Dvir,

An article of hope and cheerfulness.

Peace,

T

MUCH to be KNOWN.......

For example. The author quotes a centre for peace called 'Neve Shalom-Wahat al Salam' where Arabs and Jews are living and enjoying life together.... in fact it sounds so good I think I missed the 2nd coming and here is the Arab lion laying down with the Israeli lamb and I'm left out !

QUESTIONS.

1/ Where did those Arabs come from ? (exiled from towns and displaced by Jews ? or... they happen to be Israeli Arabs not effected dramatically by the conflict ?

2/ How would they react to East Jerusalem being totally and forever under Jewish sovereignty and knowing full well that they may come a day when the Mosque and Dome are removed to make way for the Temple ?

3/ If resources became scarce in that community, how long would it take for the families to retreat into 'them/us' along ethnic lines ?

4/ How would the ARABS among this community react to the concept of 'equal compensation to Arabs for land lost' BUT...it might not be in their place of first choice (because it won't be from where they came)

The Lefty/peaceful Israelis like this mob, seem to have little sense of theological/historical reality. Presumably they are atheists or secular, they could not in any way be seriously religious. They are also totally bemuddled about how Islam has treated Jews over the centuries. (Jews were tolerated YES... but only because the no longer represented a military threat after the genocides of Banu Qurayza and Khaibar along with the exiles of the Banu Al Nadir and Banu Qunayqa Jews.

Islam/Muslims are VERY peaceful....... yes, its actually true.. when they are absolutely in control of the place. But.. do anything to protect your interests, make alliances against them because you see the historical writing on the wall... and ol Mohammed will be on your case like the worst toxic rash you ever had. (hide or kill your attractive young wife too, because based on accurate, accepted,historical accounts he will want her as well.)

http://www.anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_safiyya.htm gives the sugar coated Muslim version.

Blessed are the peacemakers. Where to start? The warmongers have a problem for every solution.

One can only hope. The Irish suffered because they nurtured the wrongs of the past. David B the past was created by people now dead. Learn from it, accept it but live in the present with an eye to the future.

Personally I think the Dome and the Mosque are safe for a number of reasons.

1. They are architectural masterpieces. Jews are fond of art.

2. The Dome in particular is the landmark bulding of Jerusalem, like the Eiffel Tower or the Acropolis.

3. The Liberal Jews don't want a Temple and they are the majority.

4. The orthodox are too divided to bulid a new one. Who would choose a High Priest? What would they do in it - sacrifice animals? Would women be allowed, could they be stopped?

No it would be much too hard.

Thanx Celeste, you are always so gracious in your disagreement.. oh that all were like that :)

Ronnie.. I just see the root of it all as being rather deep. Nothing I say can really have much impact. Sorry if I seem over cocky at times.

Celeste.. do you know anything about this Neve Shalom place ? anything about the background of those peaceful Arabs ?

Do you know any Messianic Jews you could put me in contact with ?
I am thinking of putting a Jew and a Palestinian Arab side by side at this "ONE NATION..." etc demo I'm planning for next year. The event will have some nationalistic overtones but also a spiritual goal is to draw attention to the fact that In Christ...there is neither Jew nor Greek (nor Arab) slave nor free, but we are all one....in Him"
jdrmot@tpg.com.au if you know any.

blessings all.

The sentiments are grand. However the article is skewed and ignores the realities.

It states a desire that 'advocates stopping the blame game' but berates by name only Arab terrorists and, throughout, some of their specific horrific activities. On the other hand it never once specifically criticises the atrocities of the IGF or the illegal occupation, or the repression, or the formerly and offically sanctioned land stealing of it's 'settlers'.

In applying deceptive generalisations such as

'...overwhelming reports and images of violence that have apprised us of the suffering of both peoples and have engendered a sense of irreconcilable difference and hopelessness...'

it attempts to gloss over the stark realities of the consequences of the actions of the occupation, the IDF and the settlers. For we have all become aware that violence and suffering has overwhelming been caused by the official policy and actions of only one government and the vast majority of it suffered by only one people.

While it highlights the peace attempts with the children, which are are fabulous, the reality is that only one side can benefit from those efforts in the long term. For one side formerly and officially, has a racist policy which compels only the children of it's majority group to learn how to kill their democratic and peace-seeking neighbours.

I'm for peace but this sort of commentary is mere propaganda designed to portray one side as saintly and peace-seeking and the other as struggling within it's own divisions in a feeble attempt at the same.

It's disgraceful pap.

A true seeking of peace would see a movement to change the Government or the formal and official policies. And in Israel that isn't occurring.

Abraham Lincoln would have prefered his quote in context and that shows he disagrees with the underlying sentiments in the article.

'Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history... The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.
--From the December 1, 1862 Message to Congress

and another which clearly shows the side Abe would offer support.

'What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, ... or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, every where. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors.'
--From the September 11, 1858 Speech at Edwardsville

and prophetically

'Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.'
--From the April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce et al

Are the values of Lincoln the same as those of todays Israelis and their supporters?

Lincoln was a Baptist.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/liberty.htm

keith

"For one side formerly and officially, has a racist policy which compels only the children of it's majority group to learn how to kill their democratic and peace-seeking neighbours."

Presumably you achnowledge that it is the Palestinian side which has racist policies and Israel has democracy.

After all Muslims, Arabs, Jews, Christians all have the same rights in Israel. All have a vote, equality in the law, the right to practice their religion as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. I know of no Arab country which allows that.

There are Mosques in Israel, what is the chance of a Synagogue in Gaza or the West Bank?

Yes I will acknowledge the wrongs of the settlers as will most Jews, but will you acknowledge the wrongs of Muslim countries in restricting the rights of Jews and Christians?

You continually criticise the movement of some Palestinians out of Israel (they did not all leave by any stretch of the imagination), will you acknowledge the treatment of very ancient Jewish communities causing them to leave Egypt, Iraq, Yemen Iran etc etc etc? Those people form about half the Jewish population of Israel, They are not chucking rockets and training their children to be suicide bombers against the lands which appropriated their property. They went to work and made a new life for themselves.

When the Palestinians follow the example of these Jews there will be peace in the area.

In this country we have Immans criticising the locals who gave them shelter. The Jews here have never done that, not even those who arrived as convicts in the First Fleet. I am afraid the Arab world has to stop criticising others and look at itself.

You want the Palestinians to follow the example of the Israelis.

Huh, and what? Occupy Israel, steal it's land and repress Israelis?

Again you show you are typical of the one-eyed Israeli apologist:
you cannot even acknowledge the blatant hypocrasy of your own statements.

Keith

You have the perfect example of the reasoning that is causing the continuation of this problem.

Who stole land from whom? And when?

Israel has now rightly returned land to the Palestinians in Gaza and should return land in the West Bank, except perhaps for the Jewish property that was stolen by Arabs in Hebron. No-one is asking for the return of stolen Jewish or Christian property in Egypt or Iraq or Yemen etc.

Regarding the Arabs who left Israel after partition that is balanced by the Jews who were mistreated and left Arab countries. The Christians in these lands were not so fortunate, the only Christian land in the area, Lebanon was changed to a Muslim majority.

Israel has to defend itself from Hezbollah and Hamas for as long as they preach openly the destruction of the Jewish State and indiscriminately kill Israeli populations, Christian Muslim and Jewish alike. (Why do all of the Middle eastern states have to be Muslim I wonder?).

The displaced Jewish communities from Egypt and Iraq were established hundreds of years before the Arab invasions, but sensible people don't dwell on that they want to move on.

The only solution is for the Arab people to do something about their awful governments and move towards a peaceful existance. Israel already has a good track record in this regard having made peace with its former assailants Jordan and Egypt.

And you Keith get yourself a new gramophone record. Better still get yourself a life.

Who is currently stealing land in thne mid east?

Israel.

keith

Israel is not stealing land. It is in fact returning land taken by settlers.

Who has been trying to take control of Lebanon? It is Hezbollah.

How many of the Palestinians who remained in Israel have wanted moved to any of the Arab countries?

Which country in the Middle East has allowed all religions equal rights?

Which country in the Middle East has achieved the highest living standards for all of its people including its Arabs?

Which country in the Middle East has made major advances in medicine and computers and produced the mobile phone?

Why do people in the occupied territories go to Israel to work?

And don't include the occupied territories as part of Israel. Gaza was given to its occupants who responded by killing Israelis and voting a government whose avowed intention is to destroy Israel (they were once ruled by Jordan and never before independent).

The Israeli government iis still selling occupied and stolen Palestinian land to it's settlers.

No amount of deceptive or irrelevant claptrap, that you continually raise as a smoke and mirrors, can change that simple fact. At the end of the day all conflicts everywhere boil down ro wars over land or resources. That is the source of the conflict in the mid east, and Israel is the sole perpretrator of all the wrongs in these regards.

The west has woken up to that fact.

You know you cited Israels peace with Egypt and Jordan but you didn't say Israel was dragged and forced to those peace by the US. I think in the next few years the same thing is going to occur with Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. Israel has shot itself in it's own foot and the world has woken up to the propaganda being spewed from Israel and it's apologists.

Get a life? Me? I have one ... it's the repressed Palestinians who need one and you and your mates are preventing that from occuring. Shame on you.

Keith

What's this about me and my mates? You love to generalise and stereotype.

Where is your evidence that Israel is selling stolen land? And how many countries in that region stole Jewish land? Egypt, Iraq, Hebron?

And how is Israel to blame for all the problems in the middle east including the Shia and Sunni killing each other in Iraq, Fatah trying to kill the Hamas President, children being brainwashed into murderous Jihad, and further afield the horrors commited by the Taliban, the bombings of trains in London, Madrid and Bombay?? Do you think the middle east would be any more peaceful without Israel?

And what about the denial of rights to women forcing them to wear restrictive clothing restricting their rights to travel and education and the lack of secular education?

I suppose you blame Israel or the US for that. In Israel you have a fair ammount of self criticism in the newspapers, as in any democratic society. You would not even have an a free OLO in any Arab country that I know of.

It is not smoke and mirrors. Stop blaming tiny Israel and solve your own problems. Did the Palestinians thrive under Jordanian or Turkish rule?

Apparently Logic, from their recent comments and findings Tony Blair and Jimmy Baker agree with me. You are right though, you are not the lone stereotyped propagandist I've attempted to depict. You have plenty of mates ... but none of you, none of you have picked the wind direction yet.

Next irrelevance please....

Dvir, great article! Violence makes headlines, but behind the scenes, there is also a surprising amount of friendship and cooperation between people, and there needs to be much more.

My only criticism: The phrase “…extremists like Hezbollah and Hamas…” cries out for balance. Not because there is some comparable Israeli organization – there isn’t. But in this context, one simply cannot mention the extremists on one side and not the other.

Re David Grossman, it is worth noting that this summer, two days after Grossman called for a ceasefire and negotiated solution to the violence that broke out between Israel and Hizbullah, his son Uri was killed during an IDF operation in Lebanon.

Boaz_David,

1) As noted in http://www.slate.com/id/2156086 , the Bible doesn’t actually refer to a lion lying with a lamb :)

2) The residents of Neve Shalom are Arab and Jewish Israelis. While they are not necessarily displaced or exiled, they too are “effected dramatically by the conflict”, as is everyone in the region.

3) You’d have to ask individuals how they’d react to your vision for East Jerusalem. On the whole, residents tend to be quite left-wing and probably wouldn’t like your Temple-focused triumphalism.

4) Neve Shalom is not wealthy; resources are scarce. You’re selling them short if you think that their binational approach would collapse at the first sign of economic stress.

5) You’d have to ask individual Arab residents what they think about possibilities for compensating refugees.

6) Re religion, see http://www.nswas.com/article463.html No, they are not religious in a conventional sense, but it is presumptuous to assume that they are all atheists or secular, and that “they could not in any way be seriously religious”.

Keith, re Abraham Lincoln, you’ve got to be kidding! Are the values of Lincoln the same as those of today’s Israelis and their supporters? Most of them, yes. Lincoln was raised a Baptist, but see http://www.adherents.com/people/pl/Abraham_Lincoln.html and http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html ) Do we all have to Baptists or Deists now in order to quote Lincoln approvingly?

Sganot

I think you missed Lincoln's attitude to oppression and freedom somewhere mate.
He would have been against rhe 40 year occupation and oppression of the Palestinians.

You see those are fundamental beliefs and practises of Baptists.
I don't think any reasonable person could say the Israelis believe or practise those concepts, towards the Palestinians.

Logic

'Where is your evidence that Israel is selling stolen land?'

You asked.

Read this from todays NYTimes.

First Settlement in 10 Years Fuels Mideast Tension.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/world/middleeast/27mideast.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

How can anyone defend this?

Among other things it is out and out aggression at a time when Olmert pretends to seek peace with Abbas. Abbas is made to look stupid.

One of the outcomes:
Hamas look the good guys ... to Palestinians.

Now really how stupid are the Israelis?

Keith,

Your assumption that Lincoln posthumously “disagrees with the underlying sentiments” of an article that praises the grass-roots efforts of Palestinians and Jews to find common ground and work toward peace is as preposterous as it is bizarre.

Consider what Dvir wrote: “Let's hope that reconciliation continues, an endeavour that in the words of Abraham Lincoln, ‘the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless’.”

You have a problem with this? On the one hand, you claim to want peace; on the other, you are so oddly critical of a simple statement in favor of reconciliation. It boggles the mind.

Consider the context in which Lincoln wrote those words – a call to free the slaves and save the Union. And the full sentence: “The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.”

I find the quote to be tremendously apt and even inspiring. Whether we get to a two-state or one-state solution, it is clear that the future of the Jewish and Palestinian peoples is intimately tied together, as is the future of Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Turks, Jews, etc. -- Christians, Druze, Shi’ities, Sunnis, Alawites, Bahais, etc. – the whole wonderful rainbow of Middle Eastern peoples. Further, the Jewish State of Israel must strive for full equality for its Arab citizens, and one must hope that an Arab State of Palestine will likewise strive to ensure equal rights for a large Jewish minority.

For this, we must all wipe out all forms of oppression and “slavery”, including terrorism; political oppression; religious discrimination; anti-Zionism; torture; the cynical manipulation of and discrimination against refugees; incitement; anti-Semitism; bigotry against Arabs, Persians, Christians, etc. and all forms of xenophobia; mistreatment of foreign workers; environmental degradation; corruption; etc., and yes, in some places even literal slavery. There is much to be done, in the region and in the world.

As Lincoln said, the way is plain, peaceful, generous, and just. Who can argue against it?

Continued…

Was Lincoln for peace at all costs? Obviously not. Was he reluctant to use harsh means to put down resistance? Perhaps, but he did it. Early in his presidency, in response to riots and militia actions, he suspended civil law and habeas corpus. Was he against military occupation? No way. During the Civil War, the vanquished South was placed under martial law, and the occupation continued for many years, until it was pacified to the satisfaction of the federal government.

Keith: “[Lincoln] would have been against rhe 40 year occupation and oppression of the Palestinians”

No doubt he would have opposed oppression on all sides. Every Israeli I know wants to see the occupation end. The question is, what will replace it? And ending the occupation is as much an Arab responsibility as an Israeli one. All sides must fulfill their obligations as per Res. 242, 338, and subsequent agreements, and the Palestinians bear tremendous responsibility for continuation of this terrible situation, as well.

Keith: “those are fundamental beliefs and practises of Baptists”

Keith, are you by chance a Baptist? I mean no disrespect, but in the United States, Baptists have been active in some of the most regressive, reactionary, and racist groups around, as well as some of the most progressive. Former president Clinton and vice president Gore are Baptists; so were Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Baptist; so is Jerry Falwell. And so were a number of Grand Dragons of the KKK.

Keith: “I don't think any reasonable person…”

You’re wrong. I am a reasonable person, and I know that most Israelis favor freedom and oppose oppression.

And Lincoln, like most Americans, Israelis, and Australians, and like good people everywhere, was against oppression and favored freedom. That’s why Lincoln rescinded an order by General Grant to expel all Jews from areas of Mississippi, Kentucky and Tennessee under his military occupation. And that’s why, meeting with Canadian Christian Zionist Henry Monk in 1863, Lincoln said “Restoring the Jews to their homeland is a noble dream shared by many Americans.”

sganot

I note from your list of oppressive actions you ommitted occupations.
A freudian slip perhaps? At best!

Have you read my critism of Dvir's use of a few words of Lincoln's which Dvir clearly used out of context to justify his whole article?

Dvir's article was saying that it is up to individuals not governments to create peace. In the speech Dvir quoted from Lincoln was saying it is up to governments to lead the way.

I merely pointed that out and added a few quotes of Lincoln showing he'd be very critical of Israel's behaviour toward Palestinians and that he'd probably side with the Palestinians.

That was my criticism and point of view. Your argument about the position you've assigned to me is based on a totally false premise. A 'straw man' argument. One not worthy of pursuing.

Who argue against Lincoln's sentiment isn't the point. Whose actions fly in the face of his sentiment. Occupation, land stealing, invasions of others soverignity, detention without trial to name but a few are totally against his whole being.

Lincoln was for freedom he always held it need be defended not only against armed aggression but also against ideas that undermined freedom. Look at his quotes, they show that only too clearly.

Now who's kidding who?
'...and I know that most Israelis favor freedom and oppose oppression'. Really and have they the same generosity as Lincoln and can extend the sentiment to include all men everywhere?

The actions of the Israeli Government support your claim but defy Lincoln's belief.

Lincoln was a good man and there is some debate as to whether he was a practising Baptist but there is no doubt he gained many of his ideas of goodness from that source. We in the west often refer to a persons religeous upbringing, as well, when assesssing and labelling the nature of their adult beliefs.

Steve read the full quotes of Lincoln supplied earlier and the accompaning comment. Nothing defeats an argument so much as assigning values and ideas to an opponent that have not been expressed or implied.

Keith
You wouldn’t know a Freudian slip from “cotton princess slip”.

You call for consistency:
“His sentiment. Occupation, land stealing, invasions of others sovereignty, detention without trial to name but a few are totally against his whole being…have the same generosity as Lincoln and … extend the sentiment to include ALL MEN EVERYWHERE”

So when are you going to do the same? -noble teacher.
I see you day after day,page after page,railing about the “wrongs” supposedly committed by Israel,but have yet to see you acknowledge the crimes of the Arab/Palestine side.

Nor have I heard you even acknowledge the wrongs done by the Arabs to the Kurds, Copts, Assyrians etc

Keith when are you going to get fair-dinkum & apply your own noble “sentiments” to “ALL MEN”?

Horus

The reason I don't so often mention the wrongs committed by Palestinians is that there are plenty of others doing that ....ad nauseum. Usually I am merely responding and pointing out the opposite view that contributors such as Dvir and Ted etc haven't mentioned or overlooked.
That's reasonable.

I am then attacked usually personally and very few of those attackers attempt to refute the views I've stated. Take a look at your post to see what I mean.

I have never ever denied there are wrongs on both sides and I have and do on occassion clearly enunciate the wrongs especially those that prevent peace.

However let's take youself for example. Have you ever been critical of and pointed out the Israeli wrongs? Have you ever acknowledged the Israeli impediments to peace?

Honest answer...never.

People in rock houses shouldn't throw glass.

I think I am one of the very few independent thinkers who come into these topics with an unbiased view of things. It is only the likes of you who only ever see things through Israeli eyes who shout insults towards me.

And you shouldn't quote George, Abe and others out of context... and especially without acknowledgement.