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.