Hi Logic,

Nice to see you again.

I must correct you on your pointing to 'my' faith. I have none, that could identify with any of those religions organisations called churchs, sects, books, or whatever.

In so much that we Westerners have adopted the Christianity of the Sermon on the Mount and the New Testament as part of the pillars of our culture or way of doing things ... well yes you could be right in that broader sense.

I once thought I was either agnostic or athiest but I have recently discovered I'm neither, so have decided like Christ, to become irreligious, in it's worst possible sense (... so be warned). In this much narrower and personal sense ... you are making awfully wayward assumptions.

We tend to agree on many things in the disputed and unhappy region. I think you'd agree changing the status of mordern (Post '67) Palestine from Palestine to Jordan achieves or solves little. The people who have had their land stolen since '67 still exist and their lands ar still stolen. That issue would still fester until ... well we don't need to go over either of our old and comfortable positions do we? Suffice to say the disputation would still exist.

You haven't been to Bisbane recently?

Dear Logic ..yes welcome back :)

Please don't worry.. I can discern between the lines of biased blogs.

The Silverstein one is quite opposed to the Temple idea.

Further...the idea that 'hundreds' of settlers want a new temple is hardly anything other than a demographic 'minimal' to quote you.

In fact.. I would have thought it was much more. But the main focal point I made was:

From dozens to hundreds.... is a trend.

It should be born in mind also that those hundreds are said to be those willing to act radically and even violently in support of their cause. Thus it goes without saying that there would be many sharing their view up to but not including the violence aspect.

I hardly think Orthodox Jews do not want a 3rd temple? would you disagree? and I futher suggest that there are many more than a few hundred Orthodox Jews in Israel no?

Don't worry.. for me it depends on the Almighty..not my ability to make any song and dance about it all :)

Dear Keith..hope you are well mate...

On the reasoning you used in your last post.

"The people who's land was stolen still exist"

Fair point. But let's ask this:

If the week before they declared it 'their land' they had actually taken it from Jewish settlers.. would their claim be valid?

Or..if the generation before them, had taken it from Jewish settlers.. would their claim be valid?

and so it goes,... right back to when it was taken from the Jews by the Romans.

In the end....it is most difficult to determine who has a rightful claim because all parties will dispute it from their own historical and or theological perspective.
-The Jews will be either secular or Religious.

1/ Secular "We want a homeland..and will carve it out in our historic homeland and keep it by virtue of power/military balance and appropriate alliances" (i.e.. in the same way that every other state in the world maintains it's borders)

2/ Religious "God gave us this land, and no matter what anyone says, it's ours and we will defend/retake it all"

Palestinians will:

1/ Seek to deny that Jews ever had a claim to the land.
2/ Seek to use more recent history to support their own claim.
3/ Seek to use all means, both military and political to support/persue their claim.

4/ So in the end.. at the human level it boils down to the biggest guns.
Hezbollah and Hamas certainly take this view, though they add the theological argument about it being an Islamic Waqf...which is the point which brings us back to point 4 above.

There seems to be an even greater problem to a 'Two-State Solution' at the moment. The disunity of the Palestinian leadership would not allow for stability, even if they were to become autonomous.

Hypothetically, if Ahmadinejad received his wish of "wiping Israel from the map," it's quite possible that the power struggle between Hamas, Fatah and other factions would produce even more bloodshed than anything else in recent years.

Let's not forget that Hamas is a terrorist organization, who uses violence to rule over Gaza. They also seem to hate political enemies with the same zeal that they hate Israel, their sworn enemy.

Here are some extracts from Hamas's "Charter of Allah":

Article 6: “The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian organisation which owes it loyalty to Allah, derives its way of life from Islam and strives to raise the banner of Islam over every inch of Palestine.”

Article 8: “Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Koran its constitution, Jihad its path. Death for the sake of Allah is its most sublime belief.”

Article 13: “So-called peaceful solutions to the Palestinian problem are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic resistance Movement because renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion...Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are merely a waste of time.”

Article 15: “When our enemies usurp Islamic lands, Jihad becomes a binding duty on all Muslims. In order to confront the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews there is no escape from the banner of Jihad.”

Article 22: “The enemies...used their money to establish secret organisations to destroy and to fulfil Zionist interests. They inspire the United Nations and the Security Council in order to rule the world.”

David Singer,

'In claiming that my statement that getting rid of Israel has the support of the Arab League is "deliberate lies" you continue to display your pathetic ignorance of the Arab-Jewish conflict. '

Care to deny you are unfamiliar with the following offer from the Arab League first proposed in Beirut in 2002 and endorsed in Riydah in 2007.

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm
'The Arab Peace Initiative, 2002

Official translation of the full text of a Saudi-inspired peace plan adopted by the Arab summit in Beirut, 2002.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

basically as Wikipedia says

'The plan consists of a proposal to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. It offers Israel normalization of relations and comprehensive peace agreements with Arab countries in exchange for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the Occupied Territories including the Golan Heights, and the recognition of "an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital," as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees.'

Now mate, unlike you, I can and do back up my statements with quotes and references. You shoud try to back up your assertion with a repuditation of the above offer.

Bet you can't.

polycarp
your logic is suspect.

Why draw the line with the Romans? Why not go back to the people residing there before to the Hebrews arrived from Egypt. Oh that's right ... your book says your God gave you title ... what a joke.

I've done my family history and I'm descended from them and I want my land back ... hahahaha

Hey Manik Josiah

Isnt what Ahmadinejad wants for Israel exactly the same as what David Singer wants for the Palestinian State centered on East Jerusalum, the West Bank and Gaza?

I must point out I have never heard Ahmadinejad say he wants to kill the Jews of Israel. If you can show me that ... with references please do.
I have seen where he wants to wipe the counrty Israel off the map.

And please before you rant show me how that differs from David Singer's proposal to wipe Palestine off the map.