Continued

The most accomplished philosophers held forth in the academies, the houses of wealthy patrons or the royal court—King Philip of Macedon set the standard when he engaged Aristotle as a tutor for his son, the future Alexander the Great—but others plied their trade in public, wandering from town to town and collected the odd coin in an outstretched bowl. Bearded, cloaked in a toga and holding a staff—the standard iconography of the working philosopher—they would deliver their oratory at the gates of a pagan temple, in the public baths or amid the bustle of the marketplace. Not unlike a standup comic, a philosopher had to work the crowd and cope with hecklers: “What, is a juggler coming on?” was one common taunt as reported by an ancient source. pp. 101-102”

Possibly monotheism won out because it was a religion of rule. The monarch could maintain that he (Most rulers were male.) had divine sanction. Constantine favoured Christianity and established what A. N. Wilson called the ‘first totalitarian state”.

Kirsch comments on this:

“As a ruthless campaigner and an expert intriguer, Constantine was perfectly willing and able to search out and punish anyone who challenged his political authority. Among his innovations, for example, was the establishment of the so-called agents in rebus, a corps of imperial courtiers who served as fixers, enforcers and informers. These “doers of things,” as the Latin phrase is rendered in literal English, functioned as the ancient equivalent of a secret police, and they came to be feared and loathed by the men and woman of all ranks and stations on whom they spied. The very existence of such apparatus of state security is what prompts biographer A. N. Wilson to characterize imperial Rome as “the first totalitarian state in history.”” [Paul: The Mind of the Apostle] p. 170

Dear David F.,

«Alternatives are continue the present situation or form two states»

Or three or four...

«Two ethnic nationalist states are worse than one ethnic nationalist state.»

Care to explain the logic?

Between the two evils, I think that if you must live in an ethnic nationalist state, then it is still better to live in such a state of your own ethnicity than in a state of another ethnicity.

However, what if you have three states? Two ethnic-nationalist states for those who like that lifestyle, which would probably keep fighting each other to the grave and beyond, plus one state where the peace-lovers can live!

«If the Israelis lost once that would be the end for Israel.»

Yes, if it's a case of total-loss. Israel did lose ground in 1973, but it recovered. Unlike the popular view, Israel can even withstand one or two nuclear bombs. It would be horrendous with fatalities in the 10,000's, but Israel would survive. Building standards in Israel are far higher than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in fact also far higher than in Australia.

Israel is very strong and currently has no death threats in its horizon from any Arab party. Israel's biggest threat is from Iran, but Iran is not Arab and will continue to seek Israel's destruction regardless of the arrangements between Israel and the Palestinians (it does not like the Sunni Palestinians either). Iran's regime simply can never forget or forgive that Israel was the Shah's best friend and helped him a lot.

«If the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean became a state for all its citizens your dire consequences might follow. However, they might not.»

And you expect my family to take this risk?

«I feel a single democratic state is the best alternative.»

We have just discussed the "single" part. Now why would "democratic" be the best? If people of different ethnicities who bitterly hate each other are forced to live side-by-side in the same state, then it would be best to have a dictator to keep the peace with a rod of iron.

Dear David F.,

«There was a spirit of tolerance in the ancient world for those who worshipped other gods. Gods were not jealous of the worship of other gods»

I think you confuse cause and effect.

Surely you do not seriously believe that the monotheist god, as opposed to the others, is jealous?

It's the people of the time who were not (or were less) jealous of each other - and as a result selected such gods to worship which appealed to them.

The disease in the Middle-East is ethnic nationalism. Religion is only the pretext and if they couldn't use it then they would find some other pretext for hating each other. The real reason is probably genetic/biological anyway and it might also be related to the scarcity of water in the region.

Dear David,

You wrote:

“Every one of your posts ignores that there were three refugee problems caused in 1947-1948:

1. Palestinian Arabs - mostly fleeing of their own volition
2. Palestinian Jews - forcibly expelled from Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria by the invading Transjordanian army
3. Jews fleeing Arab countries.”

We were discussing the happenings in 1948, and the Jewish expulsion from Arab countries came later.

You ignored another refugee problem. Arabs were expelled from their villages or killed by Jewish forces. There may have been more leaving because they were forced by Jews than by Arabs. It is not a case of good Jews and evil Arabs. Both sides have done wrong.

The expulsion of Jews from Arab countries was partially payback. In some cases the expulsion of Jews had another cause besides the partition of Palestine. While Iraq and Egypt were occupied by the British, some Jews served British interests. When the states became independent they did not want those who had served the colonial powers especially if they were Jews.

The State of Israel could make an offer to the Arab states that Israel would take in the Arabs who left in return for the Arab states taking back the Jews who were expelled. I doubt that will happen.

It is part of Zionist ideology to persuade Jews to come to Israel. It is not part of Arab ideology to persuade Arabs from other countries to come to theirs. In comparing the Israeli welcome to Jews with the Arabs in refugee camps you are comparing apples and oranges.

I was told I should go to Israel by antisemites and Zionists. I resent being told that I should leave the country in which I live. I wouldn’t mind seeing Israel, but there are other places I would rather see first.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Neither of us can affect the decisions made. No option is good. I gave my opinion of what is least bad.

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, ...

Dear David F.,

«Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, ...»

Yes, there is value in sticking to one god rather than constantly changing gods every time when the going gets rough in order to avoid the crisis - some people need this discipline and it tells about human weakness rather than about God.

Of course, once religion is hijacked by the state and its techniques are turned around to serve nationalism rather than God, there is no end to the ensuing evil.

#davidf

You make the following claim:

"The expulsion of Jews from Arab countries was partially payback. In some cases the expulsion of Jews had another cause besides the partition of Palestine. While Iraq and Egypt were occupied by the British, some Jews served British interests. When the states became independent they did not want those who had served the colonial powers especially if they were Jews."

I have been unable to find any authority to support your claim.

I would appreciate it if you could refer me to the source you are relying on to make this statement.