Sganot appeals to 'law', and importantly to the Ehud Barak accord which (to quote Sganot) "offered 97% of what Palestinians were asking for"

Now.. do we all notice how Strewn distorts this ? Lets get the Facts

1/ 97% of.......What Arafat was asking for.

2/ Strewn then grumbles "but this is like 20% of Palestine"

Do we now actually SEE why I propose the ethnic dispersal solution ?

Strewn does not see any place for Israel AT ALL. Hence the futility of arguing on the basis that Sganot and others appear to be doing. i.e. 'International Law/UN etc'.

KEITH You were quite right, I was bring the Old Testament to bear on the subject and speaking from the viewpoint of 'Divine Revelation'.... so, you will notice I hope, that in my last post, I argued purely from History and proven track record:)

You can have it either way a) 'Divine Right' or...b) 'Military Might'.

If one takes "b" by itself, it will end in disaster,-no philosophical/Theological basis. Only "b" backed up by "a" will give the correct mix for Israelis.

SCOUT I am-> "Conservative/Evangelical/Protestant/Christian annnnd Fundamentalist" (in the sense of accepting scripture as from God, correctly interpreted based on context and culture)

I am NOT an advocate of 'free market capitalism' as you say.

How many posts do I have to make where I claim 'unrestrained capitalism' is as bankrupt as 'unrestrained socialism' before it sinks into your noggin ?

My support for Israel is theological on the one hand and practical on the other. But I don't for a moment believe that what 'we' do will have an iota of impact on either hastening or delaying the 2nd coming of our Lord.

Sganot, you are looking in the wrong place, seeking to establish Israel on the higher moral ground. The new testament says "All....have sinned....and fall short of the Glory of G-D.....
BUT.. (the next verse says):

...are justified freely by his GRACE through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."Rom3.23/4

Regarding "The Law".. miss by an inch or a mile, you miss. Hence Pauls encouraging verse above. "But....

While the Western press and this website is awash with stories, real and exaggerated, about 'Islamic fundamentalists', insufficient mention is made about christian fundamentalists, who, with their vast resources and close links with the current American administration, are a potentially more menacing threat than their Muslim counterparts.

The extreme christian posters to this forum exemplify this menace by consistently preaching anti-Palestinian dogma, without a critical look at Zionism.

According to newspaper reports more than a third of Americans are associated with one or the other Christian fundamentalist outfit, most of which are fiercely anti-communist, anti-Muslim and are passionate advocates of free-market capitalism, global American hegemony and the myth of the civilizing mission of white America.

The same is happening here in Australia - witness Hillsong which is actively supported by the federal government.

In recent years, these fundamentalist groups have been engaged in aggressive missionary work in other countries as well, including in the so-called 'Third World'.

Fired by a passionate hatred for other religions, which they dismiss as 'false' and even 'Satanic'(such as Coach has done frequently on OLO), they are today among the most well-funded missionary groups in large parts of Asia and Africa.

Crusading for Christ, these fundamentalist groups are not simply out fishing for souls. Rather, for them Christianity is only part of the agenda, which also includes aggressively promoting American and Zionist interests. Today, these groups preach not only Christ but also Pax Americana and even American-led imperialist wars, which they bless as holy causes to usher in the final arrival of Jesus.

Boaz - answer one single straight forward question, please. Your candour will be appreciated.

Do you believe in the second coming of christ?

Scout

I too share your concerns about all forms of fundamemtalist religion whether Christian or Muslim. Both groups have a biblically inspired belief belief that only they will receiver favours from the deity. Hence both wish to convert others. Judaism does not hold this view.

In Australia where religion was always suspect as being part of the establishment these extreme views never gained hold and Jews (who were selected by British judges for the first fleet) became part of the establishment. My ancestors are Jews who came here (of their own volition) over 100 years ago. I am sure Muslims (who first arrived in the colonial days) will for the most part settle into the Australian mould, in fact they are already become valued citizens.

My family´s very liberal practice of Judaism has evolved into a form of which my great-great grandparents would not have approved and I am sure Muslims will do the same.

The support of Israel by the west however comes because Israel has a Westminster style government and legal system and Israel maintains a western culture. The majority of Israelis are not religious and the extremists keep largely keep to themselves. It has nothing to do with religion and no Jewish missionaries exist to push others into their faith. The suicide bombers in western lands and the preaching of hatred by a small minority of Imans and of course Al Qaida has strengthened the western view.

You are incorrect in saying that "the one fact that remains is that Palestinians were forced off their land by Zionists under the guise of religion." Jews arrived in Israel largely for the purposes of survival. They came from both Europe and from Arab lands. They needed a place where they could live in peace. Israel had a historic association and land could be legally purchased there.

Hatred came, some would allege principally from the Arab side and terrible things were done. An easy case can be made for both sides.

When the Irish bog farmers fled they were fleeing the British aristocracy who owned the farms.

Strangely when they came to Australia we didn't lock them up and allowed them to foster their catholic violence and hatred against protestants - a state that existed even in 1960 when I was sent to coventry in my small country town because I refused to throw rocks at the catholics and demonise them.

I was only 7 years old and the families were the relatives of the kids I had gone to school with for the previous 2 years.

That is partly why I am an atheist. But the situation in Palestine is now a catastrophe. Just how many slaughtered Palestinians will it take to be enough for the capture of one soldier?
Another 43, or 1003 or 20003 - come on what is the safety of one Israeli soldier worth in a country that treated a boy who shot himself in Iraq like a national hero even though they couldn't be bothered reading his name tag in the body bag?

For this one Australian soldier about 100,000 Iraqis have died. Is he worth it? I was talking to an Iraqi family last night with relatives still in Iraq.

They don't think so. So come on, someone tell me how many dead Palestinians there need to be - what is the life of one soldier worth to the warmongers?

logic: In admitting a concern about "all forms of fundamentalist religion whether Christian or Muslim", a concern I share, why do you omit Jewish fundamentalism? Here's a quote from an interview by Amos Oz with an Israeli settler: "Leibowitz is right. We are Judeo-Nazis, and why not?...I am willing to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don't care. And I don't mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg trial...What you lot don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet...True it could have been finished in 1948..." Logic, note what he said about 1948 - "the dirty work of Zionism". That's the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people which many Israelis, including current government ministers wish to see continue. And all this in the name of Jews everywhere, which is where you come in. The crime of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine that began in 48, was resumed in 67, and is proceeding more softly softly today was/has been and is carried out in YOUR name. If I were you I'd want to differentiate myself from it. In addition, your portrayal of Israel as some kind of benign Westminster style democracy leaves out the gerrymander that enabled it (the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians in 48) and its underlying apartheid legislation mentioned by me in an earlier post. Displaced European Jews may well have needed a refuge after 45, but the Zionist movement did its best to ensure that they did NOT go to their preferred refuges of the UK or USA, but to Israel. Check out Yosef Grodzinsky's 'In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The story of Jews in DP Camps & their forced role in the founding of Israel'.

Strewth

I did not omit Jewish fundamentalism. I quote from my own letter.

"The majority of Israelis are not religious and the extremists keep largely keep to themselves. It has nothing to do with religion and no Jewish missionaries exist to push others into their faith."

Extremist = Fundamentalist

I offered an olive branch and you refused it. Would you be willing to lay your cards on the table and tell us all something about yourself.

Marilyn Shepherd

"When the Irish bog farmers came to Australia ..... we didn't lock them up and allowed them to foster their catholic violence and hatred against protestants"

Australia took care of the Irish who fled. Exactly. But the other Arab administrations did not take care of the Palestinians who fled - look at the situation in Lebanon. Are the Palestinians not locked up there? I was horrified with the hatred a Lebanese colleage held for the poor Palestinians there. That is a large part of the problem.

Also Ireland was invaded by English armies who took over the land. I hope that you are not suggesting that the poverty stricken Jews who arrived in Palestine under either the Turkish or English administration before partition were actually invading and taking land forcefully with the aid of armies!