BOAZ_David demonstrates why the is a Middle East problem, There are still to many Zealots who look to their holy books for a history lesson rather then reality. Very few a the fairly stories in the torah and the edited versions Qumran and old testament are true. Sure the biblical archeologist find evidence to support the torah fables but funny how the secularists don’t. In fact the actual evidence is that all these people are all the same they simply have different religions. If they stepped into the light and embraced secular world and stripped themselves of this religious mumbo jumbo then they could all live in the same country. The powers that be in both camps don't want this and the simply fact is the Jewish lobby in the US has been very successful in getting the US to veto any international move to put peace keepers in the area.

Kenny.. I detect a mild form of 'narrow mindedness' in your last post.
Mumbo Jumbo... fairy stories. Now this has allll the halmarks of objective analysis :)
Kenny.. whether you accept the Biblical accounts of various things or not, you ARE correct in suggesting that 'I' illustrate why there is a problem in the Middle East. AGREED.. I have a foundation for my life and principles that I live by. You on the other hand.. well.. do I need to say that much used phrase "make it up......".
But I'm not the problem, its the extremes on both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue.(if u want a secular understanding of it)

You need to come to grips with that reality. If u told the Palestinians OR the Religious Jews that all their religious history is mumbo jumbo and fairy tales they would probably strap YOU to the back of the next suicide bomber with the little sign attached to you "So.. u call that mumbo jumbo eh.. try THIS"

"are u trying to destroy my current purpose and meaning of life ???? (disagreeing with u :)"

Boaz, I may have deprived you of some fun, but you are certainly keeping up your end of the bargain by throwing confusion and muddle-headed wombat-isms over the fence. This flummoxed me completely:

"u may have tweaked to the fact that I view history in 2 major streams.
The Carnal/natural, and Salvation History."

So you too have a relativist view of truth? Only yours is extrinsically relative rather than intrinsically relative, right? You too "will interpret events in terms of those 2 views depending on the context and who my reader is." I suspect that you are closer to Lacan than you think.

Have a think about this excerpt below for a moment. It combines a couple of our themes - the relativity of truth, and the use of truth as a weapon. I won't tell you whose quote it is, just in case you haven't come across it before - although there are enough clues scattered about to make it simple to find.

"The important thing ...is that truth isn't outside power, or lacking in power: contrary to a myth whose history and functions would repay further study, truth isn't the reward of free spirits, the child of protracted solitude, nor the privilege of those who have succeeded in liberating themselves. Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint.... In other words, our institutions and schools of thought, our universities and charismatic leaders, our ministers our parents, our teachers, all of these collaborate to create a context in which something is established as "true." And think of truth as that which emerges only within certain sets of rules ... [f]or example, the rules of science say that we should define our concepts operationally, using specific measurement techniques. Studies of bone density, for example, must define it either as measurement of bone density of spine, the femur, the metacarpal or some other boney structure. But, since the density of these various bones is not highly correlated, different studies who use different bones will uncover "different truths." Truth emerges only within a structure of rules that control the language, the discourse. Truth presents itself as the product of discursive practices."

I'd be interested to hear from you which bits you disagree with.

P...
I'll have to work on that one. It will take me an hour to unravel all the gems from it. But at first glance I don't many bones to pick with the main ideas.

2 streams of history.

I 'believe' history is unfolding in a "Salvation" History mode. God is working out his purpose in the World, is sovereign and providential.
There is another way of comprehending history. Observing it as it is, and simply recording it without looking 'behind' the various events and personalities to some 'bigger' scheme.
If talk "only" in terms of the first one, I'll be written off as a loony :) I'd also show that my brain is well and truly loctited closed. I'm not suggestion 'relative' truth. The same truths and events can be seen in different ways. They are still true.
"The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in AD70" <=== historical fact
"...as Jesus prophesied" <=== salvation history.
"Christ died" <=== historical fact.
... for our sins" <=== salvation history.

Perhaps I should have used the term "2 understandings of history"

I always benefit from your criticisms. This is a good example :)

Regarding Paul's comments: I have supported a two-state solution including an independent state of Palestine alongside Israel for over 23 years. This was well before most of the Left came around to this view. Given this history, I take strong exception to being simplistically labelled as an anti-Palestinian "propagandist".

I am happy to provide a full copy of the conference paper to anyone who is interested. They can email me at Philip.Mendes@med.monash.edu.au

Philip

Phil.. I'd like to see your justification for your other paper

"There is no place for moral judgements in Australian social policy"

I'm afraid I took to that idea like a pitbull on a Chiwawa.
Were u saying 'No place for moral judgements full stop'? or only in Australian social policy ? if they exist outside social policy, why not IN it. ?
If they don't exist outside it .. why condemn the holocaust or the PLO struggle ?