Israel

[Guest Bilo]

Perhaps you could furnish me with figures for Christians living at peace in Muslim countries.

I'd have some sympathy if Palestine was the only source of conflict with Muslims.

But it's not. Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, India, China, Russia ... is there any end to the places I could mention?

If there was no Zionist state that might, I only say might, end warfare in a few hundred square miles.

But who or what do you destroy for peace to exist in the other places?

And doesn't it bother you that Muslims seem to be forever talking about killing or destroying someone or something on some pretext or another? Muslim literature now seems full of it yet, in the beginning, the Muslim message seemed to be one of peace and goodwill.

I have read chapter and verse about Muslim fundamentalist aims.

And if the Muslim fundamentalists are so concerned about who occupies historically "Arab" lands, how come they tolerate so many Muslims occupying lands that historically belonged to Christian or even Pagan people?

I could quite happily work out a worldwide deal to sort this. A deal that would still allow for mutual trading, mutual respect and mutual co-operation where it benefitted all parties.

But I bet, when push came to shove, the Muslims wouldn't accept it. Cos you know and I know it wouldn't fit in with the broad aims of Muslim philosophy.

And, sooner or later those aims will inflame the most hideous conflict despite the cameo set-to in Palestine, utterly shameful as it is to all who've inflamed it, being an ongoing insult to the concept of God for either Christian or Muslim.

Photographs of dead children affect me deeply to the extent that they provide the most compelling evidence in favour of ending all warfare and burning every weapon in existence. The legacy of hatred those deaths leave will never die, just as the Jews will never forget their own persecution.

But they mean nothing to me as media propaganda for the rights and wrongs of this conflict because women and kids die in all wars.

Muslims fundamentalists would kill, destroy and endanger even their own for their long term aims as they have shown many times.

They want no negotiated selttlement in Palestine as is well documented.

But unfortunately for those who would use the dead children image as a stick to beat the Israelis, the Jews know all about suffering.

A few hours walking around Auschwitz and Birkenau or reading about it would show you that Jews have lost enough women, children and infants to last for centuries so will never again be deterred from fighting their cause, justified or not.

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

Not necessarily the most PC message in places but it's one I find difficult to contradict.

[Thracian]

I think that's a bit of an over simplification.

I do believe that every set of people should have the right to self-determination. With regards to nation building and when a group of people should have a state, that is a complex issue. That question can apply equally to the existence of any state. Frequently, the only reason for the existence of any state is simply that it is historical, that it's been there for many years.

The Jewish people have had a continued presence in Israel for over 2500 years. They've been dispersed throughout the world, but always looked towards Israel as their spiritual home. This is the basis for their claim, which is not quite the same as picking a country at random and away you go.

At the time of the creation of the zionist movement, the area that is now Israel, was just an insignificant part of the Turkish Ottoman empire. It then became part of the British mandate. This would help to explain why it was deemed a good place to recreate a jewish state. World war 2 and the anti-semitism of that time obviously helped convince many jews that they needed their own country to protect themselves.

As a result, the establishment of Israel has become a footnote of history, in the same way events throughout history have become so. Everything has to be seen within the context of the time, which makes it almost inapplicable now for a starting point on the current problems. No peace settlement will right the pain suffered on either side, so history almost has to be ignored to come to any peace settlement.

Nice for someone to recognise the wider historic depth to this subject instead of starting in 1948.

And to liken a solution to the attitude needed in Northern Ireland.

If it were a case of simply dealing with Palestine/Israel then maybe negotiation would be possible. But this isn't being driven by just two countries.

The flames are being fanned by idealists with a much broader agenda. And no matter who has to suffer.

[Saladin]

Perhaps you could furnish me with figures for Christians living at peace in Muslim countries.

I'd have some sympathy if Palestine was the only source of conflict with Muslims.

But it's not. Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, India, China, Russia ... is there any end to the places I could mention?

If there was no Zionist state that might, I only say might, end warfare in a few hundred square miles.

But who or what do you destroy for peace to exist in the other places?

And doesn't it bother you that Muslims seem to be forever talking about killing or destroying someone or something on some pretext or another? Muslim literature now seems full of it yet, in the beginning, the Muslim message seemed to be one of peace and goodwill.

I have read chapter and verse about Muslim fundamentalist aims.

And if the Muslim fundamentalists are so concerned about who occupies historically "Arab" lands, how come they tolerate so many Muslims occupying lands that historically belonged to Christian or even Pagan people?

I could quite happily work out a worldwide deal to sort this. A deal that would still allow for mutual trading, mutual respect and mutual co-operation where it benefitted all parties.

But I bet, when push came to shove, the Muslims wouldn't accept it. Cos you know and I know it wouldn't fit in with the broad aims of Muslim philosophy.

And, sooner or later those aims will inflame the most hideous conflict despite the cameo set-to in Palestine, utterly shameful as it is to all who've inflamed it, being an ongoing insult to the concept of God for either Christian or Muslim.

Photographs of dead children affect me deeply to the extent that they provide the most compelling evidence in favour of ending all warfare and burning every weapon in existence. The legacy of hatred those deaths leave will never die, just as the Jews will never forget their own persecution.

But they mean nothing to me as media propaganda for the rights and wrongs of this conflict because women and kids die in all wars.

Muslims fundamentalists would kill, destroy and endanger even their own for their long term aims as they have shown many times.

They want no negotiated selttlement in Palestine as is well documented.

But unfortunately for those who would use the dead children image as a stick to beat the Israelis, the Jews know all about suffering.

A few hours walking around Auschwitz and Birkenau or reading about it would show you that Jews have lost enough women, children and infants to last for centuries so will never again be deterred from fighting their cause, justified or not.

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

You've taken what I said out of context. I was talking about that specific piece of land. Now you’re talking about Muslims across the world? Have Christians lived in peace throughout the existence of their religion? I think not. I'm not going to turn this debate into a Muslim Vs. Christian debate.

My understanding is that Muslim fundamentalists are not true Muslims, many leaders twist and manipulate readings from the Qur’an to try and substantiate their political agenda.

[Trav Le Bleu]

My understanding is that Muslim fundamentalists are not true Muslims, many leaders twist and manipulate readings from the Qur’an to try and substantiate their political agenda.

Sadly this is true of most of the religions of the world and their holy writings. For instance, Jesus preached love your enemy, turn the other cheek and that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword - and yet show me a "Western" army without a padré (or it's equivilant).

2nd Battalion Atheist Paratroops?

[BoneDog]

I'd have some sympathy if Palestine was the only source of conflict with Muslims.

But it's not. Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, India, China, Russia ... is there any end to the places I could mention?

Muslims don't cause the conflict in Iraq. It was Saddam and his supporters in the US and UK (the only reason he had power). Rumsfeld sold him those chemical weapons in the 80's personally then when he used them he started saying 'look what this bastard is doing'. Talk about set up.

As for Afghanistan Britain was involved there for over 100 years before the US got iolved. All these big hostile regimes are set up by western powers and only survive because of western military aid. Regimes say they are Muslim but they are not. In the muslim book it says that if you kill an innocent person you will go to hell. It says you can only kill a person for murder

There are Muslims fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq right now. They are called the Islamic Army and they say they are fighting Al Qaeda because they kill innocent people.

In Africa Muslims are fighting oppressive regimes.

Don't know about India but I think it's something to do with Kashmir where thousands of innocents have been killed by Indian army over the past 10 or 20 years.

I China if tere's fighting it will be to o with oppression and the same with Russia.

There probably is no end to the places you could mention but you can be sure that all the oppression started with oppressive governments and not muslims.

[BoneDog]

irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with their views, I for one think that El Empty and Saladin deserve a :appl: . for livening this forum up again .

they aint scared to mix it with the heavyweights of FT and debate well , cheers lads

if only Chandler would make a few appearances again i used to love his conspiracy angles

Thankyou! If you ain't takin the p*ss that is!

I only joined here about a week ago cos I thought it would be a laugh about football. Was suprised how much chat there is going on.

[Trav Le Bleu]

That's just not true and is based solely on what you've seen over the last 10-15 years. Back in the 1940s, it was a bit different.

The Soviet Union, not exactly a hotbed of Christian cheer, gave its support to the establishment of the state of Israel in the 1947 UN partition plan.

The UK likewise did the same. Again, the UK was not full of fundamental christians, and isn't so today.

I can't comment on whether the fundamentalist christians in the US had the same sort of influence in the 1940s as they do today, but I'm going to guess that they probably didn't and that this political influence really came about from the 1960s onwards. I will defer to somebody who's studied US politics to correct me on that.

When I said fundemental I didn't mean what are today labeled "fundamentalists" - what I meant more was your traditional Catholics and Protestants, many of whom believed that Jesus' 2nd coming will be from a restored nation of Israel.

[BoneDog]

Oh come of it, the damage those 'fireworks' (as you say) have done has been in the news all week, if struck, you will more then likely be killed. Empty, ignorance is no answer in trying to prove one's right!!!!!

Yes I agree that if struck you will be killed. What I'm saying is that if they land 5 metres from you the you'll most likely survive because they have no explosive power. Unlike the Israeli missiles which are the best rockets available and explode massively killing all around and maiming many more.

[Zingari]

Thankyou! If you ain't takin the p*ss that is!

I only joined here about a week ago cos I thought it would be a laugh about football. Was suprised how much chat there is going on.

yes i meant it

and belated welcome , hope FT does not interfere too much with what you are supposed to be doing though

not many members take on the likes of breadandcheese, jon the hat, l444ry, dr singh , honcho , thracian etc etc in their first few days ,

respect mate , i certainly wouldn't try

[Trav Le Bleu]

yes i meant it

and belated welcome , hope FT does not interfere too much with what you are supposed to be doing though

not many members take on the likes of breadandcheese, jon the hat, l444ry, dr singh , honcho , thracian etc etc in their first few days ,

respect mate , i certainly wouldn't try

you can kick the living daylights out of Zing though

[Zingari]

you can kick the living daylights out of Zing though

even my 6 year old grandaughter runs rings around me

[Webbo]

Yes I agree that if struck you will be killed. What I'm saying is that if they land 5 metres from you the you'll most likely survive because they have no explosive power. Unlike the Israeli missiles which are the best rockets available and explode massively killing all around and maiming many more.

The fact that the weapons aren't very good is beside the point, they are sent over with the intent to kill.

[Saladin]

.

[Saladin]

irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with their views, I for one think that El Empty and Saladin deserve a :appl: . for livening this forum up again .

they aint scared to mix it with the heavyweights of FT and debate well , cheers lads

if only Chandler would make a few appearances again i used to love his conspiracy angles

tnx. Everyone should be entitled to their own reasoning, that's what makes a good open debate.

[Saladin]

Muslims don't cause the conflict in Iraq. It was Saddam and his supporters in the US and UK (the only reason he had power). Rumsfeld sold him those chemical weapons in the 80's personally then when he used them he started saying 'look what this bastard is doing'. Talk about set up.

As for Afghanistan Britain was involved there for over 100 years before the US got iolved. All these big hostile regimes are set up by western powers and only survive because of western military aid. Regimes say they are Muslim but they are not. In the muslim book it says that if you kill an innocent person you will go to hell. It says you can only kill a person for murder

There are Muslims fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq right now. They are called the Islamic Army and they say they are fighting Al Qaeda because they kill innocent people.

In Africa Muslims are fighting oppressive regimes.

Don't know about India but I think it's something to do with Kashmir where thousands of innocents have been killed by Indian army over the past 10 or 20 years.

I China if tere's fighting it will be to o with oppression and the same with Russia.

There probably is no end to the places you could mention but you can be sure that all the oppression started with oppressive governments and not muslims.

[BoneDog]

The fact that the weapons aren't very good is beside the point, they are sent over with the intent to kill.

In retaliation yes. A desperate people taking desperate measures, making shite weapons and using them. And let's not forget that it is only a few people firing the rockets. A little group of hardcore males.

[Zingari]

tnx. Everyone should be entitled to their own reasoning, that's what makes a good open debate.

agreed i think if everyone could learn to listen more to the other person's point of view instead of trying to take the moral highground by virtue of using historic justifications , and learn to live in the here and now, we would soon realise that people everywhere really aren't so different , and hopefully come to live in some sort of harmony .

however , i'm not too hopeful , but younger people do communicate more these days via these forums etc so who knows ,

[Saladin]

agreed i think if everyone could learn to listen more to the other person's point of view instead of trying to take the moral highground by virtue of using historic justifications , and learn to live in the here and now, we would soon realise that people everywhere really aren't so different , and hopefully come to live in some sort of harmony .

however , i'm not too hopeful , but younger people do communicate more these days via these forums etc so who knows ,

That's an interesting take on things.

As a Leicester fan, I'm supposed to say 'Keep the Faith'.

[Hullfox]

I agree with the plaudits, well done you guys, hopefully we have all been able to learn something about the history of this conflict and a big up to El Empty for his input and that rare ability to agree that something he said might not be right.

So, does god have a beard or not?

[BoneDog]

I agree with the plaudits, well done you guys, hopefully we have all been able to learn something about the history of this conflict and a big up to El Empty for his input and that rare ability to agree that something he said might not be right.

So, does god have a beard or not?

Haha. I don't think so, I think He's sort of a gas! Just a joke to you religious ones I honestly don't know!

[Daggers]

That book is just a rant. A better book is 'The Dawkins Delusion' by Alister McGrath.

Plus, youtube is not just videos of people being sick and funny dogs you know. You can get real documentarys split into a few parts. I only go on there cos I'm new to computers and don't know where to find things. But you can keep going on about it if you must.

And if you like Dawkins books I suppose that means you believe in the evolution theory? That theory has been disproven in the last 20 years not least by the fossil record. There is not 1 fossil of any species in between stages. And of course if evolution was fact then there would be millions of fossils of creatures in between stages (as the theory states that it would take millions of years for 1 species to evolve into another).

Absolute shit, the viewpoint of someone who is both ill-read and ill-equiped for structured thinking.

Which video did you get these opinions from?

[Head Honcho]

irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with their views, I for one think that El Empty and Saladin deserve a :appl: . for livening this forum up again .

they aint scared to mix it with the heavyweights of FT and debate well , cheers lads

if only Chandler would make a few appearances again i used to love his conspiracy angles

Livening up the thread is one thing but having no idea about the subject in matter is another!

[Head Honcho]

The fact that the weapons aren't very good is beside the point, they are sent over with the intent to kill.

Ex-fvcking-actly!

[Guest Bilo]

It's Not Apartheid

Jimmy Carter's moronic new book about Israel.

By Michael Kinsley

In the six decades since the founding of Israel, there have been about one and a half new ideas for solving the most intractable problem on the map of the world. In fact, ever since Britain's Balfour Declaration (1917) made incompatible promises to Jews and Arabs struggling over the same tiny plot of land, most would-be solutions have counted on an outbreak of good will among the Middle East's warring parties. This tradition continues in the Iraq Study Group report, which declares, "There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts," as a small warm-up for tackling the problem of Iraq.

What a good idea! And then we'll cure cancer, to pave the way for health-care reform. Why, of course all of humanity should put down its weapons and learn to live together in harmony and siblinghood—most especially in the Holy Land, birthplace of three great religions (so far). In fact, it is downright inexplicable that peace and good will have not broken out spontaneously in the Middle East, even though this has never happened anywhere else, either.

This is what special commissions are for, even though this agreeably tough-sounding demand for comprehension directly conflicts with the half of an idea mentioned above, which went by the name of "Road Map." It was only half of an idea—let's call it a notion—because this notion still depended on something close to a change in human nature. But the road map made this seem more plausible. The notion was that abandoning the melodrama of a comprehensive settlement and settling for a series of smaller steps over many years might help the parties to develop mutual trust. Or at least this was a better bet than expecting each side to make a leap of faith into the arms of the other.

Meanwhile, the one full new idea in the Israel-Arab conflict came from Ariel Sharon, of all people. This oafish former general who supervised the Sabra and Shatila massacres of Palestinians in Lebanon back in 1982, as prime minister more recently took up the philosophy of that Robert Frost poem: "Good fences make good neighbors." Rather than wait a few million years for evolution to purge Israelis and Arabs of their animosity, just keep them apart with a fence or a wall and related rules. Yes, of course, the walls and the rules favoured Israel and were a far greater burden on Arabs than Israelis. But that is the kind of thing you can negotiate.

Comes now former President Jimmy Carter with a new best-selling book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. It's not clear what he means by using the loaded word apartheid, since the book makes no attempt to explain it, but the only reasonable interpretation is that Carter is comparing Israel to the former white racist government of South Africa. That is a foolish and unfair comparison, unworthy of the man who won—and deserved—the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing Israel and Egypt together in the Camp David Accords, and who has lent such lustre to the imaginary office of former president.

I mean, what's the parallel? Apartheid had a philosophical component and a practical one, both quite bizarre. Philosophically, it was committed to the notion of racial superiority. No doubt many Israelis have racist attitudes toward Arabs, but the official philosophy of the government is quite the opposite, and sincere efforts are made to, for example, instill humanitarian and egalitarian attitudes in children. That is not true, of course, in Arab countries, where hatred of Jews is a standard part of the curriculum.

The practical component of apartheid involved the creation of phony nations called "Bantustans." Black South Africans would be stripped of their citizenship and assigned to far-away Bantustans, where often they had never before set foot. The goal was a racially pure white South Africa, though the contradiction with the need for black labor was never resolved. Here might be a parallel with Israel, which needs the labour of the Arabs it is currently trying to keep out.

But in other ways, the implied comparison is backward. To start, no one has yet thought to accuse Israel of creating a phony country in finally acquiescing to the creation of a Palestinian state. Palestine is no Bantustan. Or if it is, it is the creation of Arabs, not Jews. Furthermore, Israel has always had Arab citizens. They are Arabs who were living in what became Israel prior to 1948 and who didn't leave. They are a bit on display, like black conservatives at a Republican convention. Israel is fortunate that, for whatever reason, most of their compatriots fled. No doubt they suffer discrimination. Nevertheless, they are citizens with the right to vote and so on. There used to be Jews living in Arab nations, but they also fled in 1948 and subsequent years—in numbers roughly equivalent to the Arabs who fled Israel. Now there are virtually no Jews in Arab countries—even in a moderate Arab country like Jordan. How many Jews do you think there will be in the new state of Palestine, when its flag flies over a sovereign nation?

And the most tragic difference: Apartheid ended peacefully. This is largely thanks to Nelson Mandela, who turned out to be miraculously forgiving. If Israel is white South Africa and the Palestinians are supposed to be the blacks, where is their Mandela?

An interesting piece on the apartheid analogy that, in my opinion, does make some very valid points. Any thoughts?

[Thracian]

Muslims don't cause the conflict in Iraq. It was Saddam and his supporters in the US and UK (the only reason he had power). Rumsfeld sold him those chemical weapons in the 80's personally then when he used them he started saying 'look what this bastard is doing'. Talk about set up.

As for Afghanistan Britain was involved there for over 100 years before the US got iolved. All these big hostile regimes are set up by western powers and only survive because of western military aid. Regimes say they are Muslim but they are not. In the muslim book it says that if you kill an innocent person you will go to hell. It says you can only kill a person for murder

There are Muslims fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq right now. They are called the Islamic Army and they say they are fighting Al Qaeda because they kill innocent people.

In Africa Muslims are fighting oppressive regimes.

Don't know about India but I think it's something to do with Kashmir where thousands of innocents have been killed by Indian army over the past 10 or 20 years.

I China if tere's fighting it will be to o with oppression and the same with Russia.

There probably is no end to the places you could mention but you can be sure that all the oppression started with oppressive governments and not muslims.

How many Muslim "books" are there?

Cos it's sure hard to equate the Twin Towers with your quote about "going to hell if you kill an innocent person" and "only being able to kill a person for murder."

And what about Muslim executions for offences other than murder? Stoning women doesn't do their health any good!

And we're not talking Al Qaeda, we're talking Muslim governments. I'll just leave you access to a brief example of the range of crimes for which Muslim regimes impose the death penalty...

http://www.middle-east-info.org/league/saudi/saudi.pdf

And there lies a problem.

Points that you make don't stand up to examination and I wonder if you ever take the time to challenge what you read or are told and whether you consider the "vested interest" of whoever tells you or the television coverage you watch.

Because I get the impression that a once well-meaning religion has gradually become sullied by people who are simply using it and abusing it to get power over people for their own ends.

They forever find excuses for their own attitudes of course, just as you have presented excuses for not one war but all sorts of wars.

Well let me leave you with three thoughts from the Christian doctrine that might serve you well over time, and particularly if you truly believe in the concept of God and of paradise...

"Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself" is one, "Judge not that you be not judged," is the second and "Vengeance is Mine sayeth the Lord" the third.

Not easy concepts I grant you.

But either you Believe in a higher power or you don't and if it's the former they might put you on the path to a sounder way of thinking.

Or you can support the enduring arrogance of man and his constantly demonstrated lack of wisdom.

You will notice that I've made no excuses for anybody. Not the US, the UK, Saddam Hussein, the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Christians, the Muslims nor any warmongers anywhere.

Why? Cos while there may be reasons for war, it is always a demonstration of man's lack of goodwill (with all that encompasses) and his lack of just and respected law.

Oppression is a problem to be solved. Indeed it should have long been solved. But it should not be used for something potentially worse and the start of a never-ending spiral of abomination.

War and killing will solve nothing in Palestine any more than Bush's response to the Twin Towers.

Don't get me wrong. I would have responded to the Twin Towers. But not with violence, as I said at the time.

Not one bullet would have been fired in the name of those people.

And the world would have known it.

Those lost multinational lives would have been presented to the world as representing the victims of man's fanaticism and willingness to be brainwashed.

Their loss would not have been in vain.

And the money saved for have paid for things like hospitals, health programmes, cataract operations, irrigation schemes, theatres, sports clubs each bearing the names of those victims. With more year on year for emphasis and for all to see.

Instead of more missiles, more tanks, more guns and more bullets.

I can even think of a Palestinian solution that would almost certainly get some serious talking started within days. It would be radical but I believe it would work. And not a single bullet would be fired at the Israelis from the Palestinian end.