The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Israel and the land > Comments

Israel and the land : Comments

By Babu Ranganathan, published 3/8/2006

A biblical perspective: Zionism is fuelling the building and expansion of illegal Israeli settlements on Arab land.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
It is naive to the extreme to assume that simply returning to pre-1967 borders will stop the attacks on Israel.

Considering many of the neighbouring countries have categorically stated they want Israel wiped off the map, the notion of giving back land is the opposite of a solution.

Did withdrawal from Gaza stop anything? Did withdrawal from Lebanon? The answer is clearly no. All these withdrawal's did was give Israel's enemies more places to attack Israel from.

Forcing a return to pre-1967 boundaries essentially gives the Arab world a great encouragement. That is, that they are allowed to attack Israel and if they don't succeed, then they will not lose their land or sovereignty.
Posted by Alan Grey, Thursday, 3 August 2006 10:00:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could not agree more Alan. I can only accept the authors description of himself as an evangelical Christian although I believe he is naive. The author also ignores many other old and new testament passages while dismissing the book of Revelation as 'symbolic'. The book does not appear to have straight forward application like the bulk of Scripture but that should not lead believers to dismiss it as purely symbolic. Much of the book of Daniel is consistent with the book of Revelation.

Try telling infidels and unbelievers who have lost family members in many different parts of the world that if Israel was to return to pre 1967 borders that the militant Islam cause would then become happy chappy's. This is wishfull thinking at best.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 3 August 2006 11:38:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article contains many factual errors.

1. God promised His people (Israel) the land from the river Nile (Egypt) to the Euphrates river (today Iraq).

2. Palestine was a non-country until a few decades. Original Palestinians are non-Arabs.

3. This is a religious war that cannot be resolved by political or geographical means.

4. Peace for Israel is to simply be left alone and recognised as a legitimate country. To the Arabs peace means to eliminate Israel from what they consider their land.

5. The book of revelations was written around 95 AD well after the destruction of the temple.

6. The end time’s Biblical prophecies did not end in 70 AD. They are still being fulfilled today.

7. Jews are the original land owners and the only people who have spoken the same language, and followed the same religion for thousands of years.

8. Islam is not a biblical religion as much as they like it to be and often refer. It is a false religion originated in a different land with different people and motives.

9. The elimination of Israel - as wished by Islam - will not end their conflict with the West. It will only be one victory; a mere moral stepping stone to world domination.

10. The enemy of Islam is any one who does not recognise them as the only true religion and believe in their god Allah and his prophet Mohammad. That’s the entire non-Moslem worldwide populations.
Posted by coach, Thursday, 3 August 2006 11:39:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘However, the issue now is no longer so much about self-defence’, says the author.

The situation in the Middle East has always (as the author admits re land occupation) been and always will be about the defence of Israel or about the aggression of surrounding Arab states hostile to Israel, if you wish, and the curse of religion.

Forget the bible class and fundamentalist Christians in America. Neither of these has a jot to do with Israel defending itself from Islamic Arabs sworn to wipe Israel off the map. Most of us aren’t interested in, nor do we care about biblical ‘rights’ of occupation and ancient history. This is about hatred and killing in the 21st century. Religion is at the root of all conflict in the Middle East; and what biblical stories tell or do not tell is the very last thing in the world to be talking about in looking for ways of stopping the conflict.

There is probably little difference between a Muslim zealot and a Jewish zealot apart from the fact that Israeli zealots are under control; Muslims zealots are not. Hezbollah is being allowed to do as it pleases by the Lebanese government.

The author claims that: ‘Most Palestinians now will agree to Israel’s right to exist.’ But, is that true? Can a people that elect Hamas terrorists to government really accept Israel’s right to exist?

The author also claims that ‘most Palestinians if Israel simply gets out the West Bank’ will do the right thing. Again. How can he be sure of that? Not so long ago we witnessed Israeli against Israeli in the ejection of bull headed ‘settlers’ from Palestinian land only to see the Palestinians destroy buildings they could have used and continue with their hatred of Israel.

Babu Ranganathan’s article is interesting, but offers absolutely no confidence or comfort to people looking for a cessation of hostilities in the Middle East. In fact, the less said about religion, the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc., the better. Religion is the root of all evil in the Middle East.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 3 August 2006 12:19:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A timely article Babu. And don't let the nit pickers get under your skin. That is just standard operating procedure of the zionistas to somehow imply that minor errors of dates etc render the whole argument invalid.

The real point in this debate is this whole issue of righting a 2000 year old wrong with another wrong. So if it is OK for Jews then why not the Celts? After all, we were raided for centuries by Vikings and were invaded and subjugated by a man of viking stock called William the Bastard whose family had taken over modern day Normandy in France.

This band of thugs took all the lands of England, by "right of conquest" is how it is described, and applied specific measures to dispossess and enslave the celtic farmers. These included laws that banned marriage of celtic women to celtic men and this forced young couples to leave their district so they could maintain the story that they had been married before the laws came into effect. But this forced migration severed the celts connection with their lands and enabled the Norman equivalent of Terra Nullis to prevail and thereby cede the lands to the Crown by default and subsequent redistribution to the invaders.

The point of this is that if a 2000 year old wrong can be used to justify the taking of land by force as the zionistas have done, then when can all the Celtic peoples of Australia, the US, Canada, NZ and the UK have UN sanction to invade Norway and Sweden, to extract compensation for the excesses of the Norman conquest and Viking invasions?
Posted by Perseus, Thursday, 3 August 2006 12:23:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Babu Ranganathan your piece of fiction highlights many religious wrong doings, Religion is the result of mental activity, that was crude ,chaotic and confused, improperly thought out, created out of fancy, invented and assumed as true by a legal fiction.
You are right about the Zionists they are the root of all the hatred in the Middle East,were they not the terrorists fighting the British, Israel had refused time and time again to abide by the rules of the United Nations, those zionist who support the creation of a Israeli Empire in the Middle East also rely on fiction or the manufactured truth,
The creator of the Universe cant be the God invented by Solomon, because that God is quoted as having said, the promised land belongs to the Jews, that God must be a antichrist disguised as God, God the one that created all creatures great and small is not involved ' loving your your neighbour is what is important now when you go to Israel you find the only people talking about destroying religious centres are the Jews , they claim God [ the antichrist]has ordained them to be the leaders of the world, it is this mindset that creates all the hatred, only an antichrist would bless the weapons of war, only a antichrist would ask you to knock down a Mosque [community meeting place] to build a Temple [community meeting place ] it would seem Babu worships the same invented God,
Zabu has given all those religious zionist fanatics on this site a lot of rope lets see what they do with it, mangotree.
Posted by mangotreeone1, Thursday, 3 August 2006 12:58:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please

Jews did not take the land allocated to it by the UN resolution. The land was bought by a number of Jews who worked hard to restore it to productivity. Not all the Arab popultation agreed with their right to purchase but it was legal.

Israel did occupy land to secure security after a war initiated by hostile nations. The most hostile of all at the time Egypt after losing the war and replacing the dicator Nasser has made peace with Israel their land was returned and this peace has been honoured by both sides. This demonstrates the trustworthyness of Israel.

The bit about the Kzars is nonsense. DNA analasys has shown it not to be true. it was only ever a hair brained theory anyway. There is a Middle Eastern DNA amongst most Ashkenazi Jews but this is irrelevent to this issue anyway.

And around half of the Israeli Jews are Sephardic (Middle Eastern).

Still never let facts get in the way of a good story.

The Forum should not be a place for Mickey Mouse Articles like this.
Posted by logic, Thursday, 3 August 2006 1:21:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two points
There is no supernatural being doing any land giving.
The religious nutters on all three sides keep this going and the rest are caught in the middle.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 3 August 2006 1:36:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all the Israeli mouthpieces and I see most have arrived with one notable exception. Where are you Inshallah 2bob?

This piece suggests the solution to the mid east calamity.

The proof is there for all to see.

Egypt and Jordan. Israel returned to it's pre '67 borders in both cases and peace treaties were signed. Neither Jordan nor Egypt have any beligerence towards nor attack Israel. (Even though Jordan relinquished claims to the West Bank that territory was put aside by the UN for the Palestinian state in the same Declaration which saw the creation of Israel). Previously like the Israelis they both wished the destruction and removal of people from their midst. The leaders of all three countries clearly stated these aims. Israel like Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians has never recanted those leaders statements. Today Israel occupies Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian Land. And where is the violence...Lebanon and Palestine and if the Israeli's have their way in the current escallation, Syria will enter the strife.

Since violence from both sides over the last 56 years has resulted in just more violence and since where clearly defined borders have in fact resulted in peaceful co-existance...why wouldn't the author's view prevail?

Besides repeating the same solution to the same problem which creates the same results is a sure sign of deraingement...not only of the participants but also of those who support such repetitive failures.

Time to try something new, boys and girls.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 3 August 2006 4:30:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
if god promise land for israel, why god did'nt put they all in heaven before. I think it can make earth in peace, no children and women killed.
Posted by peacemaker, Thursday, 3 August 2006 5:38:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A timely article and some measured responses so far.

"...repeating the same solution to the same problem which creates the same results is a sure sign of derangement...not only of the participants but also of those who support such repetitive failures."

Well said, Keith & Kenny; together you pretty much sum it up.

Coach - 'end time' is something only nutters believe.
Leigh - we've tried everything else. "Time to try something new, boys and girls."
Posted by bennie, Thursday, 3 August 2006 7:45:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despite the claims of terrorist organizations, Israel's current two-front war is not just about land. After all, Hezbollah and Hamas fired rockets from Lebanon and Gaza well after Israel had withdrawn from both places.

Indeed, if sacred Arab ground were the driving force of the Middle East crisis, then surely Syria itself would now be willing to risk a shooting war over the all important Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Meanwhile, Cairo is still perhaps the nexus of virulent Arab anti-Semitism, even though Israel finished handing over Sinai to Egypt in 1982.

The world prayed that after the unilateral departure of Israel from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005, and the recent elections in Beirut and the West Bank, it was witnessing an incremental evolution toward a lasting peace between rational democratic states.

Gradually, Israel was returning to its 1967 borders. In response, gradually, it was hoped, Israel's Arab neighbors would vote into office reasonable statesmen who would renounce terror and get on with the business of crafting workable economies and governments. But all that optimism presupposed a radical change in the Middle Eastern mentality. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened.

So, if the most recent war in Lebanon and Gaza is not about land per se, then whence arises the elemental desire to destroy Israel?

The answer boils down to Islamists feeling their reputation is at stake. Words like "honor" and "pride" are evoked — in the sense that they need to be regained — by every insecure radical in the Islamic world, from al-Qaida's Osama bin Laden to Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Fist-shaking crowds, fiery mullahs and terrorists all boast of not giving an inch to infidels, and of the restoration of the now sullied honor of the Islamic people.

Why their hurt?

For about the last half-century, globalization has passed most of the recalcitrant Middle East by — economically, socially and politically. The result is that there are now few inventions and little science emanating from the Islamic world — but a great deal of poverty, tyranny and violence. And rather than make the necessary structural changes
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 3 August 2006 7:51:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
that might end cultural impediments to progress and modernity — such as tribalism, patriarchy, gender apartheid, polygamy, autocracy, statism and fundamentalism — too many have preferred the reactionary past and the cult of victimization.

At one time or another, they've welcomed all the bankrupt ideologies that traditionally blame others for prior self-induced failure: fascism, communism, Baathism, Pan-Arabism and, most recently, Islamic fundamentalism.

When there is high unemployment, corruption, zero economic growth, endemic illiteracy and no freedom, mullahs, dictators and jihadists of the Middle East always seem to fault the ancient colonial power — Britain, France or Italy (though rarely Islamic Turkey) — that supposedly set them back over a century ago. Or they try blaming the omnipotent United States whose oilmen developed the riches of the Gulf and whose military has saved Muslims from Kosovo to Kuwait.

But above all, for decades leaders like Gamal Nasser, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden have scapegoated tiny Israel.

It is the closest Western bogeyman, and its Holocaust survivors transformed a part of desert into a technologically sophisticated Western state. Israel's astounding success is a constant irritant to many nearby Muslims, representing the infidel's ability to fashion a prosperous Middle Eastern society without oil revenues under democratic auspices.

Victimization turns out to be the real creed of the Middle East, uniting disparate Shiites, Sunnis, dictators, theocrats and terrorists. "They did it to us" offers an easy explanation of why Islamic states are now weak and offer little hope to millions of their poor, who, ironically, emigrate to the much pilloried West by the millions.

American cash aid, Israeli concessions, windfall petrol profits and, most of all, appeasement of radical Islamists can do nothing to alleviate these perceived grievances.

Instead, there will be no peace in the general Middle East until Iranianns, Arabs have true constitutional government, free institutions, open markets and the rule of law. Without these reforms, they will continue to fail, seeking easy refuge in the shreds of mythical ancestral honor — and this pathetic neurosis of blaming nearby Israel for the loss of it. VD Hanson
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 3 August 2006 7:55:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Everybody is using 2000 year old thinking to solve present day problems. Most people, 2000 years ago, couldn't even read or write - and the ones that could did not have the 2000 years worth of experience humanity has since gained.

Notions of "sharing" rather than notions of "possession" are where the solutions lie. Unfortunately, there are still people in the world (in all countries) who believe that (obviously a la Abraham)sacrificing the lives of their children (which God does not want by the way)is much more acceptable than sacrificing ideas of possessing property and land.

According to Save the Children - more than 45% of victims in this current clash are children.
http://www.savethechildren.net/alliance/what_we_do/emergency_new/middleeast.html
(open the "emergency statement" word document on the above link).

These ideas will never bring peace. Humanity has learned so much in the last 2000 years - but then again, we haven't come very far at all - even though we have witnessed over and over again the most terrible atrocities. History doesn't repeat itself - its people who repeat themselves.

Please, every one, just give up the ghosts.
Posted by K£vin, Thursday, 3 August 2006 9:09:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To everyone
just a few points.

1) There are extremists on both sides that have done incalculable harm to innocent civilians on both sides. To keep going on & on about how this side is where all the goodies are & on that side are the badies is infantile.

You cannot just dismiss civilian deaths your side has caused as collateral damage & civilian deaths the other side has caused as a great evil. This is merely looking at the world through prejudice & hatred. Do you really think that either of those will ever end this war?

Now to some of the points of coachie's wierd post.

1. God promised His people (Israel) the land from the river Nile (Egypt) to the Euphrates river (today Iraq). [way to go coachie. If more people talked like this then the whole Arab world would be paranoid & rightly so.]

2. Original Palestinians are non-Arabs. I stand amazed. You're absolutely correct. According to DNA tests both Palestinians & Israelis are Caananites. Yep, that's right people. They both have a hereditary right to the land.

To me that makes the struggle more poiniant. The equivalent of two brothers who dispise each other. Tragic.
Posted by Bosk, Thursday, 3 August 2006 10:50:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Bosk - there is only one way to irradiacate the mark of Cain - and that is to stop repeating the behaviour of Cain - all peoples are brothers and sisters - equal in ths sight of God.
Posted by K£vin, Thursday, 3 August 2006 11:00:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author finds himself ranting in this article. Lets face it, the current situation that faces Israel and Lebanon is mainly brought about by Muslim “madness”. These uncivilised souls think they can antagonise and intimidate the rest of the world. It is the terrorist organisation “Hezbollah” that is launching bombs from the rooftops of unit complexes which houses their own people. A justified, legitimate military response is being undertaken by Israel. They must protect themselves, they are surrounded by barbarians.

The tripe that is this article, attempts to establish an historical context for the perceived Israeli occupation based on a bizarre religious diatribe of the Jewish religion. I am not a Jew but I have enough sense that the lifestyle proposed by most of the Muslim world is one that I would never wish to live in. Israel presents a sense of sanity in a region that is marred with horror. Any dominant Muslim community needs to shut their mouth when it comes to talking about human rights abuses. Your religion and culture is one big human rights violation.
Posted by NoSoupForYou, Thursday, 3 August 2006 11:33:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just listened to ABC Radio (yes, I know, leftist twaddle .. unlike the Big Brother Corporation, or BBC) Late Night Live, and it was pointed out that Hezbollah is the 'natural enemy' of Al Queda, as they come from different sides of the Islamic spectrum. So in trying to suppress Hezbolla all the Zionists and those of Sam are doing is actually smoothing the way for a much worse enemy than Hezbollah to come in.

What is the old Arabic saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend'? Well Israel is creating a rod for its own back that will smite the West by its attacks on Hezbollah.

And before someone says that Hezbollah started this, how many Lebanese, Jordanians and Palestinians are currently being held in Israeli gaols? Many of whom were 'kidnapped' from outside of Israeli territory. If you doubt that Israel is willing to do this just think of Mordecai Vanunu, who was kidnapped for daring to tell the world about Israels nuclear weapons program. Vanunu was kidnapped from Italian territory, so by Israeli logic the Italian government would have the right to bombard Israel until he was released.....
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 3 August 2006 11:54:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hamlet I have no doubt that Israel are committing terrible acts against Islamic people in their region. These acts are also committed by Islamic people in the way of suicide bombings. One has to look at the broader context though. The Muslim population do not see that a state or territory is at war but they see that their whole religion and “nutty” way of life is being threatened. They band together under the banner of Islam. Israel are just trying to survive under this pressure.

I think the West needs to be a little stronger in its handling and control of the Islamic issue. Our civility and humanity will be the downfall of us as our Muslim friends do not speak this language. Why or why do we pander to them… I say be strong in our pursuit of tolerance, equality and the rule of law but be mindful that there are elements out there who do not play the same game.
Posted by NoSoupForYou, Friday, 4 August 2006 12:11:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is not ill-intentioned, but totally in-credible.

The only place where ripping wombs of pregnant women by a conquering army was ever mentioned, is the bible. It is totally baseless, ridiculous, and therefore places a big question-mark on where Babu got his other facts on which he bases this article.

I also wish it was as easy as Babu naively suggests to achieve peace in the middle east. As Babu said:

"Most Palestinians will stop resistance if Israel simply gets out of the West Bank."

- correct, but what about the others?
How would it help Israel if "only 5%" continue the "resistance" (resistance to what, anyway?)? would it be comforting for Israelis to say: "yes, we are being bombed by rockets, we constantly get suicide bombers on our buses, schools, restaurants, etc., but never mind, it is committed by only a small fraction and most Palestinians actually like us"?

Israel, as a democracy, can more or less curb its extremists (yes, with difficulties, but Ulmert was elected to do just that and had he not been occupied in Lebanon he would be continuing his efforts to gradually evacuate the West Bank settlers), but Palestinians were never able to do so. Arafat could not impose his will on Hamas and even when Hamas itself, decided to lick its wounds and have a temporary cease fire, it was unable to enforce it on the Islamic Jihad organization: there always appears a more violent terrorist group, and the violent keep subjugating the ordinary, peace-loving civilians.

Hamlet,

You don't get to choose your enemies: Al Qaeda never attacked Israel (except with words) - Hezbullah did. It is BTW silly to stack together Israel and the U.S.A, as each has their own separate situation and interests.

I agree that the capture of Vanunu was a big mistake: after all, he helped Israel enhancing its deterrence and should have received a secret medal rather than tried as a traitor. The Arabs long-term in Israeli prisons, however, were not sentenced for treason, but mainly for murder, attempted murder and causing grievous bodily harm.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 4 August 2006 1:30:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ignorance by the non religous or fundamentalist athiest might ease their conscience but the blood on the hands of the non religous Chinese and Commnunist not to mention the murder of the unborn far outweigh all religous astrocities. Maybe the Man who preached forgiveness and loving your enemies is responsible for more saved lives than any other philosophy
Posted by runner, Friday, 4 August 2006 4:48:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Babu,

You ain't a evangelical or christian. You are a biased islamic ...
You mentioned the atrocities on Arabs. You forgot the atrocities on Jews. Jews were killed in many arab countries in 1947. They fled only to a safe place called Israel.

Why do you lie?

Anil
Posted by Anil, Friday, 4 August 2006 3:58:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Babu,

You ain't a evangelical or christian. You are a biased islamic ...
You mentioned the atrocities on Arabs. You forgot the atrocities on Jews. Jews were killed in many arab countries in 1947. They fled only to a safe place called Israel.

Why do you lie?
Posted by Anil, Friday, 4 August 2006 3:58:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps one should teach Bombu a History lesson:

1. Long long back, Jews used to live in Israel (defeated Cannanites in War)

2. Babylonians, Romans captured Israel - Jews fled to other countries/got killed and some remained -- 70 A.D

3. Arabs invaded and occupied Israel -- upto 1900s

4. Jews fought and re-gained Israel -- 1947

5. There were 4 Arab-Israel wars b/w 1947 - 1980.. Each time Jews won.

So Bombu

1) If a War is condemned, you should condemn all the above involved.
2) If one gains rights by war - then Jews have the legal authority over Israel as they won the wars.
3) If the people who were occupied by the invaders must claim the land, then Jews are the sole people who gain that right as there are no cannanites now.

In either way , you see you get surprised by the astonishing truth.

So bombu wake u
Posted by Darwin1, Friday, 4 August 2006 7:05:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Israel has re invaded both southern Lebanon and the Gaza, they are not even trying to get out of the west bank and the Golan Heights rarely gets mentioned.

If someone set up a home in my back yard I would not accept it, why should the Palestinians and Lebanese accept Israeli's in theirs?

Remember how we here in Australia whined about a few refugees who might set up in our back yards? It didn't happen and was never going to - but we would not tolerate it if they did.

Why does Israel have the right to keep stealing arab land?
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Friday, 4 August 2006 8:07:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn,

That's the same thing Jews are facing.. Israel is their home, their garden. Why do Arabs come and claim their land?

It's not rocket science to understand?
Posted by Websters, Friday, 4 August 2006 8:22:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree 100% with the article.

Israel's right to defend itself? I'm really sick of hearing this propaganda! It's just an excuse. Israel is an aggressor. It does not defend, it attacks.

I'm also sick of hearing that Islam is inherently evil and all Muslims wants to destroy the non muslim world! Perfectly orchestrated propaganda. Kinda reminds me of Nazi Germany when the Jews were constructed as sub-human by those who planned to mass exterminate them.

Israel's actions can never be justified. Not just because there's proof that their claim to land is false but on the grounds that they have wrongfully stolen land from the Palestinians, have violated that many UN resolutions and laws, and have continuously discriminated against both Arab Israelis and Arabs in the occupied territories. Not to mention that Israel won't stop until it has succeeded in obtaining it's "rightful land" from the Nile river to Iraq. Iraq check, Lebanon check, Syria, Iran. See a pattern? All roads lead to Damascus. Total control.

This is why terrorist organisations and Arab countries want Israel wiped off the map. Don't believe otherwise.

The two kidnapped soldiers was a bid by Nasrallah to stop Israel's onslaught of the Gaza strip. I congratulate him for trying to help the Palestinians. The rest of the world is very much aware of the fact that 2 soldiers does not a justified war/invasion/bombardment maketh.

The only thing I disagree with is this: the problem won't be solved if Israel simply retreat back to the pre-1967 borders. There are too many people who are pissed off and who want some kind of compensation for all that Israel has put them through.

Zionists appealed to Britain (WW1) and claimed they could help them win the war by bringing in the US. In return Britain was to award them with Palestine. Whether it was a "real country" or not, the fact remains that the Jews were dumped in the middle of a Muslim population and was told to "defend itself".

yep. That's all Israel has done since.
Posted by fleurette, Friday, 4 August 2006 8:39:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fleurette

Almost half of the Jewish population of Israel is not from Europe but from Egypt, Iraq, Yemen etc. They left for Israel because of ill treatment by the Islamic countries which many had called home before Mohammed was even born.

For example before the Balfour declaration the Jews in Egypt were denied passports. In Iraq a number were hanged in a public square on trumped up charges. And their ancestors were in Iraq (once called Babylon) for at least a thousand years before any Arabs arrived.

Do you deny them the right to live in freedom in their own region?
Posted by logic, Friday, 4 August 2006 9:03:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fleurette

Almost half of the Jewish population of Israel is not from Europe but from Egypt, Iraq, Yemen etc. They left for Israel because of ill treatment by the countries which many had called home before Mohammed was even born.

For example before the Balfour declaration the Jews in Egypt were denied passports. In Iraq a number were hanged in a public square on trumped up charges. And their ancestors were in Iraq (once called Babylon) for at least a thousand years before any Arabs arrived.

Their numbers roughly equalled the numbers of displaced Palestinians. They too lost their homes. I am all in favour of compensation but let it be both ways.

Do you deny these people the right to live in freedom in their own region?
Posted by logic, Friday, 4 August 2006 9:07:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When my little niece (8 years old), says to me, “uncle Kevin, turn the telly off. I don’t like watching the war”, I say to her, “For every one of you, I bet there are thousands of children in each of these countries, currently troubled with killing each other, that wish they too could just switch it off”.

What do the children caught up in all this really think? They certainly can’t understand – their minds are still young and open and empty. How unfortunate we continue to fill them with horror. New minds that should be looking out on to the wonder of the world, not the horror caused by grown men with no sense other than their desire ‘to win’.
Posted by K£vin, Friday, 4 August 2006 9:15:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fluerette,

Similarly, on your analysis of the issues, Australia should be condemned for invading Turkey in 1915? Australia most certainly had no business in the Middle East at that stage in History (or even now), and did so on the behalf of the British Empire (so too did the Zion Mule Corps) http://www.answers.com/topic/joseph-trumpeldor & http://www.answers.com/topic/zeev-jabotinsky. Messrs Jabotinski & Trumbledor were influential in setting the scene for the Balfour Declaration, and are seen by many as the reason for it.

Perhaps if you wish to make such ill-informed comments, you should really have the fortitude to protest at the very next ANZAC day parade or dawn service? Perhaps doing so may help you to gain some perspective on the Australian position vis-a-vis Israel.

Perhaps some more history is in order? The spiritual leader of the Palestinians during the second world war, and the leadup to it, was none other than the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (1921-48), Mohammed Amin Al-Husayni [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni] who worked with the Nazi's to ensure a german victory, including causing the insurrection in Iraq. Meanwhile the jews of the yishuv joined up in sufficient quantities to warrant the formation of a Jewish Brigade, which fought in Italy:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade]

Perhaps you should occassionally read something other than novels if you wish to make such sweeping statements, hmmm.

Now, the jews did nothing to warrant the grant of land that was unoccupied, except by miserable, tennant farmers, who had no ownership of the land, and which was sold to the jews from under them by their absentee landlords? The jews have no entitlement to land that they improved, saved from being swamp and desert? What planet are you from, and which planet are you on currently?

Inshallah

2bob
Posted by 2bob, Friday, 4 August 2006 9:22:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But Marilyn, what if the people trying to set up home in your back yard were the traditional owners of that land? I do hope you would stay true to your principles and you being the offspring of invaders, I hope you would reliquish your land to them without a fight.
Posted by Kvasir, Friday, 4 August 2006 10:42:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My niece asks me “why are they doing this?” I tell her, “I don’t know and I don’t think they do either. When men go to war, their only currency is …..children’s lives".

"They’ll tell you its God, but don’t believe them. God isn’t going to ask anyone to kill what he/she has created, in love. When they tell you its God’s will, it really means someone wants something that someone else has got. The solution is in a willingness to share. But some people believe they are entitled to everything. To hide this fact they ‘blame’ God”

Then they tell you its for their country. Don’t believe them. Its people that make countries, not land. If they cared about their county – they’d care about people. If you only knew how much money they spend on shooting rockets into space and building weapons designed to kill thousands of people. How can they say they care about their country? If they spent the money on healthcare, good food and good education for all, then they would be caring about their countries”.

These same people don’t mind using children in adverts, to sell their products, but they don’t like talking about children when it comes to war. I wonder why?

I wonder what the children really think?
Posted by K£vin, Friday, 4 August 2006 11:08:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic.

I can see your point there and it definitely sounds logical. However there’s a certain clause in the constitution that makes me question how Israel’s ethnic makeup consists primarily of Jews from the Middle East. It goes a little something like this. Anyone in the world who can claim Jewish heritage or Jewish-ness can get immediate citizenship in the country. You don’t have to prove your lineage goes back to Judea (did you know that the word Jew never appears in the Bible?).
Now if only the Palestinians could do that. Prove they are Palestinian and were once on the same land. Do you think they’d let them in again? Or do you think the fact that they are Muslim, Arab and maybe let’s say, not Jewish, might impede on their chances to gain citizenship?

Gosh sounds a little like Israel is crossing over the fine line between the usual racism and the good old apartheid system.
Do you think South Africa is doing well for itself now? Do you think the White Christians had a right to defend themselves? I mean after all they did claim that God instructed them to do what they did with those sub human blacks.
2Bob what does Gallipoli have to do with anything? The British were there because wanted free passage through the Dardanelles to supply their weakened ally Russia. Plus they’d have defeated Germany’s ally. Two birds with one stone.
I don’t think Australia planned on settling its people in Turkey. Somehow I don’t think Australian culture would mélange very well with that of the Turks. Just a hunch. Plus I don’t think Australia can really claim any lineage to the Turks. By planet I assume you mean country. Well I’m currently in England. But I’m born in Australia. My grandparents are Lebanese Christians. And I am a citizen of the Earth. I think that just about sums it up.
Unoccupied land. Miserable tenant farmers. No ownership of the land. The land, improved, swamp and desert. Saved! Ah yes. You must be from the planet of Fox News and/or Tel Aviv.
Posted by fleurette, Saturday, 5 August 2006 12:47:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fleurette, this reminds me of another country, the monstrous Saudi Arabia, where ONLY Muslims can be citizens - NO other religions permitted at all, publicly or privately. In Israel proper (not the disputed territories) 20% of population are Arab-Israelis who practise Islam without hindrance. Saudi Arabia and other Sharia states must be forced to allow religious freedom. Why doesn't it bother you that Saudi Arabia, the fountain-head of Islam, is so viciously discriminatory towards non-Muslims? Double standards, pehaps? Hypocrisy?
Posted by Kvasir, Saturday, 5 August 2006 9:12:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh points out "Religion is the root of all evil in the Middle East". But anyone thinking the situation can be resolved through commonsense ought to consider this, from today's "Australian" :

"Mr Hagee [Reverend John Hagee, a Pentecostal television evangelist from Texas], called the Israeli attacks on Lebanon a "miracle of God" and suggested that a ceasefire would violate "God's foreign policy statement" towards Jews. The evangelist is a leading figure in the so-called Christian-Zionist movement, rooted in a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations, which predicts a final battle between good and evil in Israel, where two billion people will die before Christ's return ushers in a 1000-year period of grace.

"The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching ... Rejoice and be exceeding glad - the best is yet to be," Mr Hagee has written in a book that has sold 700,000 copies.

President George W. Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr Hagee and his supporters for "spreading the hope of God's love and the universal gift of freedom". "
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 5 August 2006 10:29:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Welcome Brother in Christ ! (to the author)

But just like Paul and Barnabus, we don't always have to agree :)

Speaking also as an 'evangelical' Christian, I suggest that the Author showed more about his own eschatological branding than a solution to the problem.

One important point is this. No matter how we evangelicals may view the status of Israel in regard to the last days, the movers and shakers are in fact the Israelis themselves and it should be about how THEY see things.

I don't agree that the destruction of Jerusalem was the complete fulfillment of the 7 yr period etc, but that is something we can debate 'in house' :)

Of more importance is how Israel for a start and HAMAS moreso see things regarding the land, and what this implies for my brother's take on how to solve it.

Hamas Charter.

Article Eleven: The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection."

If ANYone can see a place for Israel there, please let me know. "This", (the above) is the source of the conflict today.
Pre 67 borders are totally irrellevant.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 5 August 2006 12:33:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Inshallah 2bob

What's the latest on that enquiry into the murders in Qana?

Keith

ps you've been quiet.
Posted by keith, Saturday, 5 August 2006 1:43:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fleurette

Naturally the word Jew does not appear in the Bible, it is an English word and the first part of the Bible is in ancient Hebrew.

The point is that there has been Palestinians moving out of their land and Jews moving out of Arab lands in roughly equal numbers. Should each group move back to where they came from or should we accept regrettable actions on both sides and go on with the partition?

It would be hard to guarantee the Jews reasonable conditions and freedom of religion if they returned so we do have a conflict. This is by no means the only world situation where this occurs. My ancestors' lives were bad in Russia but they were able to move to England and settle there, finally coming to Australia. Incidentally I have no intention either of living in Israel or returning to Russia, I am an Aussie through and through. In India and Pakistan, in Cyprus – human history is full of moves.

The sad, sad history of the Palestinians is that the surrounding countries refused to resettle them even though many were rich in oil revenue. They are a hard working, admirable people with a lovely culture and have been exploited by the fanatics who have been financed by despotic regimes who should have used the money to help them.

Regarding the parallel with South Africa I do not believe that it is appropriate. With apartheid the Africans were denied the same rights as the whites, forbidden to marry them, unable to vote in or sit in Parliament even required to sit on seats in the back of buses. None of this occurs in Israel where the Israeli Arabs have in fact the same rights as the Jews and some sit in Parliament. Of course they are a minority in what was once their own country but so are the Celts in the UK. They do have better rights and living standards than most other people in that area.
Posted by logic, Saturday, 5 August 2006 10:53:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith, you wrote:

"What's the latest on that enquiry into the murders in Qana?"

What murders? according to the Webster dictionary, "murder" = "to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice".

The enquiry clearly showed that Israel was not aware of the presence of civilians in that building, but only of Hezbulla terrorists operating from the village and parking their launchers inside those buildings. This excludes the possibility of "premeditated malice". Also, there is nothing unlawful about self-defence and this building was used to launch rockets against Israeli civilans. On the other hand, murders were indeed committed in Qana - by the Hezbullah, unlawfully and with premeditated malice, launching missiles against Israeli civilans.

Fleurette and Logic:
the word "Jew" actually appears in the bible - Zecharia 8:23 and Esther 2:5 & 3:4.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 5 August 2006 11:59:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic, I understand what you're saying. I don't have time to go into it now but there is solid proof that arab citizens in Israel are treated worse than the Israelis and many parallels with South Africa have been made in literature that I have read on the issue. You have to understand that in order to compare something it doesn't have to be exactly the same. The sort of racism in Israel is more insidious and veiled. It's not something newspapers are going to report to the rest of the world. You have to be an insider, someone has lived in both the Arab towns and the Jewish areas.

There's racism against the Jews too. Ethiopian Jews and even some of the Russian Jews are not treated favourably while the Americans and the British are treated the best. I'm no expert and I've never lived in the area but I've read many accounts of people who have (all those who have lived there and confirmed these thoughts were all Jewish zionists until they lived there)

I spoke to a Rabbi in Australia who told me that the conflict is not a religious one. It's mostly political. The prime focus has always been the ownership of the land and human rights. Instead it has turned into a religious conflict over time. An example is that this Rabbi says he can't walk down the street without being discriminated against. That's pretty widespread around the world.

But apart from that, these so called intellectuals who are claiming that religion is the source of all evil in the middle east, might want to get their facts straight before they make such sweeping generalisations.

Saudi Arabia is being led by stubborn headed royals who only care about their money. They are best buddies with the US. Do you really think if Saudi Arabia wanted to change its laws the US would let them? The US wants them to be an oppressive regime so it has more reason to stay and exert its influence and power over the region.
Posted by fleurette, Sunday, 6 August 2006 1:13:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fleurette,

There has been and still exists a lot of injustices on both sides. Jews have had more than a good share of opression in their 3000+ years of history. The latestr being the east Jerusalem occupation by Jordan and the desecration of historical monuments, synagogues, burial grounds, etc..

Israeli treatement of Palestinians is sub-human. Denial of work, schooling, health, transport, free movement, etc...

I don't have time to go in more detail (have to go to Church) but one point were you say it is not a "religious" conflict...

two questions:

1. Why is there a mosque built on top of the most sacred Jewish site in Jerusalem : the temple mount? Jews cannot pray there anymore except outside the west wall.

2. What is the (real) source of Islamic Jewdophobia? When it clearly states in all Islamic books that Israel is the rightful owner of the land.
Posted by coach, Sunday, 6 August 2006 8:01:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

The International Committee of the Red Cross is conducting an enquiry into the cause, date and time of death of the decedents in Kfar Qana. As Israel has already taken responsibility for it, this inquiry cannot be aimed at proving Israeli involvement, so who is left?

In larger news, the French appear to have effectively shafted Israel completely, the only good result of whcih is that they can now disarm Hizbollah, and that should be good for a giggle.

Finally, Israel is stuck with the unpalatable truth, that it is impossible to fight Hizbollah and mantain world opinion, and comply with International Law. That being said, bad laws were made to be broken, and if International opinion is predicated upon Hizbollah victories, one must accept that.

When the French fail to disarm Hizbollah, and they attack Israel again, I see absolutely no need to make any attempt to comply with International Law, or with basic principles that allow them to win. They will not win round 3, as Israel must accept what caused this problem, RESTRAINT. It Will Not Happen AGAIN...

Inshallah

2bob
Posted by 2bob, Sunday, 6 August 2006 8:34:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fleurette

We are coming to understand each other. Mostly I agree with what you have to say.

But on the question of Jews discriminating against each other and against Muslims that is unfortunately the case everywhere. Don't expect a better standard from Israel than you would from UK or Australia. Australia for example has treated the aborigines badly. But in recent times we have never done anything like South African apartheid.

The point is that South Africa applied something well beyond normal human intolerence. You can't stop predjudice with regulation or make people love each other. But you can make legislation giving them equality in principal under the law. Australian society recognises community hatreds (vis Cronulla) and at least at an official level tries to do something, not always successful. Israel sets out to do the same.

I doubt that either myself as a Jew or yourself as a Lebanese could hope to join the Melbourne Club which is a backbone of the conservative parties. Life is far from perfect.

The Ethiopian Jews and the Arabs are allowed eqality under the law. No society has found it possible to do better. We in Australia thought we had succeeded but then Cronulla happened and I was shocked into reality. But you would not say that we have apartheid here.

Regarding the Ethiopians this was the subject of a film made in Israel and freely distributed which examined that very issue.
Posted by logic, Sunday, 6 August 2006 9:16:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach asks, " What is the (real) source of Islamic Jewdophobia?"

Here's a suggestion.

Islamic Jewdophobia might have something to do with America's tacit approval of dropping good, Christian bombs, from American-made planes, flown by righteous Israeli pilots defending the Jewish homeland and its "chosen people", onto predominantly Muslim neighbourhoods. In each case their targets are already military and economic basket cases, legacy of generations of western interference.

The driver of this policy, George Bush, domestic popularity about 35%, is considered a complete loon by about half the planet. Condi Rice - intellect a mile wide and an inch thick - characterises the massacre taking place as the "birth pangs of democracy". It is not only the "Israeli treatement of Palestinians [that] is sub-human".
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 6 August 2006 11:15:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fleurette,

You've made a salient point about the conflict being not religious but political. Indeed the root of the problem and its ongoing nature is definitely political, but here and everywhere else it is interpreted as religious by protagonists and defenders alike.

That's simply the nature of faith. Believing it to be true makes it so.
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 6 August 2006 11:23:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ranganathan is trying to connect bible (or religious belief of history) with current facts... a big ask. What matters is what the people now believe that drives their action. But first a parable in question if I may...

When fires are being caused by 'people' for pleasure and benefit to our homes and lands we live off, what would you call those whom only look at one fire in one home and surrounding land to concern themselves and to act...

Of course, first sentence relates to people whose essential nature is evil and which cannot change and defined here by "unbalanced self interest causing harm, misfortune and destruction (to others)'...now look around us and its effects everywhere, earth, quality of life, our sense of happiness, our children right to grow happy, secure and become an adult of their own choosing, all being affected, damaged and destroyed... and so by that definition evil is alive and well...

The second part is to those of us whom suffer from the pleasure and benefit of 'evil do'ers'... I would personally call myself stupid with a desire to suffer...

The point is 'unbalanced self interest' is driving the deaths in Middle East, when the people can chose to act in 'balanced self interest'... so what is stopping it...hmmm

Sam
Ps~and what should we do, keeping in mind the end result of evil is destruction...ie logical reasoning says when all is destroyed then evil itself has only itself to destroy
Posted by Sam said, Sunday, 6 August 2006 12:03:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If IVAN MILAT had claimed to be 'Gods Messenger' would it have lessened his culpability ? Would he be less of a serial murderer if he claimed to be 'Gods final Prophet' and began making claims to that effect around the Goulbourn area ?

What if he mutilated his victims PRIOR to killing them (slowly), and claimed it was 'Allah's law' ?

Would we be more or less likely to accept Ivan Milats claims to divine messengerhood if he surrounded himself with females, one as young as 6 whom he married, copulating with her at 9 ?

The problem in the middle east, is that one faction (Hezbollah/Iran/Syria) has accepted a man worse than Ivan Millat as a prophet, and has built its society around the ravings of that man.
Namely "Mohamed".

When he mutilated the bodies of the camel thieves BEFORE they died, (hacking off their feet and hands, gouging out their eyes) he was performing actions which today are referred to as "The best example of mankind" (because they are included in his life, which is the basis/role model for Islamic manhood.)

So Zarqawi was 'a good muslim warrior' or.. 'distorting true Islam' ?

It should not surprise us therefore, that such a society is characterized by hate, violence and lust for power.

What DOES surprise me, is that very few of us have taken the trouble to scope out these ugly facts at the root of the Islamic problem, and recognize 'Satan' when they see him.

You cannot understand Islamic behavior today, apart from Islams founders behavior 'then'.

In my view, ultimately the only solution humanly speaking would be to purge the whole of south Lebanon of all Muslims who are unwilling to swear alliegance and 'peace' (videotaped -under pain of immediate execution) for a 1000 yrs. Then repopulate the place with those more compatable to Israel's security.
Defeat
Deport
Disperse
Absorb.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 6 August 2006 4:10:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's interesting to note that those who criticise Israel's belligerence also support its right to exist in peace. Critics of the Arabs, however, are united in the view that they have no rights at all.

Astonishingly, Arabs have become the new Jews: a race which can be blamed for anything and everything, with no evidence necessary. E.g. a rise in domestic interest rates is blamed on soaring petrol prices, which, we're told, are a result of Arabs kicking up a fuss and not swallowing a culture shift at gunpoint. How dare they?

This all-purpose scapegoat is a commodity money can't buy. Its value to politicians is obvious, but the grassroots support for anti-arabism comes from militant Christians who are fed up with turning the other cheek, and want to get back to some good old-fashioned hatin'.
Posted by Sancho, Sunday, 6 August 2006 4:55:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You worry about Arabs being brought into disrepute without referring in any detail to the many arguments presented here and in other forums. More outrageously, you equate the minority of critics of Islam who happen to be Christian with those extremists who are tearing Islam apart by the use of violence. It is an irony that you see Arabs maligned and caricatured but are quite happy to do it to Christians!

If you baulk at the idea of any critique of Islam's practices, fine - there could be many reasons for your obstinacy which are none of my business, but if uncomfortable criticism is something you wish to avoid, don't bother posting in here Sancho. No one wants to hear your unsubstantiated whine.

If I'm wrong about your mendacity or culpable ignorance you'll be delighted to answer the questions below. This is not part of a Christian conspiracy I assure you.

1) What distinguishes "moderate" Islam from Qutb, al-Bana and other Islamists?
2) Can Islam be a religion of personal conscience with no aspirations for unity of Church and State?
3) If the answer to (2) is "no," why do Muslim immigrants to the West live in a country whose Constitution specifically forbids the establishment of a religion? Do they propose to throw out this Constitution?
4) If Muslims cannot in conscience support a Constitution forbidding Establishment, should they be excluded from official posts that require an oath to support the Constitution?
5) If the answer to (2) is "yes," do Muslims have the right to apostasy?
6) Should representatives of other religions have the right to proselytize in Muslim countries?
7) Will you personally take a public stand to support the right of Muslims to convert to other religions and for the right of other religions to proselytize Muslims?

Western democracy arose from a fight for freedom of religion and personal conscience. Do you believe that democracy can exist in the absence of freedom of religion?
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 6 August 2006 5:25:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic I am starting to see more and more that your name is very apt in this case.

Martin I for one would like to hear Sancho’s views. It just occurred to me how true that is – that people can cry anti-Semitism at those who are anti-Israel (there’s a difference) yet they post such hatred against Muslims. Just because there is no real “term” for being anti-Muslim does not mean the implication isn’t made. Actually that might make some of you anti-Semitic seeing as Arabs are included in the Semitic description.

A language group in the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew and Arabic. 2) description of Middle East peoples that trace their origin from the biblical Noah and his son Shem; these include Jews and Arabs.

My overarching opinion of the issue has been formed over many years and what I've come to realise is that there are so many aspects of the ongoing conflict to consider, rendering it almost impossible to attribute the entire conflict to a mere case of religious hatred – but that’s not going to stop the ignorant from taking the more simplistic view. It’s also a view the American media purports and exaggerates.

There is a fantastic documentary on the issue entitled “Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land” with most of the commentary and interviews being that of educated Israelis and well respected American Jews like Noam Chomsky. They also interview Robert Fisk (great Journalist in the Middle East) and dedicate the entire thing to the legendary Edward Said (kudos to them!)
Warning: will challenge preconceived ideas and indoctrinated persons. Religion is aptly missing from the documentary ;)
The link for anyone who is interested: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696
Posted by fleurette, Sunday, 6 August 2006 11:51:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lebanon has refused to accept the ceasefire :

http://www.arutzsheva.org/news.php3?id=109337

Obviously they feel that there is no need for an immediate cessation of fighting, therefore there is no need for the continued International pressure on Israel to stop fighting?

For those who believe everything comming out of paliwood/hizboliwood please see this:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

This is one of the photographers that was above being involved in faking photos from Kfar Qana, makes you think, hmmmmm.....

Got to go, I have an aliya interview today.

Inshallah

2bob
Posted by 2bob, Monday, 7 August 2006 9:03:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those of you with the thirst to understand what is happening, I heartily recomend this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2967276362246845611&q

It is 1hr 18 min, but it is worth seeing.

Much of what is going on is explained in full.

Inshallah

2bob
Posted by 2bob, Monday, 7 August 2006 9:25:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Fleurette
would you mind quoting and showing us 'Hate for Muslims' that you refer to ? Are you confusing it with 'Hatred of Treason and Enemy behavior' ?

Are you sure you are not confusing "Exposing the evil of Islam" with 'hating muslims' ? to quote you "There is a difference you know".

Sancho did the EXACT thing he complains about for the Arabs, lumping all 'Christians' into one 'evil/extremist' basket, as Martin pointed out, so I hope Sancho is prepared for some robust personal criticism as well.

Sancho,

I hope you pay very careful and detailed attention to the questions Martin posed, as they are crucial for understanding the Islamic COMMUNITY self understanding. (Which might be quite different from the answers you would obtain when speaking on a personal level with individuals.)

From day ONE, Mohammed was busy building a 'STATE' ! Do you disagree with this ?

His STATE then went on to CONQUER other states, tribes and communities (not to mention some genocides on the way). Do you disagree with the 'conquer' point ? (see Hamas charter Article 11 and read it)

Now, we have members of that 'World Wide State' living in our midst, like white ants, community representaives seeking to influence our foreign policy, rebuking our government for not being 'even handed' with Israel and Hezbollah, seeking to overturn the Terrorist classification of Hezbollah, (Ameer Ali last week) in other words seeking to UNDERMINE OUR ALLIANCES and NATIONAL SECURITY.
The Islamic community might be friends with Hezbollah but the Australian government regards Israel as an ALLY.

Israel is an Ally of the USA, we have the formal ANZUS treaty with the USA, therefore to oppose our allies OR their allies is TREASON in my view.
This is how Mohamed regarded such actions of the Meccans under the Treaty of Hudabaya (read up on it). So, in the very least we should regard Muslims the same way.

Fleurette, is this 'hate' or the simple statement of factual observable behavior ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 7 August 2006 9:35:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear BOAZ_David,

If I’m confusing “Hate for Muslims” with “Hatred of Treason and Enemy Behaviour” it may have something to do with the fact that the majority of posts I have seen appear to be blatant attacks on the religious beliefs of Muslims. It has nothing to do with ‘Treason and Enemy Behaviour and all to do with Islam. If “TEB” is the true target of such hatred, perhaps posters should use this term rather than allow for such misconceptions to be formed.

Either that or you’ve realised this nifty labelling of “anti Semitism” towards anyone who breathes a word against Israel, can back fire and be applied to the Arabs too.

In order to expose the “Evil of Islam” you might want to try and recycle facts which haven’t been distorted in the media in order to effectively convince the rest of the educated world that Islam is evil. Step one might include not going back to Mohammed’s time to analyse his actions as somehow being connected to the actions of Muslims today. That’s as absurd as me saying all Christians today are bloodthirsty Crusaders trying to convert the world with force.

Sancho didn’t lump Christians into anything. He actually said and I quote “Militant Christians” who want some hatin’. As opposed to your fairly confident claim about the mindset of the entire Islamic COMMUNITY (see, you make my job easier by spelling it out for us).

“See Hamas charter Article 11”

For a second there I actually checked my Qur’an thinking the Hamas charter might be a mantra of the entire religion. I don’t know why. Maybe because I’m expecting to see hard evidence that this is the entire COMMUNITY’S world view. Funny that.

You shouldn’t worry about Israel’s alliances and national security being undermined. Israel has the 4th largest military in the world (thanks to the 6 billion it gets every year from the US).

“So, in the very least we should regard Muslims the same way.”

Right. Because that’s what Mohammed would have done. Great way to sum up BOAZ_David. But you’ve proved absolutely nothing.
Posted by fleurette, Monday, 7 August 2006 11:34:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fleurette,

The term Semitic refers to the languages or cultures of semitic peoples which includes include: Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic.

I agree the common and mistaken usage of anti-semitism these days refers only to those who are anti-Jewish.

I've always understood a broader definition to include those peoples of primarily the mid-East, who in their theologies (Religions of Islam, Judaism and Christianity) believe most if not all of their lives are directed by a power greater than themselves and unlike the philosophies underpining much of the western world they tend to believe they can have little affect over their own lives.

Thanks for the link..
Posted by keith, Monday, 7 August 2006 11:37:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
2 bob

Why Lebanon has rejected the proposed UN resolution?

You'd choke on the truth.

Lebanon refuses to accept the proposed resolution because there is no requirement for the Israelis to withdraw from their illegal occupation. The proposed resolution requires the Lebanese and Hezbollah to desist in resisting that occupation.

That makes the proposed resolution an endorsement of Israel's occupation. Why should anyone be required to stop resisting an illegal occupation?

Your statements have manipulated the intent of the proposed resolution and attempt to give credence to the Israeli land grab. Given Israel's previous history, Israel will now claim this proposed resolution gives it ownership of the occupied territory and we all know how long those occupations last. Take a look at the illegal occupations of Gaza, East Jeresulem, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and Shaba Farms. All those territories have suffered the war crime of illegal settlement...all except Shaba Farms where the Israelis have an organised resistance....Hezbollah.

Now the Israel wants the UN to imobilise Hezbollah because they have failled for a second time. It's unreasonable joking to think this proposed resolution is fair and reasonable.

A reasonable case for demanding an Israeli withdrawal.

Israel's invasion has utterly failed to achieve it's stated aims. Logically an occupation is only going to show that failure in more graphic terms. The violence will continue and rockets will continue to rain down on innocents in Israel.
Since Hezbollah has said if Israel stops it's aggression it will stop it's rocket attacks, isn't it obvious what the course of action Israel should undertake to protect it's citizens?

Anything else is a land grab. That I believe was the root cause of the violence all through this disgrace.

An Israeli occupation will prove that. Oh and by the way warning people to get out and then bombing the crap out of them with this result only endorse p[ast Israeli tactic's in Palestine.

How long will it be before the that bloody Israeli Land Authority moves in and allocates occupied Lebanese land to settlers
Posted by keith, Monday, 7 August 2006 12:01:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do muslims build mosques on holy places for other religions?

Al-aqsa - built on Solomon's Temple (Only Temple for Jews)
Sophi mosque - built on a Church
Babri masjid - built on a hindu temple

...

They build mosques there and cry jihad.
Posted by Darwin1, Monday, 7 August 2006 3:17:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Darwin1

Come off it. That was silly.

Have a look around Spain.

Great Mosque at Córdoba - converted into a church.
Cathedral at Seville - built around a Mosque.
Synagoga de Santa Maria, Toledo - converted into a church.
Synagogue at Segovia - converted into a church.
Posted by logic, Monday, 7 August 2006 9:31:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Logic,

You got some logic, albeit Flawed one.

Do you remember Spain was non-muslim before Islamic rulers occupied it?

Do you remember there were non-muslim places of worship (churches) i.e

A church -converted to Great Mosque at Córdoba - re-converted into a church.
Cathedral at Seville - built around a Mosque - built on Cathedral

A christian Spain - converted to Islamic Ummah - again recoverted to Catholic..

So, there's no point in your logic.

But, look at Al-aqsa - The Only Temple for Jews... They built a mosque there with eternal hatred for Jews
Posted by Darwin1, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 5:37:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lebanon has rejected the UN resolution because they think that they can win this war. They intend to do so apparently by demonising Israel and waiting for International Opinion to step in.

This is not 1996, too many people have been harmed by the international jihadis, too many people are sick of wondering if they will be blown up on holidays or on their way to work. Lebanon best start talking, as if the rockets continue Israel will continue to act, it is political suicide for Olmert & Peretz to do otherwise, in which case Binyi will be back with a Knesset majority, and Lebanon will be taken entirely, and Syria will be dared to act.

Unfortunately for the Arabs in this one they are facing a very unified nation (please do not go on about the fringe dwelling far, far left). The truth is that Lebanon helped Hizbollah to start this war, they are completely involved, and Israel is not stopping until their own safety can be assured. Israel has defied International opinion in the past, and if necessary will do so again, this constant terror and brinkmanship must stop. Syria will not get involved, as Syria will be defeated, as they have tanks, an airforce etc, and they know it.

The golan will not be given back, as it was the ground used for a near fatal attack on Israel in '73, and Israel cannot afford to give it back. Israel will pound Lebanon until someone realises that Lebanon is alone, and that Lebanon is beat.

Inshallah

2bob
Posted by 2bob, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 1:01:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lebanon thinks it can win? You are unhinged.

They don't need to.

Hezbollah are doing just that if Bint Jabyal is any indication.

World opinion has changed. Dramatically. It appears it is only Israeli mouthpieces like you who wish to see the illegal invasion in Lebanon extended. Most of us don't want to see an escallation. Most of us don't want to see the Syrians or all the other Arab states go to war. You seem to think Syria will be alone if Israel starts a war with them. Mate you are not reading the news from the Arab world.

Oh Israel has often defied world opinion...but world opinion used to be based on a sympathy for Israel. They've lost that sympathy with their killing of Lebanese civilians, their wanton destruction of civilian buildings and civilian infrasructure in Lebanon.
No-one with any brains believes all those shells, bombs and rockets are exclusively aimed at Hezbollah...especially when they see that Hezbollah is in fact taking to the IDF in places like Bint Jabayl.

Israel will divide when the efforts in lebanon get bogged down. The Arabs are winning many aspects in this particular war. Time is on their side...and the rockets are still raining down on Israel.

It is a war crime to steal occupied lands. Golan Heights is just another in a series of Israeli illegal land grabs. And they will be given back and peace treaties will be signed once Israel is force to stop it's expansionism...just as the US force it to in the cases of Egypt and Jordan. Mate that's the end game and more and more of us are coming to that conclusion.

And Mate to show you exactly how aggressive and how big liars the Israeli's are:
Your own words

'Israel will pound Lebanon until someone realises that Lebanon is alone, and that Lebanon is beat.'

We all thought you and the Israeli's went to war against Hezbollah NOT LEBANON. That's what you all claimed.

So now the truth is you ARE admitting attacking Lebanon.

Why?
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 2:57:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article contains many factual errors.

The most fundamental error as printed in this article is an error in the definition of Zionism. It is simply a belief in the return to Israel. The biblical view, which the author presents, is not the dominant view, nor has it ever been. It is revisionist (or religious) Zionism, which does not dominate most Zionist thought.

Zionism is simply the return of the Jews to their historical homeland. It does not dictate the extent of the land for this return. It is a misrepresentation to believe that Zionism is a maximalist policy.

Secondly, it is not true that Israel was founded by terrorist activities. Whilst they certainly helped towards this end, they were ultimately not pivotal in achieving the establishment of the state.

It was the work of the Zionist founders, settlers and leadership that was able to achieve Israel in the form of the UN partition plan.

Basic reading of the works of Benny Morris and Walter Lacquer reveal that it was, in fact, fighting between the Arabs and Zionists that caused the evacuation of the British and not the Irgun, Etzel etc.
Posted by catfish23, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 4:06:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Catfish

When you say "Zionism is simply the belief in the return of the Jews to their historical homeland".... the statement requires some analysis.

'Jews' in this day may well include LARGE numbers of converted Gentiles. In which case of course, there is no such thing (for them) as a "historical" homeland.

Which of course raises important questions about the non 'converted' group, who may well be genetically connected to the 12 tribes, (though more likely to the 2 tribes of Judah and Benjamin which comprised the Southern kingdom of Judah which was never dispersed as was the northern Kingdom of "Israel/Samaria") and those of the tribe of Levi (denoted by the current names of 'Levi/Lewi/Levy' and 'Cohen'.)

So, if we look purely at 'historic' homeland, this would equally apply to the Arabs who have migrated to the area since 135 AD, a period of approximately 2000 yrs.

So, the concept of 'historic' is dangerous. More preferable is the 'Biblical' mandate, which you refer to as the 'minority' or revisionist Zionism view.

Apart from the divine mandate to 'possess the land' all other approaches are historically relative and equally valid.

"You shall be to me a kingdom of Priests, a holy nation" is the defining characteristic of Israel's calling AND the ONLY legitimate basis of claim to the land, unless we accept the 'might is right' approach, which means that as soon as a Arab country becomes 'mightier' than Israel, they are finished.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 10 August 2006 8:19:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very true Keith I agree with all you've said so far.

I think it was Logic a few posts back (in this thread) who said Israel is not like South Africa and the apartheid for several reason and one of them was a comparison between the banning of marriages between whites and non whites.

Well look what I just stumbled across..

http://www.eutopic.lautre.net/coordination/article.php3?id_article=921

Could Israel make this any easier for its critics?

And another brilliant article from Uri Avnery

http://www.eutopic.lautre.net/coordination/article.php3?id_article=427

Very true! It's almost prophetic in a way. So many people are predicting a huge downfall for Israel and the irony of it all is that it will be Israel's own doing. All great empires fall.

Just like Germany, Israel will reap what it has sown.
Posted by fleurette, Thursday, 10 August 2006 10:55:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The following article by Lebanese Michael Béhé, explains in detail how Israel is Lebanon's best friend.

http://www.menapress.com/article.php?sid=1479

Israel is saving Lebanon!

Michael concludes:

Like the overwhelming majority of Lebanese, I pray that no one puts an end to the Israeli attack before it finishes shattering the terrorists. I pray that the Hebrew soldiers will penetrate all the hidden recesses of southern Lebanon and will hunt out, in our stead, the vermin that has taken root there. Like the overwhelming majority of Lebanese, I have put the champagne ready in the refrigerator to celebrate the Israeli victory.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 10 August 2006 5:04:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy