as well as the current US policy of ignoring the genocide happening today.
Post by: el duderino on January 13, 2009, 02:50:53 PM
holy land.
they've fought for thousands of years, unfortunately it's not going to stop anytime soon. it's a shame, particularly because it is due to hate and a hunger for power which a select few on both sides are hell bent on increasing.
I know arabs and jews and they get along just dandy. There was a documentary released last year covering 2 families (mainly the mothers). One family was palestinian, the other jewish. The child of the palestinian family became a suicide bomber and ended up killing the child of the israeli family.
at the end of the film the two women met and talked and realized they had more in common than not. They talked and worked through animosity and came to the conclusion the conflict is perpetuated by those in power because they want more. it has nothing to do with the people dying.
just ego's and the propaganda they make.
my $.02
Post by: mgod on January 13, 2009, 03:12:52 PM
| zmix wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 11:46 |
However, I think that it's inhumane to ignore the other victims of the Holocaust, as well as the current US policy of ignoring the genocide happening today. |
I also find myself wondering where Egypt is in all this since 42 years ago Gaza was part of Egypt. Why are these 1.5 million people crammed into that little strip of land? It exists outside the borders of the original Mandate. How is it that it simply got locked into that little bit of land and is supposed to be in conflict solely with Israel? It was part of Egypt, not Palestine, until the 67 war, so where are the Egyptians? Does Hamas send rockets over the border into Sinai? For that matter it was Jordanians who drove their Arab brothers back across the Jordan in 48 after telling them to fight "the Jews", so do they send rockets from the West Bank into Jordan?
DS
Post by: Berolzheimer on January 13, 2009, 04:24:19 PM
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080609/tevah
Post by: mgod on January 13, 2009, 05:28:10 PM
DS
For the truly interested:
http://www.fcnl.org/middle_east/
Post by: zmix on January 13, 2009, 07:16:48 PM
| Berolzheimer wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 16:24 |
It's only mildly on topic but this exchange reminded me of an article my niece wrote last year: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080609/tevah |
What a great article... has she written more about it?
Post by: zmix on January 13, 2009, 07:18:31 PM
| mgod wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 17:28 |
Great piece. DS For the truly interested: http://www.fcnl.org/middle_east/ |
Let's hope!
Post by: mgod on January 13, 2009, 07:41:19 PM
http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php/gaza
DS
Post by: mgod on January 13, 2009, 08:16:25 PM
http://middleeast.change.org/
Lot of blogging on the topic.
DS
Post by: Berolzheimer on January 13, 2009, 08:49:50 PM
| zmix wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 16:16 | ||
What a great article... has she written more about it? |
Yeah, I'm pretty proud of her. I think she was 19 when she wrote that.
I don't know of anything else published, though she's written tons on her blog:
http://shirajordan.blogspot.com/
and I know she's been busy preparing to graduate from U of C.
Post by: maxim on January 13, 2009, 10:02:22 PM
i would blame the british rather than the germans for the rosemary's baby that is israel...
Post by: Berolzheimer on January 13, 2009, 10:25:23 PM
| maxim wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 19:02 |
"... relative victim-hood (which in itself is downright creepy)" i would blame the british rather than the germans for the rosemary's baby that is israel... |
I think America deserves a big chunk of the blame for what Israel has become.
Post by: Nick Sevilla on January 13, 2009, 11:39:21 PM
Nothing new there.
My grandfather worked to resolve the 7 day war with Egypt in the late sixties. What once was the land owned by Egypt became Israeli (Mt. Sinai, and the Sinai peninsula).
Israel, in it's current form, was organized by England, and the US, and other parties, when they had their armies stationed in the Middle East, after the Great War.
"Where can we place all these European Refugees"?
"Let's create a New Jewish State, and send them there"
Thus Israel was reborn.
Here's a good question for all you all :
What was going on in that part of the world BEFORE the Jewish Relocation? Any one here know?
THAT is a question no one is even asking, nor looking at.
Why would several allied governments decide on the re-establishment of Israel (Judea)? Any one know?
My grandfather, voted against this resolution. Not because he did not want a Jewish State, no. Because he knew that creating this State would cause interminable problems in the area, a permanent destabilizational force in the region, one which would necessitate stronger allies to help keep it there, and therefore continue providing tension and chaos to the region.
There is, although, most people will disagree with this, a small chapter in the religious books, both the Bible and the Torah, in which the Lord tells the people of Judeah that they will not know a home until the end of days, when they will come home to him.
But no one reads this part of those books anymore... or dismisses it out of hand. Oops.
If they did, they would have probably not agreed to re-create the Jewish State, or at least taken a long hard look at the consequences.
Anyone want to dispute this, can go ahead and go research some fascinating reads at the Library of Congress. Just look for 1948, Jewish State, etc... to read more about how this came about. how about reading the Charter where the State of Israel is created? It is interesting to read. See who signed this Charter. Also fascinating.
Oh... BTW these people (Palestinians, Jews, et al) have been at it a lot longer than since 1948. Read up on history, it is a good teacher. May they learn from the past, in order to create a better future.
Cheers
Post by: zmix on January 14, 2009, 01:05:02 AM
| Nick Sevilla wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 23:39 |
... There is, although, most people will disagree with this, a small chapter in the religious books, both the Bible and the Torah, in which the Lord tells the people of Judeah that they will not know a home until the end of days, when they will come home to him. But no one reads this part of those books anymore... or dismisses it out of hand. Oops. If they did, they would have probably not agreed to re-create the Jewish State, or at least taken a long hard look at the consequences. |
I have a friend named Moiche Mendlewicz who is an Hassidic Jew, he told me that according to the Torah, Jews will return to Israel when the messiah comes, and since they believe that he has not, calling a country "Israel" is blasphemous. ...
In any case the Hassidic community is out in force here in New York protesting Israel's invasion of Gaza.
Post by: YZ on January 14, 2009, 07:03:54 AM
| zmix wrote on Wed, 14 January 2009 04:05 |
I have a friend named Moiche Mendlewicz who is an Hassidic Jew(snip) the Hassidic community is out in force here in New York protesting Israel's invasion of Gaza. |
wow, people who are against Israel due to religious motives... I pay no attention to them; this is not a religious issue.
Post by: Careful Collapse on January 14, 2009, 09:38:13 AM
| Quote: |
Oh yes, only Israel is to blame for all evil that happens there. It's all Israel's fault. Always. And is was very interesting to see which parts of my post you decided not to comment on. |
Weak.
Post by: Careful Collapse on January 14, 2009, 09:56:22 AM
| Quote: |
its all about land. holy land. |
I don't know if this is necessarily true. Zionism was originally a secular movement (the location chosen because of it's cultural significance, including but not limited to religious). And the original aggression against the pre-Israel state was one of xenophobia and Arab nationalism (e.g. the now infamous but secular Baath party.)
| Quote: |
In 1905, Najib Azouri published what is considered the first public appeal to Arab nationalism, a book called The Awakening of the Arab Nation. This came just as thousands of additional Jewish immigrants were arriving in Palestine, fleeing a new wave of anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia, Ukraine and Poland. Two things were happening in the Ottoman Middle East, Azouri wrote: "the awakening of the Arab nation, and the effort of the Jews to reconstitute the ancient kingdom of Israel." His conclusion was also prophetic: "These movements are destined to fight each other continually until one of them wins. |
Of course it has a more significant religious layer to it now but a non-trivial fraction of the cause seems to be in pure geo-political grounds and well as other secular cultural grounds.
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/ An informative read
Post by: zmix on January 14, 2009, 10:07:08 AM
| YZ wrote on Wed, 14 January 2009 07:03 | ||
wow, people who are against Israel due to religious motives... I pay no attention to them; this is not a religious issue. |
Except , apparently to the Pro Israeli protesters, who carry signs bearing 'anti islam' slogans...
Post by: mgod on January 14, 2009, 10:30:30 AM
| zmix wrote on Wed, 14 January 2009 07:07 |
Except, apparently to the Pro Israeli protesters, who carry signs bearing 'anti islam' slogans... |
Or this guy:
Post by: mgod on January 14, 2009, 10:32:15 AM
My mother spent the war in a series of labour camps - the last being Magdeburg camp in what became East Germany. She was in Germany from 1941 until the end of the war, when the camp was liberated by American soldiers. She wasn't Jewish.
As you probably know, labour camps weren't 'death camps' and the conditions there, although pretty terrible towards the end of the war, were much more humane than those in the concentration camps. The Germans were interested in keeping their work-force alive. My mother was building Heinckel bombers.
She met my father, an English soldier, when she returned to her hometown in Belgium after the war. He had been billeted with her parents and was intrigued by the photograph of a beautiful young woman - their daughter, my mother - on a dresser. He decided to wait for her to get back from Germany. It took some months and when she arrived she weighed 70lbs.
They married in early 1946.
XXB
PS - might be more later; there's another dialogue going on at the center of the topic.
DS
Post by: zmix on January 14, 2009, 10:41:37 AM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 14 January 2009 10:30 | ||
Or this guy: |
Post by: mgod on January 14, 2009, 10:51:06 AM
| Berolzheimer wrote on Tue, 13 January 2009 19:25 | ||
I think America deserves a big chunk of the blame for what Israel has become. |
What has Israel become that many other nations have not? I write this sitting in a lovely home in LA, on land stolen from Mexico in the name of Manifest Destiny, which stole it from earlier inhabitants in the name of a super-being in space. The economy that (used to) support me is built on very cheap immigrant labor, usually illegal, and those original displaced residents are all but wiped out. Maybe what Gaza needs is a casino. And then which party gets the money? The tribes here fight over it.
Chuck's home is the same but skipped the Mexican phase. Still stolen in the name of space people by Dutch Calvinists. So its OK, or at least we live with it, when Christians do it, as has been done the world over except one tiny little but of stinkin' desert which now blooms. Just saying. Finger pointing is easy from the comfort of conquered and stolen land.
I recommend this book: https://www.reachandteach.com/store/index.php?l=product_deta il&p=204
DS
PS - just so we're clear on the absurdity of this, I have this great little piece of property overlooking the lake in Silver Lake. On it are two spectacular Canary Island pines, 100 ft. tall at least, and the dominant system of government here says that I own these trees. They are way bigger than me, way older, considerably more beautiful and yet I OWN them. The original residents here would shake their heads at this whole dim-witted concept.
Post by: zmix on January 14, 2009, 11:00:50 AM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 14 January 2009 10:51 |
Chuck's home is the same but skipped the Mexican phase. Still stolen in the name of space people by Dutch Calvinists. DS |
Dan,
What's worse, it was "sold" to the Dutch by a tribe of natives who didn't even live here (the Canarsies were in what's now Brooklyn).
The point which is not being addressed by espousing moral relativism is:
"Is this how we behave now that we know "better" from observing history?"
Is this "civil"?
Post by: mgod on January 14, 2009, 11:19:33 AM
DS
Post by: el duderino on January 14, 2009, 12:26:36 PM
| Careful Collapse wrote on Wed, 14 January 2009 09:56 | ||
I don't know if this is necessarily true. Zionism was originally a secular movement (the location chosen because of it's cultural significance, including but not limited to religious). And the original aggression against the pre-Israel state was one of xenophobia and Arab nationalism (e.g. the now infamous but secular Baath party.) Of course it has a more significant religious layer to it now but a non-trivial fraction of the cause seems to be in pure geo-political grounds and well as other secular cultural grounds. http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/ An informative read |
The issue(s) between arabs and jews has been going on long before the zionist movement. I literally mean thousands of years.
The first series of israelite kingdoms and states in the area ruled in about the 11th century BCE and continued intermittently for about the next thousand years.
a good summary i found on wiki-----
Between the time of the Israelite kingdoms and the 7th-century Muslim conquests, the Land of Israel fell under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Sassanian, and Byzantine rule.
Jewish presence in the region dwindled after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE and the resultant large-scale expulsion of Jews. In 628/9, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius conducted a massacre and expulsion of the Jews, at which point the Jewish population probably reached its lowest point. Nevertheless, a continuous Jewish presence in the Land of Israel remained. Although the main Jewish population shifted from the Judea region to the Galilee, the Mishnah and part of the Talmud, among Judaism's most important religious texts, were composed in Israel during this period. The Land of Israel was captured from the Byzantine Empire around 636 CE during the initial Muslim conquests. Control of the region transferred between the Umayyads, Abbasids, and Crusaders over the next six centuries, before falling in the hands of the Mamluk Sultanate, in 1260. In 1516, the Land of Israel became a part of the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the region until the 20th century.
things have definitely evolved in the situation there, but imo its still all about land.
Post by: zmix on January 14, 2009, 02:12:54 PM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 14 January 2009 11:19 |
I question whether we know better, and more I question why the relativism is applied specifically to Israel. Is it a Jew thing? Or is it because in some way Westerners feel that Israel is an outpost of the West? And if so why would be surprised when its government expediently acts like all other western peoples always have? As colonialists and conquerors? There is quite a bit of relativism going on here. It took George Harrison to get anyone to notice Bangla Desh, George Clooney can't get us to give a shit about Darfur, we've never cared about East Timor, but we go on and on about Israel, and only Israel. DS |
So, Dan, What do you think about Eno's comments at the gathering in London as it pertains to your questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWsv4-_UX4g?
Post by: Fibes on January 14, 2009, 03:54:33 PM
He's a Jew and very unhappy about how we're being fed info over here.
The last time he was in Palestine he emailed me about a rocket attack from an IA helicopter injuring a Palestinian family and how outraged everyone was, the next day our papers read : "militants injured and terrorist targets escaped before Israel helicopter attack."
Makes me wish i was Antarctican.
Post by: mgod on January 14, 2009, 03:57:44 PM
| zmix wrote on Wed, 14 January 2009 11:12 |
So, Dan, What do you think about Eno's comments at the gathering in London as it pertains to your questions |
| mgod wrote on Wed, 14 January 2009 07:32 |
PS - might be more later; there's another dialogue going on at the center of the topic. DS |
Post by: mgod on January 14, 2009, 04:04:41 PM
| Fibes wrote on Wed, 14 January 2009 12:54 |
I don't really want to step in this but I do wish American Press was less propaganda for Israel and more reporting. |
We agree about that - blame AIPAC for one. It is a conservative alliance which purports to speak for all American Jews which is very far from the truth, anymore than Likud speaks for all Israelis or Hamas speaks for all Palestinians. On the other side of this divide we have the Network of Spiritual Progressives, which I provided a link to earlier. AIPAC has been around a long time though. Generally, the conservative view seems to be support of Israel and any policy because its the US and A's chief ally over there. We have tolerated far worse from far worse places in the name of global strategery.
DS
Post by: Bill_Urick on January 14, 2009, 10:12:01 PM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 14 January 2009 10:51 |
What has Israel become that many other nations have not? I write this sitting in a lovely home in LA, on land stolen from Mexico in the name of Manifest Destiny, which stole it from earlier inhabitants in the name of a super-being in space. The economy that (used to) support me is built on very cheap immigrant labor, usually illegal, and those original displaced residents are all but wiped out. Maybe what Gaza needs is a casino. And then which party gets the money? The tribes here fight over it. Chuck's home is the same but skipped the Mexican phase. Still stolen in the name of space people by Dutch Calvinists. So its OK, or at least we live with it, when Christians do it, as has been done the world over except one tiny little but of stinkin' desert which now blooms. Just saying. Finger pointing is easy from the comfort of conquered and stolen land. I recommend this book: https://www.reachandteach.com/store/index.php?l=product_deta il&p=204 DS PS - just so we're clear on the absurdity of this, I have this great little piece of property overlooking the lake in Silver Lake. On it are two spectacular Canary Island pines, 100 ft. tall at least, and the dominant system of government here says that I own these trees. They are way bigger than me, way older, considerably more beautiful and yet I OWN them. The original residents here would shake their heads at this whole dim-witted concept. |
Would it be safe to say that all land (holy or not) is held by violence or the threat of violence? US land is pretty safe from foreign interests only because our capacity for violence is so great. (If China calls in those loans that could change, I guess.)
Whoever we think were the original "owners" of a particular piece of dirt, they probably ran some earlier inhabitant off at spear-point. So, might does make for property rights in the real world even if it offends our sensibilities.
A few thousand years of civilization doesn't override a few million years of evolution. It just makes us more efficient killers.
On more pleasant note, have you guys heard Dan play?
http://www.myspace.com/danschwartzmusic
A little beauty, to balance all the ugliness in the world.
Post by: mgod on January 14, 2009, 11:13:24 PM
| Bill_Urick wrote on Wed, 14 January 2009 19:12 |
On more pleasant note, have you guys heard Dan play? http://www.myspace.com/danschwartzmusic A little beauty, to balance all the ugliness in the world. |
That is SO nice of you, Bill. But that's not me.
DS
PS - Brian sent a quite long response to a question I asked on the subject of what I term Israeli exceptionalism. We're out of sync clock-wise, but maybe he'll OK my posting the dialogue.
Post by: Bill_Urick on January 14, 2009, 11:39:36 PM
Still, check the guy out.
Sorry for the mistake, but I stand by the sentiment.
Post by: mgod on January 15, 2009, 12:01:01 AM
http://profile.myspace.com/monkeygodmusic
DS
Post by: zmix on January 15, 2009, 12:28:19 AM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 14 January 2009 23:13 |
Brian sent a quite long response to a question I asked on the subject of what I term Israeli exceptionalism. We're out of sync clock-wise, but maybe he'll OK my posting the dialogue. |
Here is an essay on Chosenness and Israeli Exceptionalism.
Post by: mgod on January 15, 2009, 03:07:20 PM
Brian sent a very lengthy and detailed response to me, but until I get back to him to among other things ask for the OK to post the whole dialogue, I will say that he sent this link saying he preferred his position here to the first one.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NekORBeP8K0
DS
Post by: zmix on January 15, 2009, 03:44:24 PM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 15 January 2009 15:07 |
The author of that article intends the word exceptionalism in an entirely different way than I do. As for chosen-ness, I don't even think it merits attention except to suggest that each person look to the faith they were raised in. I don't read Hebrew or Aramaic and I'm not likely to buy into contemporary interpretations of the concept, given the centuries of misdirection from most religous authorities. Perpetuating old misunderstanding simply because its old is absurd. As far as I'm concerned, when applied to the ancient Hebrews, it means the people who chose. Brian sent a very lengthy and detailed response to me, but until I get back to him to among other things ask for the OK to post the whole dialogue, I will say that he sent this link saying he preferred his position here to the first one. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NekORBeP8K0 DS |
Thanks Dan.
Post by: T. Mueller on January 18, 2009, 05:47:59 PM
| Quote: |
Makes me wish i was Antarctican. |
Or, " 'tarctican'".
Post by: Fenris Wulf on January 19, 2009, 01:01:30 AM
| Quote: |
The Palestinians in general have perfected the art of using civilians as human shields for the last thirty years because they know and understand how the West thinks and how the media works and what drives ratings. I personally was used as a human shield by them during the war in Lebanon. The Palestinians used to park their rocket launchers in front of my bomb shelter where my family hid with three other families including 9 children. I was the oldest. They used to shell Israel and then drive away knowing that when Israel responds to the target, we would get hit, hopefully die, and we would make great pictures on the evening news representing dead civilians while Israel would be vilified. Here we are 30 years later and nothing has changed. They have just gotten better at it and the Western press has continued to buy this cruel Palestinian charade. |
Hamas has a deliberate and systematic policy of hiding behind civilians, so that Israel is forced to kill civilians in the process of striking Hamas. Hamas WANTS civilians to die, as many as possible, on both sides. Many Palestinians hate and despise Hamas, but are afraid to speak up for fear of violent reprisal.
Learn the facts. Don't be a useful idiot for terrorists or help them to spread their propaganda.
Post by: Jay Kadis on January 19, 2009, 11:49:13 AM
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Sun, 18 January 2009 22:01 |
Learn the facts. Don't be a useful idiot for terrorists or help them to spread their propaganda. |
Post by: wwittman on January 19, 2009, 09:30:53 PM
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Mon, 19 January 2009 01:01 |
Hamas has a deliberate and systematic policy of hiding behind civilians, so that Israel is forced to kill civilians in the process of striking Hamas. |
by this logic, if a group of "terrorists" launched a rocket attack into Detroit from Canada, the US would retaliate by launching jet fighter/bomber attacks on the Canadian civilians they were 'hiding behind"?
I think not
even with Bush in the White House.
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Mon, 19 January 2009 01:01 |
.. Hamas WANTS civilians to die, as many as possible, on both sides. |
ah, and you think Israel "is forced to" play into that wish?
Since YOU understand that goal, why not short circuit it?
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Mon, 19 January 2009 01:01 |
Many Palestinians hate and despise Hamas, but are afraid to speak up for fear of violent reprisal.. |
substitute the word Israelis for Palestinians and it works just as well.
Many Israelis hate and despise their government's actions but are too intimidated to speak up, Or just not heard in the west.
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Mon, 19 January 2009 01:01 |
Don't be a useful idiot for terrorists or help them to spread their propaganda. |
Don't be a useful idiot for the war profiteers and rascists.
Personally, I often think that at the end of WWII, West Berlin should have been given to the displaced European Jews instead of letting them shuffle off to the middle east.
Post by: maxim on January 19, 2009, 09:41:53 PM
why does anyone need a country???
outlaw all discrimination, including on grounds of nationality, and anyone can live wherever they like...
Post by: zmix on January 29, 2009, 09:54:32 AM
| wwittman wrote on Mon, 19 January 2009 21:30 | ||
Don't be a useful idiot for the war profiteers and rascists. |
Exactly right...
| wwittman wrote on Mon, 19 January 2009 21:30 |
Personally, I often think that at the end of WWII, West Berlin should have been given to the displaced European Jews instead of letting them shuffle off to the middle east. |
Richard Cohen said in a Washington Post column "The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. ... The idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. ... Its most formidable enemy is history itself."
Post by: mgod on January 29, 2009, 10:15:34 AM
"Cohen joined The Post as a reporter in 1968 and covered everything from police, city hall, education, state government and national politics. As the paper's chief Maryland correspondent, he was one of two reporters who broke the story of the investigation of former Vice President Spiro Agnew. In 1976, he began writing a column for the paper's Metro section. His column became nationally syndicated in 1981 and has appeared on the op-ed page of The Post since 1984. Cohen is the author, with Jules Witcover of "A Heartbeat Away: The Investigation and Resignation of Spiro T. Agnew" (1974).
"Cohen has received the Sigma Delta Chi and Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild Awards for his investigative reporting."
Doesn't sound like he ever lived in the region. Sure is easy to have opinions and tell people what they should do from half a world away, and from land conquered by European Christianity. Creating a land of Europeans Christians in a land of so-called Indians has created half-a-millennium of bloodshed and obliteration of a diverse civilization. I think much of the world would agree that the US is a mistake too.
Damn Europeans.
DS
Post by: zmix on January 29, 2009, 10:27:16 AM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 29 January 2009 10:15 |
"Columnist | Richard Cohen is a weekly columnist for The Post, writing on domestic and foreign politics. His column appears on Tuesdays. "Cohen joined The Post as a reporter in 1968 and covered everything from police, city hall, education, state government and national politics. As the paper's chief Maryland correspondent, he was one of two reporters who broke the story of the investigation of former Vice President Spiro Agnew. In 1976, he began writing a column for the paper's Metro section. His column became nationally syndicated in 1981 and has appeared on the op-ed page of The Post since 1984. Cohen is the author, with Jules Witcover of "A Heartbeat Away: The Investigation and Resignation of Spiro T. Agnew" (1974). "Cohen has received the Sigma Delta Chi and Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild Awards for his investigative reporting." Doesn't sound like he ever lived in the region. Sure is easy to have opinions and tell people what they should do from half a world away, and from land conquered by European Christianity. Creating a land of Europeans Christians in a land of so-called Indians has created half-a-millennium of bloodshed and obliteration of a diverse civilization. Damn Europeans. DS |
Dan,
This seems like an ad-hominem attack on Mr Cohen.
Does shooting the messenger invalidate the message?
And why all the moral relativism?
How many wrong DO make a right, in your view?
Here is an interesting lecture on the recent invasion by Noam Chomsky:
Chomsky on the Gaza Invasion.
He calls it the "US - Israeli Invasion"
I think he's correct.
Post by: mgod on January 29, 2009, 10:43:55 AM
| zmix wrote on Thu, 29 January 2009 07:27 |
Dan, This seems like an ad-hominem attack on Mr Cohen. Does shooting the messenger invalidate the message? And why all the moral relativism? How many wrong DO make a right, in your view? |
I've said nothing personal about Cohen. I've only said he's writing from stolen land living in relative (and violently enforced) peace. Its a pretty easy and comfortable thing to do. If he wrote from Gaza or Jerusalem, like many non-right-wing Israeli writers do, I might have a little more respect for his opinion. I think an American has no basis for calling Israel a mistake. Mistake it may be, but that also means, all things being equal, that the US is a mistake too.
I'm appalled that the IDF has apparently used White Phosphorus, but I'm also aware than I'm an American and we did (still do?) the same thing, with my money, very recently in Iraq and no one spoke out against it here.
How many wrongs make a right? Pointless question. I'll be more interested in your postings when you go after others equally, like us, or give up your comfortable home on stolen land and move to Israel and work against the right wing there, like so many do.
DS
PS - I say again, damn Europeans.
Post by: zmix on January 29, 2009, 11:21:47 AM
Does implying bias marginalize empirical data?
Do you have so much bias in your own worldview that you cannot objectively condemn clearly destructive behaviour without relying on moral relativity?
There are clearly better ways to deal with this situation.
I have many friends who have left Israel because of the extremely right wing government. They chose to move to the US and many are engaged in educating Americans about the situation.
The first step towards making things better is to increase awareness.
Watch this lecture, and then tell us what you think:
Chomsky on Gaza, 1/13/2009.
Post by: mgod on January 29, 2009, 12:34:48 PM
Take a Ritalin.
You're either completely missing my points, or just ignoring them for your own reasons. At least Eno put some real effort into trying to explain why Israel should be an exception given that he hadn't spoken out against so many other, and some even worse, international incidents. You have a pretty obvious prejudice here, but it doesn't mean much when you don't put your money where your mouth is. People who live all the advantages of a comfortable safe life on violently stolen land, who's own taxes are used to abuse others in their name, speak from a precarious perch when condemning others for doing the same. It doesn't mean anything when we write about this in comfort. It means something if we're on the ground in the battle zone. If you're so fired up about this but won't move there, then support J Street, which lobbies Congress to counter AIPAC (which is very well funded). Or donate, as I do, to Israeli groups that work for peace and rebuild Palestinian homes bulldozed by the IDF and right-wing settlers.
The problem is not Israel. The problem is not Palestine. The problem is the right-wing in every country, ours too. And of course Europe, where all these problems begin.
DS
Post by: mgod on January 29, 2009, 12:42:18 PM
| zmix wrote on Thu, 29 January 2009 07:27 |
And why all the moral relativism? |
And I say its moral relativism to condemn one nation for doing what so many others have done and still do, and not condemn those others including one's own. Asking how many wrongs make a right is just using moral relativism to avoid responsibility for one's own ass which sits on stolen land.
If you really cared about this is a non-relativistic way, you'd move back to Europe. Otherwise its just words in the shape of electrons. Doesn't mean a thing. Actions, brother. What will you do? Complain to me about it?
DS
Post by: zmix on January 29, 2009, 04:48:42 PM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 29 January 2009 12:34 |
Chuck. Take a Ritalin. DS |
Dan,
How rude. People usually resort to such behaviour when they run out of ideas or tools to enact them. This is really disrespectful, and unwarranted.
Post by: mgod on January 29, 2009, 05:04:50 PM
DS
Post by: mgod on January 29, 2009, 05:30:55 PM
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2747/t/3251/campaign.jsp?c ampaign_KEY=2523
DS
Post by: Jay Kadis on January 29, 2009, 05:41:34 PM
Post by: YZ on January 29, 2009, 07:26:43 PM
It is not a 'nation of European Jews'.
There are a lot of Sephardic Jews there (middle-eastern, north-african, iberic), and I lived for quite a while in an adorable part of Tel Aviv known as 'the Yemenite corner', where most of the people were quite dark-skinned, and I mean dark in a 'nubian' sense.
More of them are found just about everywhere in Israel.
The proportion (at least from my eyes at the time) was just about even.
So the journalist cited above is a little bit off-mark.
And to classify modern-day Israel as a 'mistake'... gimme a break.
The real mistake happened in the second century AD when the Romans changed the name of the place and expelled everybody.
Post by: mgod on January 29, 2009, 08:20:19 PM
| YZ wrote on Thu, 29 January 2009 16:26 |
The real mistake happened in the second century AD when the Romans changed the name of the place and expelled everybody. |
You see? Europeans again.
DS
Post by: zmix on January 29, 2009, 11:17:32 PM
I have re-read my posts. I have no "tone" here. I have simply provided links and information. You have resorted to a pretty defensive, and indefensible series of attacks. I find your conduct to be outright rude, and when I suggested it previously, your response was to be rude again. (see below).
If you have something you would like to express to me, please do so.
| mgod wrote on Thu, 29 January 2009 17:04 |
Chuck, read your own posts and study their tone. You're a bit over the top on this one. And - I don't think you're thinking clearly, or reading clearly. Now you fall back on this. You have nothing of substance to add, just a comment on a response to your apoplexy? DS |
Post by: maxim on January 30, 2009, 12:09:33 AM
dan wrote:
"I've only said he's writing from stolen land living in relative (and violently enforced) peace. Its a pretty easy and comfortable thing to do."
not necessarily (his name IS cohen)
and why is it so wrong for outsiders to comment, anyway?
i would think enlightened humans to feel themselves the world citizens, ESPECIALLY, among the jews, who were on the receiving end of this sort of us-and-themness not so long ago
white phosphorus, dan?
whether american, russian or israeli, does the end REALLY justify the means? (or do you just WISH it did?)
Post by: mgod on January 30, 2009, 01:08:07 AM
| maxim wrote on Thu, 29 January 2009 21:09 |
dan wrote: "I've only said he's writing from stolen land living in relative (and violently enforced) peace. Its a pretty easy and comfortable thing to do." not necessarily (his name IS cohen) and why is it so wrong for outsiders to comment, anyway? i would think enlightened humans to feel themselves the world citizens, ESPECIALLY, among the jews, who were on the receiving end of this sort of us-and-themness not so long ago white phosphorus, dan? whether american, russian or israeli, does the end REALLY justify the means? (or do you just WISH it did?) |
I don't think this is very hard to understand Max.
No, I don't think any of this is justifiable. I think its a VERY unusual war that can be justified in any way at all.
What I think is odd is the anger directed at Israel by, say, Chuck, for doing things that so many other nations including our own do. That's moral relativism.
White phosphorous in Iraq? Never makes the news. White phosphorous in Gaza? War crime. It either is or isn't - the US doesn't get a pass. Personally, I think it is. But we have no right to talk. We tolerate it in comfort from our own military. That entitles us to STFU or clean up own own mess first. Hopefully we've just made a tiny step in the right direction - hard to tell yet.
Outsiders can comment all they want. My take - it doesn't mean much if its all talk without experiencing the suffering. I grew up learning how Europeans made their 1s and 7s different from us by reading the numbers on my mother's arm. I'm not going to judge what people do who've lived through that without at least some acknowledgment that I haven't, and don't, suffer like they have. Just a guess but I bet Chuck hasn't either. I'm lucky to be alive and living where I do - I never lose sight of that, but some people paid a very high price for me to be here, to have a child here instead of among those ape-shit crazy Europeans who have a lovely history of killing the nearest "other" the minute things don't go their way. Usually in the name of their god, the Jew from Israel.
Where's your outrage over East Timor, or Nigeria? Where's the Darfur thread? Easy answer - we don't care. I'm not judging the Israelis OR the Palestinians from the ease of LA. I think its weak, and especially weak for Americans (or Australians) to pontificate on the horror of it. We live on the graves of another civilization. We justify our condemnation of others by saying well, its too late - its already done where we live, even though its exactly the same and worse was done with no debate - at least in Israel there's debate. But its a fait acompli where you and I live, so its easy to say we get to live the easy life. But there's no escaping we live on slaughter. You do, I do, Chuck does. We could give it back. Are any of us prepared to? Then who are we to talk? I'm sure the land of Chuck's ancestors would welcome him. I still have cousins in Budapest who would be happy to see me. But my parents left Hungary for a reason, having been shipped off to slaughter once.
Do I excuse it? Do I condemn it? Who gives a fuck? Like you I'm just some guy poking at little pieces of plastic in comfort. I make the little donations I can make that ease my liberal conscience and hope they do some good. But this is all just hooey. Talk talk talk. Anybody who really cared would get on the ground over there.
DS
Post by: YZ on January 30, 2009, 01:33:59 AM
| maxim wrote on Fri, 30 January 2009 03:09 |
afaik, the yemenite jews were and, probably, still are discriminated against by their EUROPEAN (and AMERICAN) compatriates |
It is not widespread; in Israel, like in any other country, you will find people who discriminate and people who don't.
One thing that I did observe, thou, is that there was less discrimination in Israel than what I noticed elsewhere.
Are you talking from personal and direct experience or just conjecturing based on your own preconceptions?
Besides, any 'discrimination' they may be 'suffering' in Israel is sure a whole lot better than the certain death they would have faced in Yemen, have those same european jews not organized a massive airlift operation with the help of 'Americans' (Jews and not) that rescued them from government-mandated extermination.
The Yemenite Jews had the belief that one day a giant golden eagle would come from the skies and fly them over to the Holy Land.
Some of the planes were chartered from Air Alaska and, by sheer coincidence, they had a big golden eagle painted above the doors.
Between 1950 and 1956, Israel brought in over 150 thousand refugees from Yemen, Iran and India; the names of the operations were 'magic carpet', 'ezra' and 'nehemiah'.
Most of them were dark-skinned.
Now, why would a bunch of european bigots bring in such a number of 'undesirables' into the country if they did not want them?
Post by: Barish on January 30, 2009, 06:38:38 AM
Israeli President's "let me teach you this boy, no one can inquisite us for what we do, so fuck off" attitude, and in return Erdogan's "you are not talking to a tribe leader here uncle, so watch your mouth, and why are you raising your voice anyway? Is it because you've done something bad and you're trying to hide it? You know what, I know what you were up to on the beach last summer" kinda hitback, and then his pushing of the moderator David Ignatius' hand down saying "one minute, one minute! don't interrupt me, and let me say this, I thank the moderator, and from now on, Davos is finito for me, I don't think I will ever come back here, you let him talk 25 minutes, but you are giving me only 12 minutes, that's not on!" and then storming off of the stage...
I was laughing so hard at the body languages there, particularly Erdogan's because he comes from a rough part of the city in Istanbul, and he is some 6 foot 5 guy with a quick temper, and generally in arguments here in Turkey, if you see someone push your hand down like that, or hear him tell you to lower your hand, -whether your hand is really raised or not is irrelevant- it's an early warning that you will be headbutted immediately afterward, and at one moment I thought Erdogan was really going to give the moderator a good kiss in the nose there
, which actually would have been nice because the guy was some kind of ass anyway. I mean you don't, and I mean ever, shut up a Prime Minister like that. Not in front of the cameras anyway. No one's dinner is any more important than what a PM has to say, and particularly not in a debate like that. But there he was... anyway.As someone who has command over both languages, I watched the play with pleasure. Frankly speaking, I have never ever seen any politicians having a go at each other in front of the cameras on an international debate like that, and I have found what's been said from both sides historically important.
Later on, however, when I was going through the world news on the net to see what the repercussions were, as I usually do to see how the news propagate and is perceived by different people, the comments etc., I was astounded to see that although all the western news channels passed the clash with the headline "Erdogan storms off the stage at Davos" etc, they did not translate even 1/20th of what Erdogan said to Peres' face over there at all. Even the simultaneous translator stopped translating for the camera.
And to me, what Erdogan said was historically important, because I have never ever seen any politician using such words in the public against a counterpart.
It was so strong that it made Israeli President step back and phone Erdogan later to express his regrets, and explain that his voice was raised during the panel because he thought the sound was not going through well enough, and it was not intended to blast him etc... the usual spins...
But, what really stunned me was the amount of smooth filtering that was immediately carried out by the English speaking media before everyone's eyes.
Everyone knows that Erdogan and Peres had a wee go at each other, but no one knows exactly what they told each other, although they both spoke before cameras and everyone's eyes. Amazing.
"One said to the other you are killing people, and the other one said what would you do if Istanbul was rocketed, and the other said to the moderator thank you thank you thank you and fucked off and David Milliband said I'd better spend my time back in London doing some other things and our reporter spoke to the IMF chairman and he said the economical crisis will carry on for another 6 months and that..."
I'm really chuckling as I am writing this. I mean we are not talking about an argument behind closed doors here. It's before the cameras. But those who speak Turkish understand it, but those who don't have no idea what's been talked about.
"Huh? What? Who's that? These Middle Eastern people have funny languages don't they? And why do they talk so loud anyway? Rude as always. Yeah Israelis are so right that they are bombing these desert people. I heard Father John say God gave them a licence to do so in the church last Sunday anyway. Well, anyhow, on what channel is the ice hockey honey? Toss me a Bud while you are at it as well will ya..."
It's been almost 18 hours after the event, and I am yet to see a full run down of what's been said there. None. Nada. As if it had never happened.
Like, if it was not in English, then it was never said.
Funny...
B.
Post by: zmix on January 30, 2009, 08:17:59 AM
| mgod wrote on Fri, 30 January 2009 01:08 | ||
I don't think this is very hard to understand Max. No, I don't think any of this is justifiable. I think its a VERY unusual war that can be justified in any way at all. What I think is odd is the anger directed at Israel by, say, Chuck, for doing things that so many other nations including our own do. That's moral relativism. White phosphorous in Iraq? Never makes the news. White phosphorous in Gaza? War crime. It either is or isn't - the US doesn't get a pass. Personally, I think it is. But we have no right to talk. We tolerate it in comfort from our own military. That entitles us to STFU or clean up own own mess first. Hopefully we've just made a tiny step in the right direction - hard to tell yet. Outsiders can comment all they want. My take - it doesn't mean much if its all talk without experiencing the suffering. I grew up learning how Europeans made their 1s and 7s different from us by reading the numbers on my mother's arm. I'm not going to judge what people do who've lived through that without at least some acknowledgment that I haven't, and don't, suffer like they have. Just a guess but I bet Chuck hasn't either. I'm lucky to be alive and living where I do - I never lose sight of that, but some people paid a very high price for me to be here, to have a child here instead of among those ape-shit crazy Europeans who have a lovely history of killing the nearest "other" the minute things don't go their way. Usually in the name of their god, the Jew from Israel. Where's your outrage over East Timor, or Nigeria? Where's the Darfur thread? Easy answer - we don't care. I'm not judging the Israelis OR the Palestinians from the ease of LA. I think its weak, and especially weak for Americans (or Australians) to pontificate on the horror of it. We live on the graves of another civilization. We justify our condemnation of others by saying well, its too late - its already done where we live, even though its exactly the same and worse was done with no debate - at least in Israel there's debate. But its a fait acompli where you and I live, so its easy to say we get to live the easy life. But there's no escaping we live on slaughter. You do, I do, Chuck does. We could give it back. Are any of us prepared to? Then who are we to talk? I'm sure the land of Chuck's ancestors would welcome him. I still have cousins in Budapest who would be happy to see me. But my parents left Hungary for a reason, having been shipped off to slaughter once. Do I excuse it? Do I condemn it? Who gives a fuck? Like you I'm just some guy poking at little pieces of plastic in comfort. I make the little donations I can make that ease my liberal conscience and hope they do some good. But this is all just hooey. Talk talk talk. Anybody who really cared would get on the ground over there. DS |
Dan,
Seriously, knock it off. I do not appreciate the false accusations and bizzarre assertions you're making about me. Please demonstrate WHERE you are getting these ideas, OK? Be specific. And please note as you re-read this thread, that if it weren't for MY family, YOUR family might not be here, so show some respect, OK?
Be a man.
Post by: maxim on January 30, 2009, 08:21:35 AM
we can't undo what's been done any more than than the israelis can go back to where they came from
we can, however, prevent FURTHER atrocities being committed
(complacency is the enemy of peace)
the only world we can change is the one inside our crania...
Post by: maxim on January 30, 2009, 08:26:07 AM
neither
this is second hand information from someone who experienced this discrimination in israel
i can not vouch for its accuracy, but i would be neither shocked nor surprised if it were true...
Post by: Kris on January 30, 2009, 10:00:11 AM
| mgod wrote on Fri, 30 January 2009 01:08 |
Where's your outrage over East Timor, or Nigeria? Where's the Darfur thread? Easy answer - we don't care. DS |
Israel has a similar society to our own (Western) and therefore it is much easier to relate to them and their condition. Not so sure if that holds true with East Timor, Nigeria, and/or Darfur. So IMO it's not 'we don't care'... more like 'we don't quite understand'.
Post by: mgod on January 30, 2009, 11:05:11 AM
| Kris wrote on Fri, 30 January 2009 07:00 | ||
Israel has a similar society to our own (Western) and therefore it is much easier to relate to them and their condition. Not so sure if that holds true with East Timor, Nigeria, and/or Darfur. So IMO it's not 'we don't care'... more like 'we don't quite understand'. |
I think that's well said - although I think its wrong.
Its an assumption we make in the West, that we somehow see Israel as an outpost of the west, which in my opinion it isn't - but we judge it in "our" terms. It really is the middle east. But by western historical terms Israel is mild in its aggression. We gloss over our own histories, we disregard how important slave labor was in building America's industrial engine, how important underpaid immigrant labor is now.
As for you and me Chuck, we're like these guys at Dafos, plainly speaking different languages. Where do I get these ideas? From reading what you write, and don't write.
And it certainly is true that we can't unwrite history, max, AND that its possible that we can prevent further damage, but we oughtn't to be so smug as to be superior to those who are presently fighting the same battles that have given us our current comfort. That's the worst sort of hypocrisy.
So then, what does it take to prevent further damage? I don't know but this isn't it.
Here are a few possibilities for armchair generals:
http://www.rebuildingalliance.org/
http://www.jstreet.org/homepage
http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/
DS
Post by: mgod on January 30, 2009, 11:09:26 AM
| zmix wrote on Fri, 30 January 2009 05:17 |
Be a man. |
Oh...OK.
Shall we measure?
Do you wonder why I think you've gone off the deep end on this? My idea of you being a man would be to put yourself on the line for your plainly stated beliefs. Move to Gaza. That would be manly. Blogging from the ease of NY while those you purport to care about suffer is, well, is kind of dainty.
DS
Post by: zmix on January 30, 2009, 11:52:28 AM
| mgod wrote on Fri, 30 January 2009 11:05 |
Where do I get these ideas? From reading what you write, and don't write. DS |
Dan,
This is where the problem lies.
You have made several assumptions about what my attitudes toward all of this are.
You have made accusations based on those assumptions.
I find this very offensive and disrespectful.
Even you must realize by now that there is nothing that I have contributed to this thread that fits your characterization of me.
Your MO, which is plain to see, is as follows:
Invent bias in order to marginalize your "opponent"
Refuse to stand behind accusations, instead restate invented bias.
Rather than demonstrating any moral principal or code of ethics or even standing behind your inflammatory statements, hide behind convenient moral relativism, like a child who explains a schoolyard fight by saying 'he hit me first'.
Honestly Dan, telling me to "Move to Europe" and now "Move to Gaza" is simply sad.
You are incredibly mistaken in assuming that you know anything about me.
Post by: mgod on January 30, 2009, 12:09:07 PM
DS
Post by: wwittman on February 01, 2009, 04:23:38 PM
ir is it only that Chuck should move to gaza?
that's the only acceptable position?
I am no physicist but I am fairly certain I cannot live in ALL the places I feel strongly about at the same time.
Post by: maxim on February 01, 2009, 04:53:03 PM
i live in the universe
therefore, everything that happens in this universe concerns me...
Post by: mgod on February 01, 2009, 05:07:35 PM
| wwittman wrote on Sun, 01 February 2009 13:23 |
So should everyone who 'supports' Israel MOVE there? |
No, people who live comfortable in nations that are built on violence and abuse and and maintain their dominance by same might think twice about using words like "condemn" when discussing others. Condemning is easy when all one has to do is poke at some plastic in safety; not so easy when one's own boots are on the ground - and the unwillingness to put them there while comfortably condemning speaks volumes. So does the convenient habit of condemning one group of people but not another. Finger-pointing is the easiest and weakest form of protest.
If Chuck feels as strongly as he appears to, living in and working for peace in Israel would be more effective than complaining to us about it. Eno got up and spoke at a rally, but when I questioned him about why Israel and not elsewhere, he took a good while to think about it, about why Israel should be thought of differently than elsewhere and gave me a very well considered and lengthy response. I don't agree with it 100%, but I do quite a bit of it.
I DO think Israel is an exception but my reasons for thinking so are spiritual and that leads to disaster when made the foundation of any sort of policy. Israel acts like any nation dominated by its right wing, including Britain and the US. The one thing Brian and I ultimately agreed on is that Brits are the real problem. And punditry may call Israel a mistake but the rationale for it invalidates many nations, including this one. We don't whine about our own history but where is the Native Americans right of return? Shall we go back to the pre-1850 US/Mexico borders in California?
And I might be wrong about this but I'd be very surprised if the number of Palestinians dead in the last 42 years equals the number of Iraqis dead in the last 6 - yet we don't talk about Iraqi genocide, nor do we talk about Viet Nam-ese genocide. But all those deaths happened during undeclared war. I only ask any of us for consistency.
DS
Post by: maxim on February 01, 2009, 05:30:48 PM
" ...the convenient habit of condemning one group of people, but not another."
there is no "other"...
Post by: zmix on February 01, 2009, 07:39:35 PM
“The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself”
Jane Addams (1860-1935)
“The greatest of fault, I should say, is to be conscious of none”
Robert Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
Post by: wwittman on February 01, 2009, 07:45:40 PM
how about this?
I, as an American (currently) have a right to be vocally opposed to my government supporting (militarily and with subsidy) a government I find to be warlike and irrational.
plus, i object to an exception in thinking that accepts a nuclear weapon in the hands of such warlike and irrational actors.
They are, based on past actions, not at all unlikely to one day decide they "have to" use a nuclear weapon.
and, before you jump on it, yes, I understand that the only other nation so irrational was the US.
but whatever the rationalisation, the "why don't you go back to Russia, you commie?" argument is always a ridiculous one.
Post by: maxim on February 01, 2009, 08:27:29 PM
it's not a contest in who can commit better genocide
where i grew up in siberia, the indigenous population had been wiped out TOTALLY by the russians
where i live now, there isn't enough history left to know the name of the people who lived here 100 years ago
the time to ACT is NOW...
Post by: mgod on February 01, 2009, 10:29:04 PM
| maxim wrote on Sun, 01 February 2009 14:30 |
dan wrote: " ...the convenient habit of condemning one group of people, but not another." there is no "other"... |
Then how is that this whole thread is about the exclusive condemnation (not my word) of one group's actions which are nonetheless consistent with the actions of humanity as a whole?
That there is no other is the entirety of my point, max.
The time to act might well be NOW, but that argument is thrown out when it comes from people who make it from atop mass graves, and logically justifiably. Its the same response the industrialized nations get when they preach to developing nations that its simply too late for them, that the world can no longer afford any more development because we used it all up, in order to make ourselves wealthy and comfortable. We should rightly expect a loud "get fucked".
| wwittman wrote on Sun, 01 February 2009 16:45 |
but whatever the rationalisation, the "why don't you go back to Russia, you commie?" argument is always a ridiculous one. |
Sure is, but its about as far from what I'm saying as anything can be. You invented that part.
All I ask for is consistency of word and deed. Words call for actions or mean nothing. Assuming anyone actually cares.
DS
Post by: mgod on February 01, 2009, 10:39:23 PM
| zmix wrote on Sun, 01 February 2009 16:39 |
“The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself” Jane Addams (1860-1935) “The greatest of fault, I should say, is to be conscious of none” Robert Carlyle (1795 - 1881) |
Now you're just being pedantic. But each of these statements perfectly summarize exactly what I've been saying to you. Thanks for finding them. When you can tell me why you focus so exclusively on Israel and not elsewhere, including your own history, I might find something of merit in your argument. So far, nothing.
DS
Post by: maxim on February 01, 2009, 10:46:09 PM
all we can do is change our OWN universe......
Post by: mgod on February 01, 2009, 10:49:01 PM
But boots on the ground in the actual battle zone is a far better way to change things. Everybody has opinions, about everything. They don't amount to substance.
DS
Post by: maxim on February 01, 2009, 10:56:44 PM
in democratic countries, the opinions that matter (other than the well-heeled lobbyists), are the ones held by the swinging voters in the marginal seats once every 3 years
artists CAN influence those opinions
that's my "battleground"...
Post by: wwittman on February 02, 2009, 01:14:58 AM
but it ISN'T "only"
when Israel is wrong and someone says so, it isn't a defense to ask why that person doesn't criticize someone else instead,
the action is either right or wrong, irrespective of the actions of others who may very well be equally wrong.
Especially now that the Bush crazies are out of office, I don't actually WORRY everyday about the US launching a nuclear strike on someone for petulant, over-reaction reasons.
I DO about Israel, and Pakistan.
Post by: Barish on February 02, 2009, 02:17:44 AM
I do sympathise your peaceful expectations, but US Foreign Policy does not change overnight with an administration handover. In fact, it does not change at all. I can certainly tell you that by experience as a non-American outsider. Expecting a thumb movement decision preference in that sense is a bit too optimistic, and has more sentimental value than factual in my opinion.
It may be successful in getting the baby's gas out domestically, because usually most ordinary Americans kinda live in their own world stranded in their own part of the continent, hence the opinions tend to shape and vibrate around that vibe, but believe me, it doesn't change the outsider experience a single bit at all.
So Obama will not save OUR world. I guess that's why we non-Americans didn't vote for him.
Or McCain or any other US president for that matter...
Just to put it on record my friend.
B.
Post by: zmix on February 02, 2009, 08:43:56 AM
| mgod wrote on Sun, 01 February 2009 22:39 |
...When you can tell me why you focus so exclusively on Israel and not elsewhere, including your own history, I might find something of merit in your argument. So far, nothing. DS |
Uh, er.. because that is the SUBJECT of this particular thread...
(roll clip..."I'm looking for an argument"... "oh, sorry, this is 'abuse'... you want 12a, next door....stupid git")
Post by: mgod on February 02, 2009, 01:06:31 PM
| zmix wrote on Mon, 02 February 2009 05:43 | ||
|
That's actually an amazing answer. Really.
And...
winding back about 7 pages, where are the threads (particularly ones started by you) on the actions of other nations? At least Brian Eno took on the question. You haven't yet. Yet you appear to have a singular interest in the actions of Israel, and Israel alone. Didn't someone say something about being a man? Every time I've asked that you obfuscate and change the subject to something personal, or do some half-clever little dance. Can you answer the question? It shouldn't be that hard. It took Brian about a day and was pretty lengthy, but a very solid answer. But then he actually cares about the subject a great deal. One of the things he wrote was that it would really help him to think about it, to have to write it.The US has backed many oppressive regimes over the years and still does. Our new only-mildly-right-of-center president has already launched an attack in Pakistan. We don't seem to care here in the Saloon. All I'm asking is why the inconsistency?
DS
Post by: mgod on February 02, 2009, 01:29:45 PM
| wwittman wrote on Sun, 01 February 2009 22:14 |
when Israel is wrong and someone says so, it isn't a defense to ask why that person doesn't criticize someone else instead, the action is either right or wrong, irrespective of the actions of others who may very well be equally wrong. |
Inarguable.
But if we let everyone else get away with the same actions, including ourselves, we shouldn't expect the one group we criticize to pay any attention to our critique. It has all the appearance of being for perceptual consumption only, no substance. Every parent knows this. No exceptions - the moment there's one, there's total.
And we shouldn't kid ourselves that these people aren't serious. The US' long alliance with Israel is only for one group here about religion. Its regional strategery - Israel is the most similar form of government in that region to the west's. Its a political ally in a generally hostile region. But does anyone doubt that if we cut them off they'd go to China for weaponry? Do we think for a moment that they aren't building their own?
Lets go back a moment to Eisenhower's warning. The entire world is on a permanent war footing, a permanent war economy. This is the function of the right wing - to keep us there - but it makes no difference; from the west what we call left in Russia functions the same, its just the Russian right-wing, the Chinese right-wing. The war makers are ascendant. Even with the Dems in power, with Obama, its still a war economy.
We may not like it much in the casual comforts of our homes, but only Nader and Kucinich talked about it, and we didn't support them (Well, I did...). Our President has launched an attack in Pakistan, but we talk about Israel.
DS
Post by: zmix on February 02, 2009, 02:26:30 PM
Post by: zmix on February 02, 2009, 02:32:15 PM
| mgod wrote on Mon, 02 February 2009 13:29 |
Lets go back a moment to Eisenhower's warning. The entire world is on a permanent war footing, a permanent war economy. This is the function of the right wing - to keep us there - but it makes no difference; from the west what we call left in Russia functions the same, its just the Russian right-wing, the Chinese right-wing. The war makers are ascendant. Even with the Dems in power, with Obama, its still a war economy... |
This is the real danger: The 'war footing'.
The fact that at this moment it is Israel using US made weapons to illegally invade another nation is somewhat incidental. It is however, a very real and timely issue.
I feel it deserves more understanding and less personal bickering.
Post by: mgod on February 02, 2009, 06:22:36 PM
| zmix wrote on Mon, 02 February 2009 11:32 |
This is the real danger: The 'war footing'. The fact that at this moment it is Israel using US made weapons to illegally invade another nation is somewhat incidental. It is however, a very real and timely issue. |
We agree on that.
| zmix wrote on Mon, 02 February 2009 11:32 |
I feel it deserves more understanding and less personal bickering. |
You mistake my questions for personal bickering.
Whether or not Israel illegally invaded another nation is a matter of diplomatic nuance, and in the present international context has little importance. Gaza and the West Bank are on its borders and these borders get crossed constantly by weaponry from both sides. The US on the other hand invades nations on the other side of the planet, which reduces our moral standing to absolute zero. Without that, we can't expect any party to respond to anything based on moral insistence.
In this forum supporting Israel or not supporting Israel are completely the same, no difference. Its just bits on a server somewhere, it isn't anything more than that. But there are plenty of actual things one can do, even remotely, although they're small things.
But I hate to say it, voting for Obama wasn't one of them. Its a small step in the proper direction from where we've been as we've already seen in many ways, but its clear we'll still stay on a war footing, which is why its a small step. I said before the only candidates who were serious about that as an issue, and serious about the whole thing, were never taken seriously - at least by American media. Funny thing.
DS
Post by: maxim on February 02, 2009, 06:47:44 PM
"In this forum supporting Israel or not supporting Israel are completely the same, no difference. Its just bits on a server somewhere..."
these virtual bits can add up to actual bites, if the swinging voters in marginal electorates are reading this
"But there are plenty of actual things one can do, even remotely, although they're small things."
i'm REALLY interested in what these are
i have pondered this question often, and my conclusion was, that, beyond a personal propaganda war, there was little i could do
Post by: mgod on February 02, 2009, 07:06:34 PM
But if one wants the strictly positive approach (in the sense of not supporting a negative) then the Rebuilding Alliance does very good work, on the ground in the war zone. Support them.
DS
Post by: maxim on February 02, 2009, 10:18:57 PM
certainly, looks like a worthwhile endeavour
is there anything we can do to PREVENT atrocities being commited in the first place?
Post by: zmix on February 02, 2009, 11:06:26 PM
| mgod wrote on Mon, 02 February 2009 18:22 |
Whether or not Israel illegally invaded another nation is a matter of diplomatic nuance, and in the present international context has little importance. |
I cannot consider the violation of UN resolutions, breaking international laws and violating the Nuremberg treaties a matter of "diplomatic nuance" regardless of WHO is involved, and personally I consider the ruthless destruction of 22,000 buildings and the killing of thousands of innocent humans a great crime. In this case Israel did just that.
In this age of instant worldwide communication nothing so brutal should be allowed to happen without exposure. They managed to do that too, barring the media with military force. It's barbaric.
I have been involved in many movements and protests before the US made it's illegal invasion of Iraq, and have been published in both the american and french press. If I had been a member of this forum at that time, I would have been JUST as vocal about my feelings, if not MORE. And certainly somebody would have had choice words for me then, too.
| mgod wrote |
Gaza and the West Bank are on its borders and these borders get crossed constantly by weaponry from both sides. The US on the other hand invades nations on the other side of the planet, which reduces our moral standing to absolute zero. Without that, we can't expect any party to respond to anything based on moral insistence. |
I agree.
| mgod wrote |
In this forum supporting Israel or not supporting Israel are completely the same, no difference. Its just bits on a server somewhere, it isn't anything more than that. But there are plenty of actual things one can do, even remotely, although they're small things. But I hate to say it, voting for Obama wasn't one of them. Its a small step in the proper direction from where we've been as we've already seen in many ways, but its clear we'll still stay on a war footing, which is why its a small step. I said before the only candidates who were serious about that as an issue, and serious about the whole thing, were never taken seriously - at least by American media. Funny thing. DS |
Yes, I also agree!
There is a fascinating book by Neil Postman called "Amusing ourselves to death" which deals with this specific impotence.
Of all the presidential Candidates only Dennis Kucinich seemed to have the honesty to discuss many of the so called "major" issues.
At least we have successfully removed Bush....
Post by: maxim on February 03, 2009, 12:28:58 AM
Post by: mgod on February 03, 2009, 10:21:25 AM
| maxim wrote on Mon, 02 February 2009 19:18 |
is there anything we can do to PREVENT atrocities being commited in the first place? |
Change our entire "way" of life? How we see each other?
I think the geniuses who run the financial system may be helping us in this.
And yes, the Postman book is great.
DS
Post by: mgod on February 03, 2009, 11:55:11 AM
| zmix wrote on Mon, 02 February 2009 20:06 | ||
I cannot consider the violation of UN resolutions, breaking international laws and violating the Nuremberg treaties a matter of "diplomatic nuance" regardless of WHO is involved, and personally I consider the ruthless destruction of 22,000 buildings and the killing of thousands of innocent humans a great crime. In this case Israel did just that. |
I completely agree. I call it diplomatic nuance because none of these borders are established as fixed yet, even after decades. There is no final decision as to whether it will be a single state or two states, so from a diplomatic perspective this may be still a civil war within a nation.
As to UN resolutions, Israelis tend to disregard them for wrong or right because a significant majority of resolutions in the UN's history have been condemnations of Israel. Need I add, Israel is not remotely unique in this?
As I hope I've made clear, I'm reluctant to judge anybody who grows up in a war zone, on either side. To some extent I understand why the Palestinians keep fighting and I understand why the Israelis keep fighting. Both sides, just like our own, are kept on permanent edge by a fixed right-wing. Jimmy Carter said last week on the Daily Show that 87% of Palestinians want peace with Israel. So only 13% keep giving the Israeli right-wing an excuse to stay in power.
But I'm acutely aware that we who judge them from the comfort of our homes do it from land which has gone through the same kind of battles. Simply because the battles where we live are over doesn't make our comfort any more justifiable either historically or in the present. The damage to the people that Europeans murdered and enslaved to create our comfort continues. Our perch of judgment is hardly a lofty one.
DS
Post by: zmix on February 03, 2009, 12:36:43 PM
| mgod wrote on Tue, 03 February 2009 11:55 |
... Jimmy Carter said last week on the Daily Show that 87% of Palestinians want peace with Israel. So only 13% keep giving the Israeli right-wing an excuse to stay in power. |
Roughly the same as those who ultimately liked bush in the latest polls. Two stolen elections and two wars certainly gave the world the impression that those 13% were much greater in number.
| mgod |
But I'm acutely aware that we who judge them from the comfort of our homes do it from land which has gone through the same kind of battles. Simply because the battles where we live are over doesn't make our comfort any more justifiable either historically or in the present. The damage to the people that Europeans murdered and enslaved to create our comfort continues. Our perch of judgment is hardly a lofty one. DS |
I had a similar discussion while I was in South Africa, shortly after Aparteid was "ended".... The difference, I concluded, between the US during it's colonial days and South Africa under Aparteid was that somebody STOPPED south Africa from carrying out a complete genocide.
In other words, coming from a "not so lofty" past does not invalidate one's ability to see or do what's right. It gives one insight to the potential horror of such behaviour.
In the case of Israel, they seem to have adopted the tactics of their former oppressors instead of saying "never again in this world will we allow ANYONE to be corralled, tattooed and treated as fodder", they have actually recreated those peripheral conditions, marking Palestinians with tattoos and denying them freedom and access to basic human needs. As Brian Eno said: "It is an exercise in provocation on the part of the Israeli government". Read the UN resolutions, you will see that these are not simply some biased attempt to cripple Israel's defense, but reflect legitimate violations of international law.
I take these charges very seriously, if we live in a 'global economy' we need to adhere to global laws and not allow imperialism in the 21st century. I hope that the UN and the Obama government do too, and that Bush, Wolfowicz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al will be found guilty as war criminals.
In the past the US has turned up it's nose to the UN and the world court, in fact the US is the ONLY nation found guilty by the world court for acts of terrorism (Panama invasion 1989), though I suspect that Israel is next, after the invasion of Lebanon and Gaza. We need to discuss all these things endlessly in public until the attitudes of 'entitlement' and 'exception' go the way of all bias and bigotry.
As I have been saying since Sept 2001, there is no longer "us versus them" we are all "them".
Post by: mgod on February 03, 2009, 01:30:09 PM
| zmix wrote on Tue, 03 February 2009 09:36 |
In other words, coming from a "not so lofty" past does not invalidate one's ability to see or do what's right. It gives one insight to the potential horror of such behaviour. |
This is possibly true, it might provide some insight, it might not. But it remains philosophical, it doesn't constitute action. While people on both sides are shelled, you and I remain at ease to write this debate by continuing to take advantage of past, and continuing, horror. Have you been to an Indian reservation? They still exist, and, while I can't speak to all, some of them are pretty uncomfortable places. But my house is nice. Neither of us is Rachel Corrie. She really cared. http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
| zmix wrote on Tue, 03 February 2009 09:36 |
In the case of Israel, they seem to have adopted the tactics of their former oppressors instead of saying "never again in this world will we allow ANYONE to be corralled, tattooed and treated as fodder", they have actually recreated those peripheral conditions, marking Palestinians with tattoos and denying them freedom and access to basic human needs. As Brian Eno said: "It is an exercise in provocation on the part of the Israeli government". Read the UN resolutions, you will see that these are not simply some biased attempt to cripple Israel's defense, but reflect legitimate violations of international law. |
Some are, some aren't, however the numbers suggest a certain skew there. Violations of international law happen all over the place and I have a little bit of a hard time thinking that the majority of them in the last 60 years have occurred in such a little place when the borders aren't yet fully established. The numbers suggest more occur there than in the rest of the world combined.
I agree with Brian. But in my opinion his problem isn't the Israeli government, which doesn't care about him, his problem is his own government and our problem is ours.
I'd like to see something pointing to this tattoo thing. I haven't heard of it before this.
Obviously there are multiple interpretations of "Never Again." I know what it means to me, but I'm not threatened every day by people who want me wiped off the map. Neither are you, so again, judgment is easy.
Being Jewish and growing up in hard-won relative ease, I have great sympathy for the rest of the mere 15,000,000 of us. That's all there is (and that many is a miracle), and the world has been tediously and dangerously obsessed with us for 1700 years, ever since one of us was declared the Son of God by some European politicians. My own take is that the US is the Promised Land, and philosophically I don't get the idea of a Jewish homeland viscerally. But I'm not going to judge those who only feel safe there. Europeans proved time and time again that being anything but white and Christian in Europe was suicide and have done their very best to export that illness to the rest of the world.
Wanting one's own club to be well-defined and exclusive and superior seem to be a general human failing.
DS
Post by: mgod on February 03, 2009, 01:43:01 PM
http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp?id=687172&campaign_id=631 11
I don't know anything about this group. This literally just showed up in my email inbox from someone in NY.
http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1313591/k.954F/M ission__History.htm
DS
Post by: zmix on February 03, 2009, 02:25:03 PM
| mgod wrote on Tue, 03 February 2009 13:43 |
On the subject of the UN and Israel: http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp?id=687172&campaign_id=631 11 I don't know anything about this group. This literally just showed up in my email inbox from someone in NY. http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1313591/k.954F/M ission__History.htm DS |
"UN Watch" is the publication of the AJC, a Israeli lobby group.
| Quote: |
The American Jewish Committee is a leading international think tank and advocacy organization that uses education and diplomacy to build support for Israel. Topping AJC's list of concerns is backing for Israel's quest for peace and security and the treatment of Israel at the United Nations. Advocacy takes many forms, from meetings with governments around the world as well as with interfaith and ethnic partners across the U.S., to media campaigns, in-depth research, and missions to Israel. |
Post by: zmix on February 03, 2009, 02:29:48 PM
| mgod wrote on Tue, 03 February 2009 13:30 |
Wanting one's own club to be well-defined and exclusive and superior seem to be a general human failing. DS |
Well said. Covers both sides of the "Master Race / Chosen People" coin...
Post by: maxim on February 03, 2009, 04:39:29 PM
"...we are all "them""
aka:
there is no them
there's only us
Post by: PookyNMR on February 03, 2009, 06:50:48 PM
| mgod wrote on Tue, 03 February 2009 11:30 |
That's all there is (and that many is a miracle), and the world has been tediously and dangerously obsessed with us for 1700 years, ever since one of us was declared the Son of God by some European politicians. |
Actually, the Roman Empire granted special legal rights to Jewish adherents even before the birth of Christ.
Also, Jesus was declared the 'Son of God' over 1900 years ago first and foremost by Jewish people as the fulfillment of God's promises in the Jewish scriptures.
It had nothing to do with European politicians. Constantine stopped the Christian persecutions and gave Christianity state status. But he did not form a theology of the divinity of Christ was was clear even in the New Testament several hundred years earlier. Your attempt to blame that on Europeans can only be done at the expense of honesty in history.
Post by: mgod on February 03, 2009, 09:07:31 PM
| zmix wrote on Tue, 03 February 2009 11:25 |
"UN Watch" is the publication of the AJC, a Israeli lobby group. |
You sure about that? The UN Watch website says they're based in Geneva.
| zmix wrote on Tue, 03 February 2009 11:29 | ||
Well said. Covers both sides of the "Master Race / Chosen People" coin... |
Lets not get into this "chosen people" thing. We'll debate forever - I'll just say don't believe everything you're told. The story as its told in the west isn't told by the people who wrote it. "Mein Kampf" is a little more recent.
I will say that not once in my upbringing did I ever hear a Jewish person refer to the Chosen People except in the old joke "Would you mind choosing someone else for a change?" As Jews are taught to not think about God literally, we are also told to not think about scripture literally. However, raising the non-issue does say a lot.
Nathan, I'm also not going to debate truly ancient history with you. As we both know respected scholars don't tell the same story. One makes sense to you and another one makes sense to me. And I fully understand that you're 100% certain yours are correct, and I'm equally 100% certain they're wrong. And there we have historical certainty and honesty in history. Unless of course, you uniquely can produce solid evidence. The world is waiting.
DS
Post by: PookyNMR on February 04, 2009, 01:32:33 AM
| mgod wrote on Tue, 03 February 2009 19:07 |
Nathan, I'm also not going to debate truly ancient history with you. As we both know respected scholars don't tell the same story. One makes sense to you and another one makes sense to me. And I fully understand that you're 100% certain yours are correct, and I'm equally 100% certain they're wrong. And there we have historical certainty and honesty in history. Unless of course, you uniquely can produce solid evidence. The world is waiting. |
The evidence is called the New Testament. You can see the ascriptions there. You can also read in second century works like the Didache.
Even the small set of "new school" origins folks (the ones who are considered credible) whom you often refer to (and whom I've read) will concede to that point.
The great irony here is that the "new school" scholars that you rely upon promote something very anti-Jewish.
But fair enough. We've been through this before. But the majority of scholarship (including your 'new school' friends) says something different than your one favorite book / author "Constantine's sword" that you quoted, which is highly discredited by professional historians, BTW.
Post by: maxim on February 04, 2009, 03:12:00 AM
me, i don't believe that anyone can own land
that delusion is the height of human arrogance
most you can do is take care of the land you live on and the others who do likewise...
Post by: Ashermusic on February 04, 2009, 11:17:48 AM
Jews are "chosen" for one thing only, to deliver the message of monotheism to the world, "Hear O Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord is one."
In return, we were promised that Avraham's line would survive.
That is it, that is all. We are not "better"in the eyes of God nor do we claim to be. Further, the Torah tells us that we were not the first people asked to deliver this message, only the first to say yes.
Post by: mgod on February 04, 2009, 01:36:43 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Tue, 03 February 2009 22:32 |
The great irony here is that the "new school" scholars that you rely upon promote something very anti-Jewish. |
You couldn't possibly be more wrong but that's hardly surprising. Someone would actually have to understand something about Judaism to get it right. Reading books and studying Orthodox Christianity doesn't teach it. I guess I should rely on legends of Arthur to teach me facts of ancient English history too.
| PookyNMR wrote on Tue, 03 February 2009 22:32 |
But fair enough. We've been through this before. But the majority of scholarship (including your 'new school' friends) says something different than your one favorite book / author "Constantine's sword" that you quoted, which is highly discredited by professional historians, BTW. |
What's beautiful about James Carroll is that unlike Orthodoxy which is intrinsically turgid, he doesn't ignore history.
DS
Post by: PookyNMR on February 04, 2009, 02:40:40 PM
| maxim wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 01:12 |
the only relevance here is that piece of dirt is contested by 3 or 4 varieties of religious zealots, all of whom believe in their own version of the same bullshit |
How we view history is of great relevance for our future.
Post by: PookyNMR on February 04, 2009, 02:49:50 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 09:17 |
Jews are "chosen" for one thing only, to deliver the message of monotheism to the world, "Hear O Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord is one." In return, we were promised that Avraham's line would survive. That is it, that is all. We are not "better"in the eyes of God nor do we claim to be. Further, the Torah tells us that we were not the first people asked to deliver this message, only the first to say yes. |
Actually, the Jewish people were called to be a 'light to the nations' (read Isaiah 51. for example). That's a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant that the 'through your seed the nations would be blessed.'
It's more than monotheism. It's about blessing the nations of the world. That "blessing" is the way to salvation and inclusion in the covenant family of God.
Post by: PookyNMR on February 04, 2009, 03:04:31 PM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 11:36 | ||
You couldn't possibly be more wrong but that's hardly surprising. Someone would actually have to understand something about Judaism to get it right. Reading books and studying Orthodox Christianity doesn't teach it. I guess I should rely on legends of Arthur to teach me facts of ancient English history too. |
I've read the authors of the "new school". Have you? I've read the actual texts. Have you? I've also read the critics. Have you? The fact that the Gnostic / Nag Hammadi writings reject traditional Judaism is widely acknowledged.
Gnosticism, particularly as it's presented in the second and third century writings is inherently anti-Jewish. It denies the core tenants of historical, orthodox Judaism. It mocks the creator as Judaism knows him. It mocks the themes of justice and restoration. It mocks creation. It mocks the hopes and expectations of the Old Testament.
| mgod wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 11:36 | ||
What's beautiful about James Carroll is that unlike Orthodoxy which is intrinsically turgid, he doesn't ignore history. |
Actually, that was one of the major criticisms of his work. He's very selective in his history reporting. Also, he often ignores original sources and uses discredited secondary sources (like John Cornwell), and he's knowingly distorted historical fact - even contradicting himself in earlier works.
As far as Orthodoxy, I'd ask what you know about it and it's processes to pass such a judgement? You show a lot of bitter opinion fueled by discredited folks like Carroll, but no evidence beyond that. How many years have you studied it? Who have you studied? Have you ever studied historical process? Exegesis? It is obvious that you have not since you consider Carroll 'authoritative' when real historians of any brand cringe at his deficient work.
There's a lot of mainline scholars who hold nothing sacred and ask every question and subject everything to processes of scrutinized historical methods. James Carroll does not pass the test. Not by a long shot. It's like claiming Dan Brown writes history.
Post by: PookyNMR on February 04, 2009, 03:20:14 PM
Post by: MDM, on February 04, 2009, 04:38:16 PM
both sides are guilty, but not as a people.. only the ones which act out in violence and seek profit from the war.
Post by: PookyNMR on February 04, 2009, 08:10:01 PM
| MDM, wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 14:38 |
history or no history, problems must be resolved and not aggravated. |
I agree problems do need to be solved. And there is a lot of history, which is much of the problem. But with the current thinking about how to resolve, I don't believe it will ever happen.
One of my university professors mentioned that one of the primary reasons that they cannot resolve conflicts is because both sides have such different philosophical worldview. They can't see eye to eye because their different world views aren't even looking the same direction. The problem is infinitely more complex than I think most people believe.
| MDM, wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 14:38 |
both sides are guilty, but not as a people.. only the ones which act out in violence and seek profit from the war. |
One can carry out 'violence' without shedding blood... We're all guilty.
Post by: mgod on February 04, 2009, 09:52:43 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 12:04 |
As far as Orthodoxy, I'd ask what you know about it and it's processes to pass such a judgement? You show a lot of bitter opinion fueled by discredited folks like Carroll, but no evidence beyond that. How many years have you studied it? Who have you studied? Have you ever studied historical process? Exegesis? It is obvious that you have not since you consider Carroll 'authoritative' when real historians of any brand cringe at his deficient work. There's a lot of mainline scholars who hold nothing sacred and ask every question and subject everything to processes of scrutinized historical methods. James Carroll does not pass the test. Not by a long shot. It's like claiming Dan Brown writes history. |
Here we go again...
You posit a book as fact that much of the world regards as fantasy and build your view of "authoritative" on that. We'll never see eye to eye because we see the world completely differently. Sound familiar? The existence the the so-called NT doesn't prove it as fact other than that it exists, nor does its mere existence make its contents history. I regard it as a highly flawed document and so do many scholars - you reject them as discredited. I reject that view as biased to the point of irrelevance. Are we done? Your description of how the Nag Hammadi texts "reject traditional Judaism" points to how little you know about Judaism itself, except perhaps (perhaps) some Orthodox view of some of the text. But the nice thing is there is no central Orthodoxy, no Pope to clear up the 30 centuries old debate about what it all means. Within the broader context of what Judaism actually is (vs. an Orthodox Christian sunday school mis-learning) all the texts fit nicely into the debate. And the debate can never end, because people are always being born, and each person has to search inside themselves for the meaning - isn't that where we were told to look? If people actually understood the Jewishness of what Jesus said and taught they would understand a lot more about how alive that teaching is.
And by the way, not once have I said Carroll was authoritative, but your invention of this non-fact is revealing of odd twists in your mind on the topic. Better to stay out of it, even though you brought him into this thread. I never mentioned him - you brought him up as an attack on me. Carroll discredited? Not around here, not close. He is embraced warmly by a huge Episcopal church I visit on occasion. They and their ministers love and respect him. I suppose they're all heretics. Or Jews (actually, a few of them are).
I'm sorry Nathan but your insistence on discounting Pagels and Carroll and so many others and what they're saying only means that you can't understand Judaism and all this commentary is just wasted bandwidth. You plainly have a deep need for them to be wrong. But there's so many of them, its the state of modern scholarship and denying it doesn't make it go away.
It'd be like me making pronouncements about football from reading books about it by people who were authorities on baking. Your basic view of all this is simply wrong, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding, one which is rooted in antiquated mis-perception. Just because this misunderstanding is still propagated doesn't make it true or authoritative.
Now where's Marshall McLuhan when you really need him?
DS
Post by: PookyNMR on February 04, 2009, 11:05:35 PM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 19:52 |
Here we go again... |
Indeed.
| mgod wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 19:52 |
The existence the the so-called NT doesn't prove it as fact other than that it exists, nor does its mere existence make its contents history. |
Actually, the existence of the NT directly proves your statement wrong that Jesus was called "the Son of God" only in the 3rd/4th century. Your attempt to pin this on Europeans / Rome / Constantine is historically grossly inaccurate.
The NT has been dated - even by your scholars (Meyer, Pagels, Bauer) - as first century. So whether or not you view it as actually history, the statement DID exist several hundred years before and was attributed to him by Jewish followers, not just and invention of Constantine or Europeans.
Assertions that the NT was radically altered within it's texts in later centuries has been proven and verified false by both sides. We have enough copies of enough texts from enough very diverse geographical regions to spot inaccurate transmission. The Bible has more corroborating texts than any other historical documents from the period by a factor of several times. In other words, if you can't believe the accuracy of the Biblical texts, then ALL other texts from that area and before are even less credible. Do you want to go there?
| mgod wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 19:52 |
Your description of how the Nag Hammadi texts "reject traditional Judaism" points to how little you know about Judaism itself, except perhaps (perhaps) some Orthodox view of some of the text. But the nice thing is there is no central Orthodoxy, no Pope to clear up the 30 centuries old debate about what it all means. Within the broader context of what Judaism actually is (vs. an Orthodox Christian sunday school mis-learning) all the texts fit nicely into the debate. |
Have you read any of the Nag Hammadi texts?? As far as first century Judaism and previous goes, Nag Hammadi does clearly reject and mock Judaism.
I am aware of the changes in Judaism, particularly in the first the centuries, then again in the middle ages. I'm also aware of the embrace of many of forms of Jewish mysticism that embraces Gnostic beliefs that contradict their ancient orthodox heritage.
| mgod wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 19:52 |
And by the way, not once have I said Carroll was authoritative, but your invention of this non-fact is revealing of odd twists in your mind on the topic. Better to stay out of it, even though you brought him into this thread. I never mentioned him - you brought him up as an attack on me. Carroll discredited? Not around here, not close. He is embraced warmly by a huge Episcopal church I visit on occasion. They and their ministers love and respect him. I suppose they're all heretics. Or Jews (actually, a few of them are). |
Embrace by one church means nothing. I'm sure I could find a church that embraces green men from Mars. He's widely rejected by historians for less than poor scholarship. Anyone who doesn't use primary sources or original languages or clearly distorts accepted history, or doesn't acknowledge critical views is not taken seriously by any historical community.
I brought up Carroll because you've cited him multiple times in previous arguments and have also defended him in this thread. Also, your most recent historical statements fall in line with his poor scholarship - which I highly suspect is your primary source. (Feel free to quote other sources if I'm incorrect.)
| mgod wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 19:52 |
I'm sorry Nathan but your insistence on discounting Pagels and Carroll and so many others and what they're saying only means that you can't understand Judaism and all this commentary is just wasted bandwidth. You plainly have a deep need for them to be wrong. But there's so many of them, its the state of modern scholarship and denying it doesn't make it go away |
Pagels has done some nice work. But her conclusions are wrong based on excluding evidence and conclusions built on levels of unprovable assumptions (particularly disproved assumptions of Walter Bauer, upon whom the whole new school rests). See Darrell Bock's acclaimed book, "The Missing Gospels" to see the friendly, yet critical arguments.
I dismiss Carroll because the academic world (of all beliefs) dimiss his work as less than poor.
And you're right there are many bitter people with an axe to grind against Christianity. However, the "new school" is not numerous. They are very much an American phenomenon with a few Germans in the mix (as far as the players go).
| mgod wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 19:52 |
It'd be like me making pronouncements about football from reading books about it by people who were authorities on baking. |
Which is exactly why I discredit your statements here, and previously about "Constantine's Sword" and it's erroneous attempt at re-writing history.
| mgod wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 19:52 |
Your basic view of all this is simply wrong, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding, one which is rooted in antiquated mis-perception. Just because this misunderstanding is still propagated doesn't make it true or authoritative. |
I know the teachings of first century Judaism. I know the teachings of Christianity. I know the teachings of the Gnostics. I've read them all. I've read scholarly works (from various camps) on them all.
I know that an ancient text must be interpreted first and foremost in it's original context. Interpreting (or re-interpreting) an ancient text from the context of a modern view misinterprets the original message. That is how the historical method works.
I know that you interpret ancient texts through your understanding of modern Judaism. Do what you like. But as far as historical method goes, an interpretation in the original context needs to be considered before any others. Modern interpretations need to be considered parallel with original ones.
All this brings us back to your point of the origin of Christianity and the ramifications thereof. Your original statements and attributions are not true - particularly if you read folks who take the historical method seriously.
Post by: PookyNMR on February 04, 2009, 11:09:46 PM
Post by: mgod on February 05, 2009, 08:50:37 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 20:05 |
I know the teachings of first century Judaism. |
You've claimed to have read about them, which is far from the same thing, and everything you've written on the subject tells us that you know nothing of their meaning. Which admittedly would be very difficult for an Orthodox contemporary Christian of virtually any stripe to understand as there is no Orthodoxy possible, if one actually understands it. Nonetheless, despite the difficulty many do, having done the interior work needed. You can smear Carroll all you want and abuse a church which welcomes him (one of the largest in the area btw, so your "Christianity" and your correctness is at odds with a few thousand over there, but what a surprise, huh?) - but we all get that this tells us nothing whatever about this particularly wonderful church, nor does it tell us anything at all about Carroll. But I'm sure that despite your superior place in the firmament, they would welcome you anyway, that being the basic purpose and meaning. On the other hand I'm not as sure that your church would welcome them or Carroll, or me for that matter. Rigidity has a way of barring the door, which understanding opens.
| PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 20:05 |
All this brings us back to your point of the origin of Christianity and the ramifications thereof. Your original statements and attributions are not true - particularly if you read folks who take the historical method seriously. |
Actually, it brings us back to YOUR point, I made none like it. This one is all yours. I attributed nothing, and said nothing about the origin of Christianity. And, in order to save me a lot of time and because you seem to be having a conversation with someone in your own head I'm now placing you on ignore. Nothing worse than a pedant who acts like they've got the whole subject covered and achieves it by discounting what they don't like. This is like conversing with Limbaugh. (In Olbermann's voice:) "You and I can have nothing further to say to each other sir." Quite an achievement. May I suggest that in addition to your alleged scholarship you pray over this matter?
| PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 20:05 |
I know the teachings of Christianity. |
Amazing, truly amazing. Never ends.
DS
PS: For anyone wondering what Nathan is so upset about here it is, and it has nothing to do with this thread:
http://www.amazon.com/Constantines-Sword-Church-Jews-History /dp/0395779278
Btw it might be interesting to note that I've never heard a Jewish person mention this book - I learned about from my former manager, a catholic woman, who attends the Episcopal church I mentioned.
Post by: PookyNMR on February 05, 2009, 10:41:33 PM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 05 February 2009 18:50 | ||
You've claimed to have read about them, which is far from the same thing, and everything you've written on the subject tells us that you know nothing of their meaning. |
You say so only because you interpret them from your modern and mystical viewpoint. I read what scholars - including Jewish scholars - say about them in their original context.
| mgod wrote on Thu, 05 February 2009 18:50 | ||
Actually, it brings us back to YOUR point, I made none like it. This one is all yours. I attributed nothing, and said nothing about the origin of Christianity. And, in order to save me a lot of time and because you seem to be having a conversation with someone in your own head I'm now placing you on ignore. Nothing worse than a pedant who acts like they've got the whole subject covered and achieves it by discounting what they don't like. This is like conversing with Limbaugh. (In Olbermann's voice:) "You and I can have nothing further to say to each other sir." Quite an achievement. May I suggest that in addition to your alleged scholarship you pray over this matter? |
Actually - aside from our conversations in previous threads where you have stated your thoughts, within this thread you make this statement about Christian origins which started this whole discussion:
| mgod wrote on Tue, 03 February 2009 11:30 |
and the world has been tediously and dangerously obsessed with us for 1700 years, ever since one of us was declared the Son of God by some European politicians. |
This is where I objected, because it is factually incorrect by a long stretch.
| mgod wrote on Thu, 05 February 2009 18:50 |
Nothing worse than a pedant who acts like they've got the whole subject covered and achieves it by discounting what they don't like. |
I'm sorry my friend, but with all due respect, this is like the 'pot calling the kettle black.'
| mgod wrote on Thu, 05 February 2009 18:50 |
PS: For anyone wondering what Nathan is so upset about here it is, and it has nothing to do with this thread: http://www.amazon.com/Constantines-Sword-Church-Jews-History /dp/0395779278 |
By all means look at the book and read the reviews. Even on this site there are accredited historians who write reviews strongly discrediting the authors work.
While you did not credit this book as the source of your information in this thread, you did so in other threads and the erroneous statement you made is a replica of your previous statements sourcing that book. And also in this thread, you did attempt to defend his work as credible.
But regardless of which book you used, the statement is still erroneous.
Post by: maxim on February 06, 2009, 12:55:44 AM
"Now where's Marshall McLuhan when you really need him?"
having his media massaged....
Post by: Barish on February 06, 2009, 07:43:04 AM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 04 February 2009 16:17 |
Frankly, I do not want to get into this as it is a no-win situation but I do want to deal with the whole :Chosen People" thing. Jews are "chosen" for one thing only, to deliver the message of monotheism to the world, "Hear O Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord is one." In return, we were promised that Avraham's line would survive. That is it, that is all. We are not "better"in the eyes of God nor do we claim to be. Further, the Torah tells us that we were not the first people asked to deliver this message, only the first to say yes. |
I sympathise how you feel, because I've been there but I am afraid there's more known about Jews' chosenness than that.
If you were promised that Abraham's line would survive, then it would have definitely applied to the Arabs as well, because the Jews are the descendants of Isaac and the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael. Two sons of Abraham from two different women. So your book would have certainly had a few word to say about this, and the survival of Arabs as well.
Which makes me see what your book says a bit different than how you see it.
I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on that.
Funny enough, I am neither Arab, nor Jewish, but I believe Abraham was a good man.
B.
Post by: Ashermusic on February 06, 2009, 12:02:43 PM
| Barish wrote on Fri, 06 February 2009 12:43 | ||
I sympathise how you feel, because I've been there but I am afraid there's more known about Jews' chosenness than that. If you were promised that Abraham's line would survive, then it would have definitely applied to the Arabs as well, because the Jews are the descendants of Isaac and the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael. Two sons of Abraham from two different women. So your book would have certainly had a few word to say about this, and the survival of Arabs as well. Which makes me see what your book says a bit different than how you see it. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on that. Funny enough, I am neither Arab, nor Jewish, but I believe Abraham was a good man. B. |
To say that the line will survive is not to say that every member/branch of the line will survive. And the Torah really does not talk much about Ishmael's line after he parts ways with Avraham AFAIR.
That said, it is a moot point. Ishmael's descendants are hardly in danger of not surviving as a line. And Israel has certainly never claimed its goal is to drive all the Arabs out of the Middle East or into the sea.
But I am not going to be dragged back into this. It is useless. Israel will continue to do what it deems necessary to survive and those of us who support them will continue to and those who do not, will not. Hearts and minds will not be won arguing in this forum.
Post by: Barish on February 06, 2009, 01:07:15 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Fri, 06 February 2009 17:02 |
To say that the line will survive is not to say that every member/branch of the line will survive. And the Torah really does not talk much about Ishmael's line after he parts ways with Avraham AFAIR. That said, it is a moot point. Ishmael's descendants are hardly in danger of not surviving as a line. And Israel has certainly never claimed its goal is to drive all the Arabs out of the Middle East or into the sea. But I am not going to be dragged back into this. It is useless. Israel will continue to do what it deems necessary to survive and those of us who support them will continue to and those who do not, will not. Hearts and minds will not be won arguing in this forum. |
Right... So you are saying that your stream IS THE ONE that will survive, and your book couldn't care less about the other stream, and obviously not counted in as a genuine line of Abraham's so it's alright if they end up in the gutter or whatever, but somehow you are not "chosen" over the other stream(s) per se.
Okay... I'm a bit chuckled by this, not one the most "chosen" Jews that I'm talking to here in terms of consistency in knowledge obviously, but you are right, the hearts and mind will not be won over a forum thread. No point in carrying on...
...plus there's always this danger of getting that Anti-semitic tag on my back if I dig it a bit too much. But I got my answer anyway...
Good day.
B.
Post by: organica on February 06, 2009, 01:34:27 PM
-this version is credited to Mother Teresa ;
People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies. Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you. Be honest and sincere anyway.
What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight. Create anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous. Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, will often be forgotten. Do good anyway.
Give the best you have, and it will never be enough. Give your best anyway.
In the final analysis, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.
Post by: YZ on February 06, 2009, 02:35:45 PM
| Barish wrote on Fri, 06 February 2009 16:07 |
Right... So you are saying that your stream IS THE ONE that will survive, and your book couldn't care less about the other stream, and obviously not counted in as a genuine line of Abraham's so it's alright if they end up in the gutter or whatever, but somehow you are not "chosen" over the other stream(s) per se. B. |
Hey Mahcem,
I did not read Jay's post that way... he said that:
| Quote: |
the Torah really does not talk much about Ishmael's line after he parts ways with Avraham |
and
| Quote: |
Ishmael's descendants are hardly in danger of not surviving as a line |
To me that reads as:
"the old testament does not say a lot about the descendants of Ishmael; that lineage has flourished and they probably will go on and on"
You interpretation of Jay's post seems quite skewed IMO.
[edited: mistakenly wrote "new testament" when the correct would have been "old testament"]
Post by: Barish on February 06, 2009, 05:23:16 PM
| YZ wrote on Fri, 06 February 2009 19:35 |
You interpretation of Jay's post seems quite skewed IMO. |
I don't think so.
I don't find Jay's description of how Torah outlines the Jews accurate enough, because he knows very well that their version of Torah has a bit more than that, and in "yeah God said this in Torah but he didn't actually mean it, he actually meant that" Talmuds, it's just that they don't help the case in today's argument.
It's the Jews who choose to not allow non-Jewish mix with them, and not vice versa, the reasons of which are known to everyone, as explained clearly in their Talmuds, so if the constants that they have made up for themselves are making it harder for their own stream to flourish then why should they put its cost on the other streams' tab?
They justify it by convincing themselves into the belief that God somehow promised it to them, because He owed them -allegedly after a wrestle challenge between god and David- so they have a licence to do it and they will get away with it.
They know it, we know it, but they pretend that it's not like that and expect us to believe and pronounce it, but if anyone says, "come on, you know it's not like the way you say it is", then one is Anti-Semitic and the end of discussion.
Tell you what... If that is Anti-Semitic, then being Semitic is Anti-non-Semitic, which should be just as awful crime as the other one by definition. How about that?
I could get into the nuts and bolts here but it wouldn't win any hearts or solve any of the problems we are having all around the world, as Jay put it, so I'll put this argument to rest from my point of view with this post, however I should note before I do it that, every action creates its own reaction, and if we look at things from this point of view, at least we can have the opportunity of seeing things in a different way.
We, as human beings, are capable of being a bit nicer to each other than we currently are, and I believe it's worth trying. But please, let's not insult each other's intelligence by hiding facts already known to the other party. It just doesn't work.
Have a good weekend.
B.
Post by: mgod on February 06, 2009, 05:43:14 PM
| Barish wrote on Fri, 06 February 2009 14:23 |
every action creates its own reaction, and if we look at things from this point of view, at least we can have the opportunity of seeing things in a different way. |
Logically that's inarguable but in this territory most people react to red even when they're looking at green, and so the reactions are almost always self-created and the causal responsibility of the person reacting, since they react to something in their own mind. And this holds true even if they are mis-educated, and taught that is green is actually called red. So in this silly instance, while someone may believe that they innocently react to this extremely ancient concept of Jews somehow being "chosen", what they are actually reacting to is how (and by whom) they've been taught about it. And the responsibility for getting past that is their own. But it might be worth recalling that this idea comes from a very old text that pre-dates most other western religions, i.e. dates to a time before other peoples made a choice.
Fwiw, as far as this non-mixing thing goes (which is not very far) I'm married to a Catholic woman and my daughter, raised more Jewish than not, goes to a Catholic high school run largely by excommunicated nuns (and I had to convince the wife this was the right place for her to go - she didn't want any Catholic influence, having grown up under it).
DS
PS - I have to add, since you've edited your post, that when you say "They" and "the Jews" I'd appreciate it if you'd point that thing somewhere else. No people are monolithic, and Jews especially not - the faith, such as it is, precludes it. You paint with a very wide rhetorical brush and its offensive and is leading us in a very particular direction. One cannot help how one was educated when one was young, but as adults we have some greater responsibility.
Post by: PookyNMR on February 06, 2009, 07:05:55 PM
| YZ wrote on Fri, 06 February 2009 12:35 |
"the new testament does not say a lot about the descendants of Ishmael; that lineage has flourished and they probably will go on and on" |
NT or OT?
If we're talking NT, then the chosen people story becomes fulfilled and culminates in peoples from every nation, tribe and language before the throne of God at the end of it all. So given faith in the messiah, all peoples will have the opportunity for everlasting relationship with God and see his just and righteous rule setting all things right and making all things new.
Post by: Barish on February 06, 2009, 07:21:31 PM
| mgod wrote on Fri, 06 February 2009 22:43 |
PS - I have to add, since you've edited your post, that when you say "They" and "the Jews" I'd appreciate it if you'd point that thing somewhere else. No people are monolithic, and Jews especially not - the faith, such as it is, precludes it. You paint with a very wide rhetorical brush and its offensive and is leading us in a very particular direction. One cannot help how one was educated when one was young, but as adults we have some greater responsibility. |
Dan,
Would you like me to refer to the Jews there as a race regardless of their beliefs, or a group of people who believe in a particular religion regardless of their ethnic background, or rather a group of people who try to keep their purity in an eugenist-like attempt by developing a made-to-purpose religion that does anything to prevent mixing? Ban of interfaith (actually, interrace) marriage? Shiksas? Discouraging conversion to Judaism?
M.
Post by: mgod on February 06, 2009, 08:01:51 PM
| Barish wrote on Fri, 06 February 2009 16:21 |
Dan, Would you like me to refer to the Jews there as a race regardless of their beliefs, or a group of people who believe in a particular religion regardless of their ethnic background, or rather a group of people who try to keep their purity in an eugenist-like attempt by developing a made-to-purpose religion that does anything to prevent mixing? Ban of interfaith (actually, interrace) marriage? Shiksas? Discouraging conversion to Judaism? M. |
I have absolutely no idea wtf you're talking about. Maybe its a language barrier. No one ever discouraged me from marrying who I married. But had anyone done so because she wasn't Jewish that would hardly have made them unique among people in the world who try to preserve religious or ethnic identity. Its a very common thing in all races and religions throughout the globe, and is delightfully becoming out of fashion. When I was very young in London my girlfriend was a Sikh from Kenya, and neither of my parents said a word. Other kids did (and it had to be hidden from her parents), but not my Jewish parents. You have some very strange stuff in your head.
Our friend the Dalia Lama discourages conversion to Buddhism. When you understand why that is, you might understand a little more.
DS
Post by: Larrchild on February 06, 2009, 08:09:23 PM
| Quote: |
excommunicated nuns |
Like Mary Tyler Moore in "Change of Habit".
Post by: mgod on February 06, 2009, 09:34:19 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Fri, 06 February 2009 17:09 | ||
Dan:
Like Mary Tyler Moore in "Change of Habit". |
He did it again!!!
No, not quite that hot.
DS
Post by: Larrchild on February 06, 2009, 10:22:34 PM
The Paramedics are upstairs in the firehouse, cooking Lasagna and watching the game and carrying on in a jovial manner, when suddenly.."DeeeeDooooo..Squad 51, Topic becoming too serious..", and I'm down the pole and into the EMT truck with my humor defibrillator and tackle box of drugs.
Looks like we saved another one.
My work is done.
Post by: mgod on February 06, 2009, 10:34:13 PM
Post by: maxim on February 06, 2009, 11:44:48 PM
"Would you like me to refer to the Jews..."
i would like you to NOT refer to "the jews", "the arabs", "the turks", "the women", "the gays", "the canadians" etcetera AT ALL
explain who it is that you refer to
exactly
you'll soon realise
there is no them
there's only us....
Post by: YZ on February 07, 2009, 01:07:04 AM
| PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 06 February 2009 22:05 | ||
NT or OT? |
OT, sorry. corrected on the original post you quoted above.
Post by: YZ on February 07, 2009, 01:18:43 AM
| Barish wrote on Fri, 06 February 2009 20:23 | ||
I don't think so. It's the Jews who choose to not allow non-Jewish mix with them, B. |
Wow.
Double wow.
I had a girlfriend 20 years ago whose parents forbade her to keep seeing me because I was Jewish and they did not want her 'mixing up with those people';
In many occasions I've heard similar stories, from Europe and the Americas, dating from the 1920s to last month; I did not hear from before the 1920s because I've never met anyone from before that era.
Greek and Russian Orthodox Christians don't like to mix, just like quite a few other religious, national, social and ethnic groups everywhere also do.
So stop singling out "the Jews".
Post by: YZ on February 07, 2009, 01:35:16 AM
| Barish wrote on Fri, 06 February 2009 20:23 |
being Semitic is Anti-non-Semitic, which should be just as awful crime as the other one by definition. How about that? B. |
Being European is being anti-non-European?
Being Caucasian is being anti-non-Caucasians?
Are you saying that it is a crime to be born in a Jewish family?
Your line of reasoning makes no sense.
And, while one cannot choose to be Semitic (or to cease being it), one can choose to (try to) be enlightened and cultured.
Post by: Barish on February 07, 2009, 03:59:17 AM
| YZ wrote on Sat, 07 February 2009 06:35 |
Are you saying that it is a crime to be born in a Jewish family? |
Talk about skewed points of view now. Where did you get that?
Certainly not.
What I'm saying is, every action creates its own reaction.
Do good, and get done good.
B.
Post by: Barish on February 07, 2009, 05:32:18 AM
| maxim wrote on Sat, 07 February 2009 04:44 |
mahcem wrote: "Would you like me to refer to the Jews..." i would like you to NOT refer to "the jews", "the arabs", "the turks", "the women", "the gays", "the canadians" etcetera AT ALL explain who it is that you refer to exactly you'll soon realise there is no them there's only us.... |
Yes Max, I see your point.
Thanks.
M.
Post by: mgod on February 07, 2009, 11:12:20 AM
http://middleeast.change.org/blog/view/israeli_elections_the _left_wins_the_blogosphere
DS
Post by: YZ on February 07, 2009, 03:24:45 PM
| Barish wrote on Sat, 07 February 2009 06:59 | ||
Talk about skewed points of view now. Where did you get that? |
From your own writing; you stated:
| Quote: |
then being Semitic is Anti-non-Semitic, which should be just as awful crime as the other one by definition. How about that? |
Since the term 'Semitic' was used in the context of 'Jewish' and you stated that 'being Semitic is anti-non-Semitic and this should be a crime', there is no other possible interpretation of your proposition: you propose to outlaw being Jewish.
But enough of that; your point of view has been made very clear: blame 'the Jews' for everything.
And don't assume responsibility for anything.
Post by: mgod on February 07, 2009, 04:30:53 PM
So she went to check it out. She went to the Western Wall and there he was, walking slowly up to the holy site.
She watched him pray and after about 45 minutes, when he turned to leave, using a cane and moving very slowly, she approached him for an interview.
'Pardon me, sir, I'm Rebecca Smith from CNN. What's your name?
'Morris Fishbeinstein,' he replied.
'Sir, how long have you been coming to the Western Wall and praying?'
'For about 60 years.'
'60 years! That's amazing! What do you pray for?'
'I pray for peace between the Christians, Jews and the Muslims.
'I pray for all the wars and all the hatred to stop.
'I pray for all our children to grow up safely as responsible adults, and to love their fellow man.'
'How do you feel after doing this for 60 years?'
'Like I'm talking to a fucking wall.'
Post by: Barish on February 07, 2009, 06:32:27 PM
Funny anecdote. Yeah, I share the same sentiments with the man, -how could I not?- but one thing that I can't help thinking is, although he sees no benefit in doing what he's been doing for 60 years, he keeps doing it.I think that's where our problem is. What we say and what we do don't match each other.
I saw a few different views in this thread which made me give it a better thinking. It won't solve the world's problems, but it may help me solve a few in my environment, which is something.
Thanks for participating.
B.
Post by: Larrchild on February 07, 2009, 07:24:20 PM
Post by: alvaro on August 10, 2009, 01:56:14 AM
Throughout its history, Israel has expanded not simply through some notion of "manifest destiny" but in pursuit of a buffer from Palestinian violence.
Post by: MDM, on August 10, 2009, 10:05:32 AM
I don't believe ANY civilian ever really likes going to war.. usually they are pushed into it.
http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q=rothschild+israel&am p;meta=&aq=f&oq=