How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Statehood   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Statehood

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


75 posted 09-29-2011 09:59 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Are there Islamic states in the world?
If yes, do they have a right to exist?


.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


76 posted 09-30-2011 12:09 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

This thread reminded me of http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/001401.html  ,which was a very good thread, which reminded me of something my mother used to say

'America loves Israel.  It just hates Jews.'
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


77 posted 09-30-2011 01:08 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     It sounds like a co-majority is a semantic slough of despond in which two reasonably matched groups struggle to crush each other.  Republicans and Democrats in the two houses (and in the back alleys between those two house) may be a co-majority.  I am unhappy with Zionism as a movement.  I am equally unhappy with a group of Palestinians who want to have Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.

     I'd feel uncomfortable if the Dutch tried to eliminate every other ethnic group from Manhattan because they were latecomers, and the Dutch had clear title.  The reasoning seems similar, though of course it isn't.

     The city of Jerusalem is Israeli because the arab countries invaded Israel again, and the Israelis used that as an excused to push arabs out of most of Jerusalem and to put an end to any national claims by other countries to that land.  When people go to war, they embrace madness.  They pretend there will be no consequences and only gains.

     Israel had made its stupid decisions, including its invasion of Lebanon, and much of its policy in relating to the Palestinians, which have made Israel look like aggressive bullies in the eyes of much of the world, and which have cost Israel in men and treasure.

     The problem with actions such as those of the Palestinians and of the Israelis is that they are self confirming.  Each side uses the actions of the other for justification of its own outrages.  The statistics seem to bear out the notion that the Israelis have been significantly nastier over time, but the Israelis have that covered as well.  If you do something to harm us, they say, we will relaliate with something worse to let you know that we will not allow or reputation for passivity to continue in this world.  

     I can understand the thinking behind this; I simply disagree.

     I will say, however, that at this point in time, I don't feel that the likelihood of a joint arab military attack against Israel actually feels as likely as it did to me ten years ago, and this might have something to do with their policy.  I don't know, to tell the truth; and I would rather that this would not be the case because I have an enduring faith in reason and negotiation.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


78 posted 09-30-2011 01:09 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, that was a very good thread. In it you will find how I agreed with your mother.

That thread was 5 years ago, It's basically the same as today's. It's the same as one that will be discussed in 2020 or 2030, if we are still here.

As Ron pointed out in that thread, there will be no non-military solution. I agree. Based on muslim faith, there cannot be.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


79 posted 09-30-2011 01:38 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Maybe what Essorant means Bob is 'coalition' but, Essorant is our lexicon and usually means exactly what Essorant says.

In parliamentary systems, with multiple factions - the ones that co-operate can form 'co-majorities/coalition' governments?  Seems to fit.

Mike, I think you seriously misunderestimate the intransigence of Judaism.  Sometimes my mother would take us to Synagogue on Friday nights so we could get some kind of understanding of our heritage.  I can distinctly remember a rather rude rabbi who very, um, can't think of the appropriate adjective-- but angrily will have to do -- told my mother (in front of her children) that the most important thing a Jew can never, ever, ever, do is belive that Jesus was the Son of God -- and she was therefore -- NOT a Jew.

As an agnostic Christian, I suppose I now qualify?

If you look at this article though http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10597#.ToVHa6N5mSN
you can get a taste of the same kind of religious extremism demonstrated by some muslims.  (Not to mention  how misguided this guy is about why Evangelicals -- he should read the 'Left Behind' literature-- support Israel
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


80 posted 09-30-2011 09:05 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Nor is this new. It is perfectly consistent with the long history of Palestinian rejectionism. Consider:

Camp David, 2000. At a U.S.-sponsored summit, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offers Yasser Arafat a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza and, astonishingly, the previously inconceivable division of Jerusalem. Arafat refuses and makes no counteroffer, thereby demonstrating his unseriousness about making any deal. Instead, within two months, he launches a savage terror war that kills 1,000 Israelis.

Taba, 2001. An even sweeter deal the Clinton Parameters is offered. Arafat walks away again.

Israel, 2008. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert makes the ultimate capitulation to Palestinian demands: 100 percent of the West Bank (with land swaps), Palestinian statehood, the division of Jerusalem with the Muslim parts becoming the capital of the new Palestine. And incredibly, he offers to turn over the citys holy places, including the Western Wall Judaisms most sacred site, its Kaaba to an international body on which sit Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Did Abbas accept? Of course not. If he had, the conflict would be over and Palestine would already be a member of the United Nations.

This is not ancient history. All three peace talks occurred over the past decade. And every one completely contradicts the current mindless narrative of Israeli intransigence as the obstacle to peace.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278751/land-without-peace-charles-krauthammer


.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


81 posted 09-30-2011 09:35 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I read the article, LR, and see something that could have been written by any "holy man" of any religion. That's what they do and have done since the sun god RA was the BMOC. If it is supposed to illustrate that all religions have their fanatical sides, I would agree with that with or without the article. Some of the Baptist sermons in the deep South up in the hills would curl your hair as they speak in tongues and use snakes. If it is supposed to show that Jews are actually biased against all non-Jews, ok, but I don't see anywhere where Jews advocate killing or eradicating all non-Jews. To me that's the difference. Anyone can believe anything they want, in my book, but when their belief involves killing me I have a small problem with it.

I don't admire Israel because they are Jews, nor does it matter to me whether they like me or not. I admire them because they are NOT a people who attempt to slaughter people for being non-Jews. I admire them because they keep getting attacked and keep coming out on top. I admire them because, in a world where they seem to be hated by everyone around them, they manage to flourish. It's not an "I'll like you if you like me" relationship. Do they have a hard shell? Hell, yeah. Take a dog that has been kicked around by everyone who passes and don't be surprised if he growls when you try to pet him. I'll admit I can judge people on a lot of counts but religion is not one of them, unless they agree with a religion that advocates killing others out of any form of "ethnic cleansing". As it has been with many religions, it is the religious leaders and political heads that are the problem, not the average citizens.

As far as the Jews being God's chosen people, one of my Jewish friends said, "If we are the chosen people, I wish God would have hated us just a little bit more."
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


82 posted 09-30-2011 01:25 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I wouldn't say that the danger is that Jews are biased against Gentiles - what I would say of Judaism, as any religion, is that the danger comes when they think God is biased against the 'other'.  

This is something that has beset Judaism from time to time if you read Ezrah and Nehamia it reads like Isreal is a zenophobic Nazi state -purging everyone tgat isn't 100% true Jewish.  But if you read Ruth, you find out that in David's lineage, he is part Moabite, which would mean he wasn't good enough for Ezra and Nehamiah,  but there he is, Israels greatest King, and his son Solomon -- the wisest.  So, it indicates a wising up, so to speak.

And while I would agree that Judaism has no mandate to kill everybody else, I completely disagree with your implication that Islam does.  And, because you have a people who believe that God gave them a piece of land, some have demonstrated they are willing to pursue extreme measures to 'defend' that claim.

It isn't accurate to say the UN 'gave' them a country.  The UN partition PLAN was a two state solution, with divided control of Jerusalem, and when the Brits pulled out of the Mandate, the Israelis jumped the gun, proclaimed themselves a state (without any definition of borders) which looked very bad to the Palestinians, and the neighbors all wanted a slice of the power pie.

Israeli terror organizations like Lehi were murdering Brits and Palestinians even after the Partition plan was moving forward and they were on the way to statehood.  Nothing was good enough or fast enough because God was on their side.

The answer to John's prickly question resides in Israel's pre 1948 right to exist alongside a Palestinian soveriegn state.  

oh, John, do you ever read anything besides National Review?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


83 posted 09-30-2011 01:44 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Huan

Maybe you should look into the details and find out why the Palestinian leaders rejected Israel's proposals:

Here is an article about an official document revealing some of the details of Camp David  and how "fair" and "generous" Ehud Barak's offer really was: Ungenerous occupier: Israel's Camp David exposed


"The sum effect of these "generous" proposals was to offer the Palestinians far less than the remaining 22 percent of their historic homeland. They would have had to subtract from a state in Gaza and the West Bank large parts of the expanded municipality of Jerusalem, as well as the Latrun Salient, eight percent of the West Bank to accommodate the settlements, and a further 20 percent for a security zone in the Jordan Valley.

In other words, the Palestinians were being asked to sign up to a deal that would give them a very compromised sovereignty over no more than about 14 percent of their historic homeland -- or something very similar to the Bantustans that have been created for them before and since Camp David by the growth of the settlements and the creeping annexation of their land by the separation wall.

In return for Barak's "generosity," what counter-demands did the Palestinians make that scuppered the talks and thereby "unmasked" Arafat, as Barak and Clinton have long maintained? What damning evidence is cited?

The Palestinians, according to the document, were willing to accommodate Israel's "demographic needs" and agree to border changes. They insisted on two conditions, however: that Israel's annexation of the West Bank not exceed 2.3 percent of the territory, and that any land swap be based on the principle of equality. Israel, it seems, could not accept either term.

The Palestinians also wanted the land corridor connecting the two parts of their state, the West Bank and Gaza, to be under their sovereignty, presumably so that such connections could not be severed at Israeli whim. In addition, Arafat expected the usual trappings of statehood: an army and control of Palestinian airspace. Israel opposed all these demands."

 

Another article about the "Palestine Papers":

Papers confirm Israeli rejectionism



"The Palestine Papers, as they are being called, demand a serious re-evaluation of two lingering -- and erroneous -- assumptions made by many Western observers about the peace process.

The first relates to the United States' self-proclaimed role as honest broker. What shines through the documents is the reluctance of US officials to put reciprocal pressure on Israeli negotiators, even as the Palestinian team make major concessions on core issues. Israel's "demands" are always treated as paramount.

The second is the assumption that peace talks have fallen into abeyance chiefly because of the election nearly two years ago of a right-wing Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu. He has drawn international criticism for refusing to pay more than lip-service to Palestinian statehood.

The Americans' goal -- at least in the early stages of Netanyahu's premiership -- was to strong-arm him into bringing into his coalition Tzipi Livni, leader of the centrist opposition party Kadima. She is still widely regarded as the most credible Israeli advocate for peace.

However, Livni, who was previously Olmert's foreign minister, emerges in the leaked papers as an inflexible negotiator, dismissive of the huge concessions being made by the Palestinians. At a key moment, she turns down the Palestinians' offer, after saying: "I really appreciate it."

The sticking point for Livni was a handful of West Bank settlements the Palestinian negotiators refused to cede to Israel. The Palestinians have long complained that the two most significant -- Maale Adumim, outside Jerusalem, and Ariel, near the Palestinian city of Nablus -- would effectively cut the West Bank into three cantons, undermining any hopes of territorial contiguity.

Livni's insistence on holding on to these settlements -- after all the Palestinian compromises -- suggests that there is no Israeli leader either prepared or able to reach a peace deal -- unless, that is, the Palestinians cave in to almost every Israeli demand and abandon their ambitions for statehood.

One of the Palestine Papers quotes an exasperated Erekat asking a US diplomat last year: "What more can I give?"

The man with the answer may be Lieberman, who unveiled his own map of Palestinian statehood this week. It conceded a provisional state on less than half of the West Bank."

[This message has been edited by Essorant (09-30-2011 03:00 PM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


84 posted 09-30-2011 01:46 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Did Krauthammer make up the history he cites?


the Israelis jumped the gun, proclaimed themselves a state

Being that the other parties had already started using guns on them . . .

Neighbouring Arab states declared that they would greet any attempt to create a Jewish state with war, but they made very little effort to prepare or organise to stop it.[44] In January 1948 Arab volunteers from Palestine and from all over the Middle East began to gather in Syria to form the Arab Liberation Army (ALA). ALA raids into Palestine were repulsed by the British and by troops of the Palmach, a small elite force of the Haganah. A three-way war spread over much of Palestine, with the British trying to keep order, but conscious of the need to avoid casualties as they prepared for their withdrawal. The Arab-Jewish violence increased in the spring of 1948 as the British gradually withdrew. Britain imposed an arms embargo, which only really affected the Jews as supplies reached the Palestinian Arabs from neighbouring Arab states across the land borders of Palestine. . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#United_Nations_Partition_Plan  


You've already seen another quote from the same site.

.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


85 posted 09-30-2011 03:23 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Yes John, the fighting started long before but it's misleading to say the other parties were already using guns on them.... what were the Israelis using?

The Arabs made it clear what their intentions were, and, in the face of that-  the Jewish Agency went ahead anyway.  

quote:


The United States and the Recognition of Israel: A Chronology

Compiled by Raymond H. Geselbracht from Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel (Westport, Connecticut, 1997) by Michael T. Benson

[ 1939 | 1945 | 1946 | 1947 | 1948 | 1949 ]


May 17, 1939: British White Paper on Palestine

May 25, 1939: Senator Harry S. Truman inserts in the Congressional Record strong criticism of the British White Paper on Palestine, saying it is a dishonorable repudiation by Britain of her obligations.

August 24, 1945: Loy Henderson, director of the State Department's Near East Agency, writes to Secretary of State James Byrnes that the United States would lose its moral prestige in the Middle East if it supported Jewish aspirations in Palestine.

August 24, 1945: The report of the Intergovernment Committee on Refugees, called the Harrison Report, is presented to President Truman. The report is very critical of the treatment by Allied forces of refugees, particularly Jewish refugees, in Germany.

August 31, 1945: President Truman writes British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, citing the Harrison Report and urging Attlee to allow a reasonable number of Europe's Jews to emigrate to Palestine.

October 22, 1945: Senators Robert Wagner of New York and Robert Taft of Ohio introduce a resolution expressing support for a Jewish state in Palestine.

November 13, 1945: The British government announces the formation of an Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry to investigate Britain's handling of the Palestine situation. The committee begins work on January 4, 1946.

November 29, 1945: At a press conference, President Truman expresses opposition to the Taft-Wagner resolution. He says he wants to await and consider the report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry.

April 20, 1946: The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry submits its report, which recommends that Britain immediately authorize the admission of 100,000 Jews into Palestine.

May 8, 1946: President Truman writes to Prime Minister Attlee, citing the report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, and expressing the hope that Britain would begin lifting the barriers to Jewish immigration to Palestine.

June 21, 1946: A Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum to the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee warns that if the United States uses armed force to support the implementation of the recommendations of the report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, the Soviet Union might be able to increase its power and influence in the Middle East, and United States access to Middle East oil could be jeopardized.

September 24, 1946: Counsel to the President Clark Clifford writes to the President to warn that the Soviet Union wishes to achieve complete economic, military and political domination in the Middle East. Toward this end, Clifford argues, they will encourage the emigration of Jews from Europe into Palestine and at the same time denounce British and American policies toward Palestine and inflame the Arabs against these policies.

October 4, 1946: On the eve of Yom Kippur, President Truman issues a statement indicating United States support for the creation of a "viable Jewish state."

October 23, 1946: Loy Henderson, director of the State Department's Near East Agency, warns that the immigration of Jewish Communists into Palestine will increase Soviet influence there.

October 28, 1946: President Truman writes to King Saud of Saudi Arabia, informing the king that he believes "that a national home for the Jewish people should be established in Palestine."

1947-48: The White House receives 48,600 telegrams, 790,575 cards, and 81,200 other pieces of mail on the subject of Palestine.

February 7, 1947: The British government announces that it will terminate its mandate for Palestine.

February 14, 1947: The British government announces that it will refer the problem of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.

April 2, 1947: The British Government submits to the General Assembly of the United Nations an account of its administration of Palestine under the League of Nations mandate, and asks the General Assembly to make recommendations regarding the future government of Palestine.

May 13, 1947: The United Nations General Assembly appoints an eleven nation Special Committee on Palestine to study the Palestine problem and report by September 1947.

August 31, 1947: The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine issues its report, which recommends unanimously (all 11 member states voting in favor) that Great Britain terminate their mandate for Palestine and grant it independence at the earliest possible date; and which also recommends by majority vote (7 of the member nations voting in favor) that Palestine be partitioned into Jewish and Arab states.

September 17, 1947: Secretary of State George Marshall, in an address to the United Nations, indicates that the United States is reluctant to endorse the partition of Palestine.

September 22, 1947: Loy Henderson, director the State Department's Near East Agency, addresses a memorandum to Secretary of State George Marshall in which he argues against United States' advocacy of the United Nations proposal to partition Palestine.

October 10, 1947: The Joint Chiefs of Staff argue in a memorandum entitled "The Problem of Palestine" that the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states would enable the Soviet Union to replace the United States and Great Britain in the region and would endanger United States access to Middle East oil.

October 11, 1947: Herschel Johnson, United States deputy representative on the United Nations Security Council, announces United States support for the partition plan of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine.

October 17, 1947: President Truman writes to Senator Claude Pepper: "I received about 35,000 pieces of mail and propaganda from the Jews in this country while this matter [the issue of the partition of Palestine, which was being considered by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine from May 13, 1947 to August 31, 1947] was pending. I put it all in a pile and struck a match to it -- I never looked at a single one of the letters because I felt the United Nations Committee [United Nations Special Committee on Palestine] was acting in a judicial capacity and should not be interfered with."

Ca. November 1947: A subcommittee of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine establishes a timetable for British withdrawal from Palestine.

November 19, 1947: Chaim Weizmann meets with President Truman and argues that the Negev region has great importance to the future Jewish state.

November 24, 1947: Secretary of State George Marshall writes to Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett to inform him that British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin had told him that British intelligence indicated that Jewish groups moving illegally from the Balkan states to Palestine included many Communists.

November 29, 1947: The United Nations General Assembly approves the partition plan for Palestine put forward by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. The 1947 UN Partition divided the area into three entities: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an international zone around Jerusalem.

December 2, 1947: President Truman writes to former Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., encouraging him to tell his Jewish friends that it is time for restraint and caution. "The vote in the U.N.," Truman wrote, "is only the beginning and the Jews must now display tolerance and consideration for the other people in Palestine with whom they will necessarily have to be neighbors."

December 5, 1947: Secretary of State George Marshall announces that the State Department is imposing an embargo on all shipments of arms to the Middle East.

December 12, 1947: President Truman writes to Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization, that it is essential that restraint and tolerance be exercised by all parties if a peaceful settlement is to be reached in the Middle East.

February 4, 1948: Chaim Wiezmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization, arrives in New York.

February 12, 1948: Secretary of Defense James Forrestal says at a meeting of the National Security Council that any serious attempt to implement partition in Palestine would set in motion events that would result in at least a partial mobilization of United States armed forces.

February 19, 1948: Secretary of State George Marshall says at a press conference, when asked if the United States would continue to support partition, that the "whole Palestine thing," was under "constant consideration."

February 21, 1948: Eddie Jacobson, a longtime and close personal friend of President Truman, sends atelegram to Truman, asking him to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization.

February 22, 1948: President Truman instructs Secretary of State George Marshall that while he approves in principle a draft prepared by the State Department of a position paper which mentions as a possible contingency a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine, he does not want anything presented to the United Nations Security Council that could be interpreted as a change from the position in favor of partition that the United States announced in the General Assembly on November 29, 1947. He further instructs Marshall to send him for review the final draft of the remarks that Warren Austin, the United States representative to the United Nations, is to give before the Security Council on March 19, 1948.

February 27, 1948: President Truman writes to his friend Eddie Jacobson, refusing to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization.

March 8, 1948: Counsel to the President Clark Clifford writes to President Truman, in a memorandum entitled "United States Policy with Regard to Palestine," that Truman's actions in support of partition are "in complete conformity with the settled policy of the United States."

March 9, 1948: Secretary of State George Marshall instructs Warren Austin, United States representative to the United Nations, that if a United Nations special assembly on Palestine were convened, the United States would support a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine.

March 12, 1948: The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine reports that "present indications point to the inescapable conclusion that when the [British] mandate is terminated, Palestine is likely to suffer severely from administrative chaos and widespread strife and bloodshed."

March 13, 1948: President Truman's friend Eddie Jacobson walks into the White House without an appointment and pleads with Truman to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization. Truman responds: "You win, you baldheaded son-of-a-[edit]. I will see him."

March 18, 1948: President Truman meets with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization. Truman says he wishes to see justice done in Palestine without bloodshed, and that if the Jewish state were declared and the United Nations remained stalled in its attempt to establish a temporary trusteeship over Palestine, the United States would recognize the new state immediately.

March 18, 1948: The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine reports to the United Nations Security Council that it has failed to arrange any compromise between Jews and Arabs, and it recommends that the United Nations undertake a temporary trusteeship for Palestine in order to restore peace.

March 19, 1948: United States representative to the United Nations Warren Austin announces to the United Nations Security Council that the United States position is that the partition of Palestine is no longer a viable option.

March 20, 1948: Secretary of State George Marshall announces that the United States will seek to work within the United Nations to bring a peaceful settlement to Palestine, and that the proposal for a temporary United Nations trusteeship for Palestine is the only idea presently being considered that will allow the United Nations to address the difficult situation in Palestine.

March 21, 1948: President Truman writes in his diary regarding the confusion caused by the State Department's handling of the trusteeship issue: "I spend the day trying to right what has happened. No luck. Marshall makes a statement. Doesn't help a bit."

March 21, 1948: President Truman writes to his sister Mary Jane Truman that the "striped pants conspirators" in the State Department had "completely balled up the Palestine situation." But, he writes, "it may work out anyway in spite of them."

March 22, 1948: President Truman writes to his brother Vivian Truman regarding Palestine: "I think the proper thing to do, and the thing I have been doing, is to do what I think is right and let them all go to hell."

March 25, 1948: President Truman says at a press conference that a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine would be only a temporary measure, intended to establish the peaceful conditions that would be the essential foundation for a final political settlement. He says that trusteeship is not a substitute for partition.

April 11, 1948: President Truman's friend Eddie Jacobson enters the White House unnoticed by the East Gate and meets with Truman. Jacobson recorded of this meeting: "He reaffirmed, very strongly, the promises he had made to Dr. Weizmann and to me; and he gave me permission to tell Dr. Weizmann so, which I did. It was at this meeting that I also discussed with the President the vital matter of recognizing the new state, and to this he agreed with a whole heart."

May 12, 1948: President Truman meets in the Oval Office with Secretary of State George Marshall, Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett, Counsel to the President Clark Clifford and several others to discuss the Palestine situation. Clifford argues in favor of recognizing the new Jewish state in accordance with the United Nations resolution of November 29, 1947. Marshall opposes Clifford's arguments, and contends they are based on domestic political considerations. He says that if Truman follows Clifford's advice and recognizes the Jewish state, then he (Marshall) would vote against Truman in the election. Truman does not clearly state his views in the meeting.

May 12, 13, and 14, 1948: Counsel to the President Clark Clifford and Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett discuss the different views held in the White House and the State Department regarding whether the United States should recognize the Jewish state. Lovett reports to Clifford on May 14 that Marshall will neither support nor oppose Truman's plan to recognize the Jewish state, that he will stay out of the entire matter.

May 13, 1948: Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization, writes to President Truman: "I deeply hope that the United States, which under your leadership has done so much to find a just solution [to the Palestine situation], will promptly recognize the Provisional Government of the new Jewish state. The world, I think, would regard it as especially appropriate that the greatest living democracy should be the first to welcome the newest into the family of nations."

May 14, 1948: late morning eastern standard time (late afternoon in Palestine): David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, reads a "Declaration of Independence," which proclaims the existence of a Jewish state called Israel beginning on May 15, 1948, at 12:00 midnight Palestine time (6:00 p.m., May 14, 1948,eastern standard time).

May 14, 1948, 6 p.m. eastern standard time (12:00 midnight in Palestine): The British mandate for Palestine expires, and the state of Israel comes into being.

May 14, 1948, 6:11 p.m. eastern standard time: The United States recognizes Israel on a de facto basis. The White House issues the following statement: "This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the State of Israel." To see a color copy of this document click here.

May 14, 1948, shortly after 6:11 p.m. eastern standard time: United States representative to the United Nations Warren Austin leaves his office at the United Nations and goes home. Secretary of State Marshall sends a State Department official to the United Nations to prevent the entire United States delegation from resigning.

May 15, 1948: On May 15, 1948, the Arab states issued their response statement and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq attack Israel.

January 25, 1949: A permanent government takes office in Israel following popular elections.

January 31, 1949: The United States recognizes Israel on a de jure basis.

February 24 to July 20, 1949: Israel signs armistice agreements with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/palestin.htm




And if you look at the document here: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/photos/israel.jpg

you'll see that Truman was very careful not to recognise a 'Jewish' state of Israel.

Access to oil, cold war considerations, domestic politics all played roles in why the US, led by Truman, helped create the mess we have today.  The UN did not 'give' Israel a country.  No one has clean hands here.

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (09-30-2011 04:07 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


86 posted 09-30-2011 03:44 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
What is a co-majority?


Sorry, I missed this earlier.

By "Co-majority" I was speaking of an ethnic group that would have a similar population-presence as Jews in Israel.  

The refugees that wish to be able to return to their homeland in Israel aren't terrorists or people that wish to make war against Israel, they simply wish to be able to return to their homeland just as the Jews themselves were able to return to their homeland.   Why can't they?  Jewish populations from the other side of the world that never touched the land before have a right, but populations of Palestinians that were born there, will be refused?  

The reason is because it would mean two ethnic groups would predominate in Israel instead of just Jews.  It couldn't be a "Jewish State"/Jewish Majority.  It would mean that the  homeland of both of the people would have both of the people living equally in the land.  That won't happen as long as one of the peoples (Israelis) demand that Israel should only be a "Jewish" state where Jews can only be the majority.  

The Palestinians aren't seen as a distinct people by Israel: they are just Arabs, and since the Arabs already have so much land and since there is no other Jewish State, the Palestinian nation are supposed to forget about their homeland and accept the other Arab lands as their own - because they are Arab and not Jews, and because Jews' wish for their homeland is the only wish that is supposed to count.  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


87 posted 09-30-2011 05:23 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201192614417586774.html


quote:

The Israeli government's current mantra is that the Palestinians must recognise a "Jewish State". Of course, the Palestinians have clearly and repeatedly recognised the State of Israel as such in the 1993 Oslo Accords (which were based on an Israeli promise to establish a Palestinian state within five years - a promise now shattered) and many times since. Recently, however, Israeli leaders have dramatically and unilaterally moved the goal-posts and are now clamouring that Palestinians must recognise Israel as a "Jewish State".

In 1946, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry concluded that the demand for a "Jewish State" was not part of the obligations of the Balfour Declaration or the British Mandate. Even in the First Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897, when Zionists sought to "establish a home for the Jewish people", there was no reference of a "Jewish State". The Zionist Organisation preferred at first to use the description "Jewish homeland" or "Jewish Commonwealth". Many pioneering Zionist leaders, such as Judah Magnes and Martin Buber also avoided the clear and explicit term "Jewish State" for their project of a homeland for Jews, and preferred instead the concept of a democratic bi-national state.

Today, however, demands for a "Jewish State" from Israeli politicians are growing without giving thought to what this might mean, and its supporters claim that it would be as natural as calling France a French State. However, if we consider the subject dispassionately, the idea of a "Jewish State" is logically and morally problematic because of its legal, religious, historical and social implications. The implications of this term therefore need to be spelled out, and we are sure that once they are, most people - and most Israeli citizens, we trust - will not accept these implications.


First, let us say that confusion immediately arises here because the term "Jewish" can be applied both to the ancient race of Israelites and their descendants, as well as to those who believe in and practice the religion of Judaism. These generally overlap, but not always. For example, some ethnic Jews are atheists and there are converts to Judaism (leaving aside the question of whether these are accepted as such by Ultra-Orthodox Jews) who are not ethnic Jews.

Second, let us suggest also that having a modern nation-state being defined by one ethnicity or one religion is problematic in itself - if not inherently self-contradictory - because the modern nation-state as such is a temporal and civic institution, and because no state in the world is - or can be in practice - ethnically or religiously homogenous.

Third, recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" implies that Israel is, or should be, either a theocracy (if we take the word "Jewish" to apply to the religion of Judaism) or an apartheid state (if we take the word "Jewish" to apply to the ethnicity of Jews), or both, and in all of these cases, Israel is then no longer a democracy - something which has rightly been the pride of most Israelis since the country's founding in 1948.

Fourth, at least one in five Israelis - 20 per cent of the population, according to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics - is ethnically Arab (and are mostly either Muslim, Christian, Druze or Bahai), and recognising Israel as a "Jewish State" as such makes one-fifth of the population of Israel automatically strangers in their own native land and opens the door to legally reducing them, most undemocratically, to second-class citizens (or perhaps even stripping them of their citizenship and other rights) - something that no-one, much less a Palestinian leader, has a right to do.

Fifth, recognising a "Jewish State" as such in Israel would mean legally that while Palestinians no longer have citizens' rights there, any member of world Jewry outside of Israel (up to 10 million people perhaps), should be entitled to full citizens' rights there, no matter wherever they may be in the world today and regardless of their current nationality. Indeed, Israel publicly admits that it does not hold the land for the benefit of its citizens but holds it, in trust, on behalf of the Jews of the world for all time. This is something that happens in practice, but that obviously Palestinians in the occupied territories - including Jerusalem - do not see as fair, especially as they are constantly forcibly evicted off their ancestral homeland by Israel to make way for foreign Jewish settlers, and because Palestinians in their diaspora are denied the same right to come and live.

Sixth, it means, before final status negotiations have even started, that Palestinians would have then given up the rights of about 7 million Palestinians in the diaspora to repatriation or compensation; 7 million Palestinians descended from the Palestinians who in 1900 lived in historical Palestine (ie what is now Israel, the West Bank including Jerusalem, and Gaza) and at that time made up 800,000 of its 840,000 inhabitants; and who were driven off their land through war, violent eviction or fear.

Seventh, recognising a "Jewish state" in Israel - a state which purports to annex the whole of Jerusalem, East and West, and calls Jerusalem its "eternal, undivided capital" (as if the city, or even the world itself, were eternal; as if it were really undivided, and as if it actually were legally recognised by the international community as Israel's capital) - means completely ignoring the fact that Jerusalem is as holy to 2.2 billion Christians and 1.6 billion Muslims, as it is to 15-20 million Jews worldwide.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


88 posted 09-30-2011 06:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

And while I would agree that Judaism has no mandate to kill everybody else, I completely disagree with your implication that Islam does

LR, I don't know if Islam does or not. What I do know is that Islamists use it to motivate muslims to become suicide bombers, for example.


The Qur'an mentions that whose who fight in the way of Allah and get killed will be given a great reward:
Let those (believers) Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter fight in the cause of Allah and whoso fights in the cause of Allah, - and is slain or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward.
Qur'an 4:74



This verse and others like it motivate terrorists and suicide bombers.

Some Muslims use the 72 Virgins concept to meet certain goals, e.g. as a way to entice other Muslims into carrying out heinous activities that may endanger their lives. It is most often used to entice Muslims into carrying out "martyrdom operations" as suicide bombers who will be rewarded with 72 virgins in paradise for their sacrifice. In one event, British Muslim teenage boys were told to train with Kalashnikov rifles and promised 72 virgins in paradise if they died as religious martyrs.[28]
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins



and then we have the dhimmi...
A dhimmī (Arabic: ذمي‎ ḏimmī IPA: [ˈðɪmmiː]), (collectively أهل الذمة ahl al-ḏimmah/dhimmah, "the people of the dhimma or contract") is a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia law

As another example of this, sharia law in present-day Saudi Arabia prescribes blood money to be paid for the death of a person caused by another. The amount payable for a Christian or Jew is half that for a male Muslim; but all others are valued at 1/16.[10] However this is a minority view, and the largest school of legal thought in Islam i.e. the Hanafi school does not make any distinction between a non-Muslim dhimmi and a Muslim citizen.[1

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

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


89 posted 09-30-2011 06:43 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Are there Islamic states in the world?
If yes, do they have a right to exist?


Did anyone find an answer to the first question?  I mean not only in fact but by law.  Seems
the answer is yes for Iran at least.


.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


90 posted 09-30-2011 09:29 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If you want an insight into Islam, this link provides some chilling information http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2420&Itemid=96

Some excerpts..


Mohammad instructed his commanders to make holy war and give people choices - either convert to Islam or face death (this is the only option for certain groups) OR grovel and pay the jizya (people of the book) OR continue fighting (if caught you become a slave and Islamic slave trading continues to this day) (eg*Muslim Book  19, Number 4294: repeated in 4295, 4296)

Mohammad not only demanded this of local tribes but sent letters to ‘Negus’, ‘Caesar’ and ‘Khosroes’ demanding conversion, tribute or else. Following Mohammad’s example,  Osama bin Laden calls on America to convert or else.  
Islamic law today reiterates these demands eg Reliance of the Traveller law o 9.8 p 602 and  o9.9 p603.
Only Muslims are safe.  Other laws are attributed to Umar b. al-Khattab

    ***Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387: Narrated Anas bin Malik:
    Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah."...  (ie convert and be safe! Repeated in *Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2635: and elsewhere.  

The Koran, hadith and sira are full of threats to others, violence, enslavement and the reward of booty for the Muslim fighter.

Rejection of Muslim authority means death. On September 9th 1922 Turkish armies entered the pre-dominantly Christian populated and Greek Orthodox Christian city of Smyrna and began a wholesale massacre of men, women, the old and weak, and children. Starting with the Armenian quarter, the Turkish army set fires to homes and churches filled with people, and turned this legendary Christian city to ash. Who theycouldn’t kill in time, they pushed into the sea. Orthodox Christian refugees, Greek and Armenian, crowded the quay, in desperate flight from Turkey’s genocidal armies.

*If a Muslim kills a dhimmi he cannot be put to death.  Hadiths state Muslims cannot be killed for killing infidels eg Bukhari Vol 1 book 3 No.111, Vol 4 book 52 No. 283, Vol 9 book 83 No.40 and No. 50, Abu Dawud book 39 No. 4491 etc! And Reliance of the Traveller o1.2 (2) p 584 Shafi  law but Hanifites may not agree.  

A dhimmi’s life is worth less than a Muslim’s. Shafi law (Reliance of the Traveller o4.9 p590) states that  the indemnity paid for a  Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim.  The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that of a Muslim.    The indemnity for a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

*Dhimmis were/are sentenced to death for any form of criticism of Islam.   The obvious result of this is that no matter what violence was done to a Dhimmi, they dared not complain for fear of being accused of blasphemy and executed.   Blasphemy charges are rife in Pakistan today-a weapon against Christians.    Collective attacks against Jews on the basis of ‘blasphemy’ have occurred into the 20th century ( Ye’or p 76).

5)  Dispossession of land and possessions:
* All land belongs to Islam and is under Islamic law for the benefit of Muslims (areas can be handed out as fiefs).   The possessions of others can be divided up amongst the Muslims (Reliance of the Traveller, Shafi laws o 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 p606, Law 25.8 (8)  p647).

This is merely allah restoring to Muslims what is rightfully theirs as those who don’t worship allah have no right to anything!  Allah allows the infidels property only to become booty for Muslims (Bat Ye’or p 59,  Bostom p 58 quote from Andulasian Islamic jurist).


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


91 posted 09-30-2011 09:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Here's a nice peek at Sharia Law..

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


92 posted 09-30-2011 09:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

But those years of exploring and searching for truth was soon replaced by horrors years of brutality and atrocities by political Islam in Iran. Though I left Islam, I had to live Islam. In my youth and young adulthood in Iran, I lived through thousands of days when political Islam shed blood. Since 1979, a hundred thousand men, women and children have been executed in the name of Allah. I have lived through years of assassination of infidels, apostates and opponents of the Islamic republic inside and outside Iran. Years of suppression of women and brutal treatment of those women who resisted the misery of mandatory Hijab and the rule of sexual apartheid. I, along with thousands of non - believers and political prisoners, was tortured by order of the representative of Allah and Sharia; tortured, while the verses of the Koran about non-believers were played in the torture chambers. The voice reading the Koran was mixed with our cries of pain from lashes and other brutal forms of torture.

Non-believers - atheists under Islam do not have "the right to life ". They are to be killed. According to Islamic culture, sins are divided into great sins and little sins. Among the seventeen great sins, unbelief is the greatest, more heinous than murder, theft, adultery and so on. Courageous apostates aim to skewer the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of a faith that commands the allegiance of a billion people-as well as the hypocrisies of those Western defenders of Islam who would not tolerate its strictures in their own cultures.


http://www.iheu.org/node/1540


Shedoesn't agree with your questioning my implication, reb.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


93 posted 09-30-2011 10:16 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     The use of the word "slaughter" may be misleading above.  It appears that Mike reads it to be a suggestion of "the sluaghter of enemies."  I would suggest that a possibly more likely reading is "slaughter" in the sense of dietary laws, Hallal, which is a milder version of the Kosher laws.  What is Kosher is automatically Hallal, though not necessarily the other way around.

     Many other points Mike makes are points from the early days of Islam.  One might try to look at some of the early Christian eclesiastical laws for comparison and find laws against women and foreigners that have similarities.  Fines were common as punishment for Murder, or fines and sometimes banishment rather than imprisonment or death.  Until fairly recently, one might escape the death penalty by being able to read a passage of latin.  Ben Jonson famously escaped the death penalty this way and suffered instead a branding on his thumb..

     The turkish attack was part of a long and ugly period in Turkish History, and was for the most part a genocide of the Turks against the Armenians.  The number of Armenians who were murdered ran over a million and some say over two million, and the Turkish government to this day refuses to take responsibility for it.  I very much doubt that even the Armenians would go so far as to blame Muslims as a whole for that horrible period.  They are, however, still in what seems to me to be an understandable turmoil about the injustice, and remain furious with the Turks specifically.  

     If you look at periods of church history, you will find their attitudes against the Jews have been similar at times to those you speak about the arabs having.  Indeed, a great number of Jews fled to the relative protection of life under the Muslims rather than face what the Christians were doing to them at the same time.  Jews were allowed to be Doctors and lawyers in the Muslim lands, though their interactions were severly governed.

     What you overlook is that for all that severity it was enormously better that what was going on in Europe among Christians, and that the improvement in Jewish Christian Relations in Europe has only occurred in the last 60 to 100 years or so, certainly for anybody with any sense of history, far too brief a period of time to be trusted.  I have some sense of trust about the American attitude toward Jews, but I must say not all that much.

     The information about Muslims feels cherrypicked to highlight and possibly distort the picture of that religion.  Are there Muslim idiots?  Well, yeah.  Are there a greater number of Muslim idiots than Jewish Idiots?  Not that I've been able to tell.

     The Palestinian idiots and the Jewish/Israeli idiots, between them, have made peace in Israel a very difficult thing to achieve.  I doubt that anybody has been seriously off the mark when they have detailed things that either side has done wrong, though I always learn something new when I read through such lists and I always feel a little more depressed.  I believe that both sides have legitimate complaints, and both side have legitimate reasons to fight bitterly to the blood of the last child.

     There are no doubt some folks who think it's worth it, as long as the other side loses the same thing.  I am not one of them.  If I am a Palestinian, what do I have to give up.  If I am an Israeli, what do I have to give up?

     If I am a Palestinian, what do I need and cannot under any circumstances give up?  If I am an Israeli, what is it that I cannot concede, no matter what?

     Hey.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


94 posted 09-30-2011 10:23 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Okay,

Remember where. we both agreed that Judaism (and lets say Christianity) don't have a mandate to kill persons of other religions?  Remember that way back up the page?  Just remember that.

quote:

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out. (Exodus 23:23 NAB

(Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, "All of you who are on the LORD's side, come over here and join me." And all the Levites came. He told them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT)

While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men defiled themselves by sleeping with the local Moabite women. These women invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, and soon the Israelites were feasting with them and worshiping the gods of Moab. Before long Israel was joining in the worship of Baal of Peor, causing the LORD's anger to blaze against his people. The LORD issued the following command to Moses: "Seize all the ringleaders and execute them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn away from the people of Israel." So Moses ordered Israel's judges to execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor. Just then one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp, right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle. When Phinehas son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and left the assembly. Then he took a spear and rushed after the man into his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man's body and into the woman's stomach. So the plague against the Israelites was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died. (Numbers 25:1-9 NLT

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

Then, with Micah's idols and his priest, the men of Dan came to the town of Laish, whose people were peaceful and secure. They attacked and killed all the people and burned the town to the ground. There was no one to rescue the residents of the town, for they lived a great distance from Sidon and had no allies nearby. This happened in the valley near Beth-rehob.Then the people of the tribe of Dan rebuilt the town and lived there. They renamed the town Dan after their ancestor, Israel's son, but it had originally been called Laish. (Judges 18:27-29 NLT) (Note that God approves of this slaughter in verse 6.)

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)




Now, were we both wrong?  Or is there a problem with what you and I have done?

You really have to read your own link Mike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi because this is not about killing people of otherreligions, its about tolerance toward them.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


95 posted 09-30-2011 10:38 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I'm certainly no fan of Sharia... but this stuff should give you the willies too!

quote:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

For the LORD had said to Moses, 'Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.' (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)



So what have we accomplished here Mike?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


96 posted 09-30-2011 11:21 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

IN my link about  dhimmi, Reb, it's notabout tolerating them....it's about controlling them and eliminatingthe ones that cannot be controlled.

As far as your bible passages....nicely done and I agree with you. I've never been a fan of the contradictions in the Bible.

What is the difference? Christinas or Jews do not practice the passages you listed that were written over two thousand years ago. The Sharia muslims do. The last entry I gave was written concerning Islam in 2005. The Islam extremists preach, practice and recruit the beliefs I listed. The suicide bombers still expect to enjoy those 72 virgins for killing infidels. There is a  link I didn't use detailing the atrocities that have been carried out under Sharia law in the past 20 years, from the mutilations to the deaths by torture to the stonings to the other inhumane acts. If you can find a similar list listing Judeo or Christian atrocities in that period, I'd be interested in seeing them.

What have we accomplished? Well, if people can't see the difference between Sharia law and Judism or Christianity, or people can't see that, by their religious code, muslims cannot co-exist in peace with Jews, then, no, nothing has been accomplished. I never expected to convince anyone or change anyone's mind. I simply wanted to put the info out there to be seen and my views on it. Minds are not changed here. We all know that by now, don't we?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


97 posted 10-01-2011 12:48 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Sorry, Mike, but while I worked at Metropolitan State Hospital I had many coworkers who were muslim and we got along just fine.  You are comparing Sharia law with secular law, and that doesn't offer a valid comparison.  If you want to try a valid comparison, you might try comparing sharia law with some of the talmudic and rabinic law practiced by the ultra-orthodox in Jerusalem, for example, where it's not uncommon for tourist women wearing shorts or short sleeved shirts to be stoned in the streets.  

     Also for not having their hair covered.

     Angels are supposed to be very lustful, in the Jewish tradition, and keeping a woman's hair covered is considered basic prudence among the ultra-orthodox.  The Arab/Muslims share this tradition.  

     Did you really think that Muslims had a monopoly on religious idiocy? and for not accomidating themselves to the modern world?  Sharia law governs in some parts of the Muslim world, but not in others, where secular law rules.  In Israel, there are parts of the country where talmudic law seems to run things, and where land must be let run fallow once every seven years (perhaps more frequently; I'm not all that up on my talmudic law) and where clothing cannot have both linen and wool in the same garment.  A business is not allowed to be owned by the owners over the Sabbath.  It must be sold and repurchased every week.

     If you're interested, you can download a copy of at least portions of the Babylonian Talmud (for free, as I recall) from kindle.  It's a strange and wonderful world of oddities beyond imagination, and that's without dipping into the world of Jewish mysticism, and the world of torah scholarship.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


98 posted 10-01-2011 04:51 AM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
What have we accomplished? Well, if people can't see the difference between Sharia law and Judism or Christianity, or people can't see that, by their religious code, muslims cannot co-exist in peace with Jews, then, no, nothing has been accomplished. I never expected to convince anyone or change anyone's mind. I simply wanted to put the info out there to be seen and my views on it.


At least we seem to have arrived at the reason why some people believe that Palestine doesn't deserve to be recognised as a state - the Palestinians are Muslims and, apparently, Muslims can't co-exist with Jews.

Getting to the root cause behind the reticence to recognise Palestine as a state is an accomplishment; from there it's simply a case of proving or disproving that assertion.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


99 posted 10-01-2011 01:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I don't know that it can be proved or disproved. If one were to go by pure history then the odds of peaceful co-existance seems pretty remote, since muslims and jews have been fighting for over 2000 years....but, then again, one can never predict the future.

Personally, I think they COULD co-exist if the radicals factions of both sides were to be handled or disappeared. I doubt that is likely to happen, with the PLO and Hamas making fortunes by promoting hatred and calling for jihads. I think the average jew and muslim just want peace.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Statehood   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors