Israelis Dealing With Their History

[mystictrek]

+ It is reassuring to know that many Israelis want to face their history rather than deny it. The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions offers "JNF Signs Will Mention destroyed Palestinian Villages" which appeared in Haaretz on Feb. 3.

 

READ ARTICLE

 

love, john + www.abundancetrek.com & www.abundancetrek.com/blog + "Why 99, you know we have to murder and kill and destroy in order to preserve everything that's good in the world." --Maxwell Smart to Agent 99

[davidk]

Evidence of a Jewish presence in Israel dates back 3,400 years, to the formation of the religion. The name "Jews" derives from their origin in Judah. Over the course of this long history, the Jews have several times been dispersed and then returned from exile.

 

The State of Israel was established in 1948 after thousands of years of Jewish dispersal.

 

the British Consul in Palestine reported, in 1857, "The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population."

 

Prior to 1900 there was no such concept as the Palestinian People.

 

In 1922 the British Governor of the Sinai noted that "illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria." In 1930, the British Mandate -sponsored Hope-Simpson Report noted that "unemployment lists are being swollen by immigrants from Trans-Jordania" and "illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material." The Arabs themselves bare witness to this trend. For example, the governor of the Syrian district of Hauran, Tewfik Bey el Hurani, admitted in 1934 that in a single period of only a few months over 30,000 Syrians from Hauran had moved to the Land of Israel. Even British Prime Minister Winston Churchill noted the Arab influx. Churchill, a veteran of the early years of the British mandate in the Land of Israel, noted in 1939 that "far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied."

 

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. . . . Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it." -- Local Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937

 

Far from displacing the Arabs, as they claimed, the Jews were the very reason the Arabs chose to settle in the Land of Israel. Jobs! Jobs provided by newly established Zionist industry and agriculture lured them there, just as Israeli construction and industry provides most Arabs in the Land of Israel with their main source of income today. Malcolm MacDonald, one of the principal authors of the British White Paper of 1939, which restricted Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel, admitted (conservatively) that were it not for a Jewish presence the Arab population would have been little more than half of what it actually was.

 

For two thousand years the central mountainous region of Israel was known as Judea and Samaria, as any medieval map of the area testifies. However, the state of Jordan occupied the area in 1948 and renamed it the West Bank for a region that actually lies in the eastern portion of the land.

 

Palestine has never existed... as an autonomous entity. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. The absence of any historical record is telling.

Yasir Arafat, self declared "leader of the Palestinian people", always claimed to have been born and raised in "Palestine". In fact, according to his official biographer Richard Hart, as well as the BBC, Arafat was born in Cairo on August 24, 1929 and that's where he grew up.

 

Dennis Miller, contributing humorist to The Daily Standard

and a writer, actor and comedian weighs in:

 

'The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no "Palestinians" then, and the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians," weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation!"

HELLO-O-O-O-O !!!'

 

Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about.

 

Between 1948-1967, Jordan and Egypt never offered to surrender their territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, to make up an independent state of 'Falastin', as the Arabs called it. The "Palestinians" never sought it. Nobody in the world ever suggested it, much less demanded it.

 

Finally, in 1964, the Palestine Liberation Movement was founded. Ahmed Shukairy, who less than 10 years earlier had denied the existence of Palestine, was its first chairman. Its charter proclaimed its sole purpose to be the destruction of Israel. To that end it helped to precipitate the Arab attack on Israel in 1967.

 

 

If the Muslims would stop lobbing missles and sending suicide bombers into Israel from these territories, the fighting would cease.

[Realspiritik]

Davidk,

I doubt your vitriolic and historically inaccurate account is what Mystictrek had in mind. There are real people in Palestine and Israel right here and right now, and these real people are suffering. Where is your empathy for people on both sides of the dispute who have been used and abused by their leaders? You're rash enough to say, "Prior to 1900 there was no such concept as the Palestinian People." I don't know whether your statement is factual. I'd have to do some research on the modern history of Palestine to find out. But I do know this: there were people living in the region in 1900, and they had a history, and they had a culture, and they had homes. A few decades after that, they got kicked out of their homes. That's a fact. You might want to consider how you would feel, David, if the United Nations decided to give the state of Georgia to a group of Vulcans (Vulcans as in Star Trek -- I'm not pointing fingers here at anyone on Planet Earth) and told you to get out. You probably wouldn't think the decision very fair to the people already living there.

 

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone on Planet Earth because I don't have enough fingers. For centuries, European monarchs took homes away from indigenous populations and turned the land over to "colonists." In Canada, we're still trying to deal with the harm we caused our First Nations people. But honesty about the history of what happened is an important part of the process of healing and reconciliation. We can't change the past. But we can be honest about it. And we can learn from the mistakes we (or our ancestors) have made.

 

As for your dodgy history, Davidk, what are we to make of your claim that "Palestine has never existed... as an autonomous entity." Are we to conclude that Jesus was not entitled to have an emotional attachment to his home in the Roman prefecture of Palestine because -- following your reasoning -- Palestine was not a completely autonomous entity? Does it follow that because Palestine was under Roman hegemony, the people living there had no language and no culture they cared about? Of course not. Similarly, the people living in modern Palestine had a language and had a culture when their homes were taken away from them -- no matter what the dotted lines said on the political maps that were drawn by 20th century leaders.

 

Jen

[davidk]

'Vitriolic' is pretty inflamatory itself.

 

The British Consul in Palestine reported, in 1857, "The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population."

 

We can review the post-WWI history if the more recent WWII doesn't cover enough for you.

 

The term "Palestinian" itself had referred to Israeli Jews back in the 1940s.

 

Prior to the 1967 war, Syria's Golan Heights had been unambiguously aimed at destroying Israel solely for terrorist incursions into and artillery bombardment upon Israel's northeastern settlements.

 

May 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel's narrow and what appeared to be indefensible borders, preparing for a massive invasion of the State of Israel. The battle cry heard throughout the Arab world was then, "Slaughter the Jews" and "Throw the Jews into the Sea!" Israel planned and executed a perfect pre-emptive strike against Egypt. Within two hours the Egyptian Air Force did not exist. Unaware that the Egyptians had no more air force, King Hussein of Jordan, launched his attack from his West Bank into Israel while Syrian troops prepared to invade the Golan Heights high ground into northern Israel.

 

After six days of air, sea, and hand-to-hand ground warfare, Israel defeated all three Arab armies along three separate fronts, taking control of the entire Sinai Desert from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank from Jordan (including East Jerusalem and its Old City).

 

Usually when one side starts a war and loses both the war and some territory, no one on the planet ( even Vulcans) would expect the winner to give back anything. But the Jews were willing to give back the entire Sinai Desert with the oil fields, air bases and endless miles of 'security buffer', to Egypt. Thus, in 1982 Egypt regained their Sinai.

 

General Moshe Dayan's plan for the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was to educate them, offer them modern medical treatment, provide them with employment both in the West Bank, Gaza and inside Israel Proper itself in hopes of building bridges to the Arab world. Two Intifadas and world-wide Arab-Palestinian terrorism was the result.

 

"Palestinian" Arabs under Israel's jurisdiction turned into a terrorist state determined to destroy Israel.

 

The Middle East war is really an Arab-Israeli war, not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a war between barbarism and civilization. An Islamic religious jihad against the Jews.

 

If the Arab-Muslims would stop lobbing missles and sending suicide bombers into Israel from these territories, the fighting would cease, and the homes could remain.

[Realspiritik]

The Middle East war is really an Arab-Israeli war, not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a war between barbarism and civilization.

 

! !

 

Wow! And to think we don't understand why we continue to have wars on Planet Earth! I must be sure to reread my New Testament and toss out all those annoying teachings about loving your neighbour as yourself, and all those bothersome notions about understanding how God loves all of us equally (sinners, tax collectors, women, lepers, whatever). Yup. 'Cause when you get right down to it, it's just about the glory, eh?

 

Good luck with that.

 

I'll be sure, by the way, to tell my Palestinian-Canadian acquaintance -- one of the most decent people I've ever met -- about the whole barbarism/civilization thing. I'm sure he'll be persuaded of the correctness of your thinking.

 

Jen

[davidk]

God's glory!

 

I am not sure what your point is on rereading the New Testament.

 

I don't wish to cast aspersions on anyone, and certainly not your friend. Maybe you could read the New Testament together!

Ask whether he wants to live peacefully alongside Jews or not. How do his aspirations differ from the Arab-Muslim leadership in the middle-east that seeks Isreali elimination?

 

Israel time and again offers the olive branch, only to have Arab-Muslims respond with terrorism and renewed vigor to irradicate Israel. (see my previous posts) If the Arab-Muslims would stop lobbing missles and sending suicide bombers into Israel from their territories, the fighting would cease, and the homes could remain.

---------

 

In the 1930s, the fascist regimes of Italy and Germany began courting Arab leaders. Among them was Jerusalem's Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, who fled Jewish Palestine after the Arab Revolt of 1936-39. He found refuge in Iraq where he helped pull the strings behind the Iraqi coup of 1941. This revolt in Baghdad was orchestrated by Hitler as part of his strategy to squeeze the region between Rommel’s troops in North Africa, his forces in the Caucuses and his pro-Nazi forces in Iraq. However, in June 1941 British troops put down the rebellion of the Grand Mufti.

 

In Berlin, the Mufti received an enthusiastic reception by the "Islamische Zentralinstitut" and the whole Islamic community of Germany welcomed him as the "Fuhrer of the Arabic world." In a speech, he called the Jews the "most fierce enemies of the Muslims" and an "ever corruptive element" in the world. Husseini became an honored guest of the Nazi leadership and met on occasion with Hitler. He personally lobbied the Fuhrer against the plan to let Jews leave Hungary, fearing they would immigrate to Jewish Palestine. He also strongly intervened when Adolf Eichman tried to make a deal with the British government to exchange German POWs for 5000 Jewish children who also could have moved to Jewish Palestine. The Mufti’s protests with the SS were successful, the children were sent to death camps in Poland instead. One German officer noted in his journals that the Mufti said he would rather the Jews be "preferably all killed."

 

In 1943 the Mufti travelled to Bosnia, where on orders of the SS he recruited the notorious "Hanjar troopers," a special Bosnian Waffen SS company which slaughtered 90% of Bosnia's Jews and burned countless Serbian churches and villages. These Bosnian Muslim recruits rapidly found favor with the SS chief, Heinrich Himmler. Himmler established a special Mullah Military school in Dresden. The only condition the Mufti set for his help was that after Hitler won the war, the entire Jewish population in Palestine should be liquidated.

 

Husseini represented the Arab embrace of Nazism: the prevalent pro-Nazi posture among the Arab/Muslim world before, during and even after the Holocaust. The Nazi-Arab connection existed even when Adolf Hitler first seized power in Germany in 1933. When news of the Nazi takeover arrived, the first congratulatory telegrams Hitler received upon being appointed Chancellor came from the German Consul in Jerusalem, followed by those from several Arab capitals. Shortly thereafter, parties imitating the National Socialists were founded in the Arab lands: the "Hisb-el-qaumi-el-suri" or PPS; or Social Nationalist Party in Syria. Its leader, Anton Sa’ada, likened himself as the Fuhrer of the Syrian nation, and Adolph Hitler became known as "Abu Ali" (In Egyptian: "Muhammed Haidar"). The banner of the PPS displayed the swastika on a black-white background.

 

In October 1933, the most influential party emulating the Nazis, "Young Egypt," was founded. They trained storm troopers, had torch processions, made literal translations of Nazi slogans; "One folk, One party, One leader.", and replicated Nazi anti-Semitic calls to boycott Jewish businesses and physically attack Jews.

 

After the war, a member of Young Egypt, Gamal Abdul Nasser, was among the officers who led the July 1952 revolution in Egypt. His first 'Hitlerian' act was to outlaw all other political parties. Nasser’s Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals. One, the SS General in charge of the murder of Ukrainian Jewry, became Nasser’s bodyguard and close comrade. Alois Brunner, a senior Nazi war criminal, was sheltered in Damascus, where he served for many years as senior adviser to the Syrian general staff and still resided as of 2001.

 

Sami al-Joundi, a founder of the ruling Syrian Ba’ath Party, recalls: "We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books... We were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism."

 

Luis Al-Haj, translator of the Arabic edition of Hitler’s Mein Kampf , writes glowingly in the preface about how Hitler’s "ideology" and "theories of nationalism, dictatorship, and race… are advancing especially within our Arabic States." (When Palestinian police first greeted Arafat in the "self-rule" areas, they gave him the infamous Nazi salute.)

 

The PLO, and most notably the late Yasser Arafat himself, don't make a secret of their source of inspiration. The Grand Mufti el-Husseini is a hero of the PLO. note: the PLO’s top figure, until his death in June of 2001, in east Jerusalem, Faisal Husseini, is grandson to the Fuhrer’s Mufti. Arafat considered the Grand Mufti as a respected educator and leader, and in 1985 he declared it an honor to follow in his footsteps. In 1951, a close relative of the Mufti, Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa el-Husseini, matriculated to the University of Cairo. The student decided to conceal his true identity and enlisted as "Yasser Arafat."

 

Husseini and Arafat both, said Arabs cannot live peacefully alongside of Jews. Perhaps it is time to be realistic about the kind of peace that the Arabs contemplate. Both of these men died still advocating the destruction of Israel.

[McKenna]

David, I really don't know whose side I take in this conflict, but I don't think it's really as simple and one-sided as you're trying to make it sound. A few years ago I had to do a project in which 10 students were divided into 2 groups, one for Palestine, one for Israel. I argued for Palestine (for no specific reason; there were 5 slots on each team and I chose rather arbitrarily), and my team made a pretty good argument against the pro-Israel team. My specific area was history, and I found plenty in history to argue for Palestine (although, to be fair, since I was on the Palestine team, I was just looking for information that supported Palestine's claim to the land). I think I made a good argument, since I got one of the highest grades in the class of 50+ people on the project. My point is, it's really, really not that simple.

 

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. . . . Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it." -- Local Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937

 

Far from displacing the Arabs, as they claimed, the Jews were the very reason the Arabs chose to settle in the Land of Israel. Jobs! Jobs provided by newly established Zionist industry and agriculture lured them there, just as Israeli construction and industry provides most Arabs in the Land of Israel with their main source of income today. Malcolm MacDonald, one of the principal authors of the British White Paper of 1939, which restricted Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel, admitted (conservatively) that were it not for a Jewish presence the Arab population would have been little more than half of what it actually was.

 

For two thousand years the central mountainous region of Israel was known as Judea and Samaria, as any medieval map of the area testifies. However, the state of Jordan occupied the area in 1948 and renamed it the West Bank for a region that actually lies in the eastern portion of the land.

 

The term "Palestine" wasn't invented recently; it comes from the term "Philistine." See this website:

 

Roman rulers put down Jewish revolts in about A.D. 70 and A.D. 132. In A.D. 135, the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem, following the failed Bar Kochba revolt. The Romans named the area Palaestina, at about this time. The name Palaestina, which became Palestine in English, is derived from Herodotus, who used the term Palaistine Syria to refer to the entire southern part of Syria, meaning "Philistine Syria."

Also, there were people living there before 1900.

By 1880, about 24,000 Jews were living in Palestine, out of a population of about 400,000.

 

This article also states:

Jews had never stopped coming to "the Holy land" or Palestine in small numbers throughout the exile. Palestine also remained the center of Jewish worship and a part of Jewish culture. However, the Jewish connection with the land was mostly abstract and connected with dreams of messianic redemption.

Although this article could, of course, be biased.

 

Here's a more credible source - BBC. This article refers to "Palestinians" by that name and mentions that "Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced," contrary to your claim that "Far from displacing the Arabs, as they claimed, the Jews were the very reason the Arabs chose to settle in the Land of Israel." Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on the conflict states, "The number of Palestinians who fled Israel following its creation and their descendants now stands at around four million." This number is indeed what the cited USA Today article states.

 

I'm not saying the Palestinians aren't to blame for the conflict at all. Like I said, I don't know which side I'm on. But it's not as simple as you're making it sound.

[davidk]

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. . . . Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it." -- Local Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937

"The only condition the Mufti set for his help was that after Hitler won the war, the entire Jewish population in Palestine should be liquidated."

"...boycott Jewish businesses and physically attack Jews..."

Husseini and Arafat both, said Arabs cannot live peacefully alongside of Jews.

 

True, it may not be simple, but it not difficult to understand the Arab-Muslim determination to irradicate the Jews.

 

Palestine has never been the name of a nation or state. It is a geographical term, indentifying the region at those times in history when there is no nation there.

 

The Philistines were the peoples of the sea who arrived from Mycenae, or part of the ancient Greeks. They were not Arabs, nor Semites. They have no ethnic, linguistic or historical connection with Arabs. Arabs today use the name "Falastin" for "Palestine", it is not Arabic. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman "Palastina" from the 'peleshet'. From the beginning of recorded history until today, the Israel-Judah-Judea is the only united, independent, sovereign nation-state that has ever existed in the "Palestine" that is west of the Jordan River. The other 75% still lies in Jordan.

 

The British Consul in Palestine reported, in 1857, "The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population."

 

"There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent [valley of Jezreel] -- not for 30 miles in either direction. . . . One may ride 10 miles hereabouts and not see 10 human beings.

For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee... Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho lies a moldering ruin... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation... untenanted by any living creature... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent, mournful expanse... a desolation... We never saw a human being on the whole route... Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country... Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes... desolate and unlovely..." -- Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, 1867

 

Because no administrative district of Palestine existed, census figures are uncertain at best. Turkey took census figures in 1893 from various districts where there were no Jews, including Lebanon, well outside the borders of Palestine.

 

The Turks figures did not include the Bedouins or foreign citizens. A large number of the Jews retained their foreign nationality (usually Russian). And both Arabs and Jews avoided the Turkish census to avoid taxes and conscription

 

The data are ambiguous, different sources give different estimates.

 

There is every indication there was a net gain in Arab immigration (legal and illegal) into Palestine, and the economic situation of the Arabs in the Palestine territory improved tremendously relative to surrounding countries. By 1948, there were more Arabs than had ever lived in Palestine before, and since Roman times, more Jews than had ever lived there. Further analysis of the population showed that the Arab population increased most from 1931 to 1948 in the same areas with large proportions of Jews. Therefore, and this is the point, Zionist immigration did not displace Arabs.

 

Prior to 1900 there was no such concept as the Palestinian People. The term "Palestinian" itself had referred to Israeli Jews until after WWII. (See my last post regarding the Arab-Muslims and the PLO advocating the destruction of Israel.) There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. There are no indigenous 'Palestinians".

 

The BBC reference you used also refers to the PLO as their representative. Please! The leaders of the PLO weren't even from Palestinian territories and the PLO (terrorists) want the annihilation of the Jews.

[McKenna]

By 1948, there were more Arabs than had ever lived in Palestine before, and since Roman times, more Jews than had ever lived there. Further analysis of the population showed that the Arab population increased most from 1931 to 1948 in the same areas with large proportions of Jews. Therefore, and this is the point, Zionist immigration did not displace Arabs.

 

One of the articles I quoted said that since Israel's creation, a lot of Palestinians have been displaced. Meaning since 1948. Meaning after the population increased from 1931 to 1948.

 

If what you say is true - that both Jews and Arabs migrated into Palestine in the early 1900s, a land which was completely empty - how does either side have a greater claim to the land? The land hasn't belonged to the Jews for nearly 2000 years, and all three major religions in the area have holy places there. So how is it fair that Arabs have since been displaced?

 

I never said the Palestinians weren't using terrorism to their end. I'm not stupid. And it's not like I have anything against the Israelis; I have a friend living in Israel, and of course I worry about him. My problem with your simplification of the issues came from you saying repeatedly:

If the Muslims would stop lobbing missles and sending suicide bombers into Israel from these territories, the fighting would cease.

 

It's just not that one-sided. Not to mention the fact that there are Muslims on both sides, so it's really not cool to blame everything on the Muslims.

 

I'd say - If the extremists would stop lobbing missiles and sending suicide bombers everywhere in the region, the fighting would probably cease, or at least the peace talks would be a lot more fruitful.

[Realspiritik]

I don't wish to cast aspersions on anyone . . .

You don't? But you already have. You plainly stated that "it is a war between barbarism and civilization." Is this your position, your entrenched belief? Because if it is, this is a position that clearly casts aspersions on many people caught up in the Israeli/Palestinian/Middle East conflict.

 

If it is not your intent to cast aspersions on others, then perhaps you might be willing to consider the point McKenna makes: that it's not really as simple and one-sided as you're trying to make it sound.

 

I find it interesting, as well, that you assume my Palestinian-Canadian acquaintance is an Arab-Muslim. He is an Arab-Christian, and his family was displaced along with thousands of other Palestinian families.

 

The point I am trying to make, Davidk, is that real people are suffering on all sides of this conflict. All sides are hurting. This is the point I will not back down on.

 

Jen

[mystictrek]

In forum after forum, I have try to bring some truth to this longstanding conflict between Arab & Jew in the Holy Land. Let us remember a very famous and very important quote:

 

"The first casualty of war is truth."

 

The Arab versus Jewish war, and it is a war, goes back to the nineteenth century. In the Palestine of the Ottoman Empire, Jews and Moslems and Christians, got along pretty well in that region. And there was indeed room for more.

 

The troubles began when a colonial power, the UK, decided to impose its will on a native population. The British took a census in the early 1920s. There were 600,000 Arabs and 50,000 Jews. There was only a little conflict because there was still plenty of room for even more people. The Jews kept coming and the British encouraged them to keep coming. They bought more and more land and the native Arabs began to feel the squeeze. They began to agitate for independence so that the native population could solve the problem at home rather than aliens in London.

 

We are now dealing with the tragic consequences of not allowing that independence to take place in the 1920s or 1930s when the Arab majority would most likely have created a state which was open to Jews, like most Arab nations at the time, but with a limited immigration policy. Now that's something most of us citizens of the USA can appreciate, isn't it?

[davidk]

Jen: Can you not call terrorists, barbaric?

-----------

McKenna: If it is the Muslims who are firing missles, sending suicides, or throwing bombs, (killing other Muslims in the process) and the rest of their population doesn't affect any efforts to stop it, the population becomes not only complicit but extremists themselves. And we don't want to hurt their feelings by calling them what they are?

The Muslim population has the authority and the responsibility to stop the terrorism. These bombers are not Christians or Jews, they are Muslims. Extremists certainly, but Muslims nontheless. Their only fruitfull peace decision would be to completely eliminate Isreal.

-----------

Mystic:

"...the UK, decided to impose its will on a native population."

The Balfour Declaration of 1917, validated by The League of Nations Mandate, commited the British Government to the principle, "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home,...being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". The Nation's Mandate for Palestine originally included all of what is now Jordan, as well as all of what is now Israel, and the territories between them.

 

"The Jews kept coming and the British encouraged them to keep coming."

The British created a realm for Great Britain's protégé Emir Abdullah ( forced to leave the ancestral Hashemite domain in Arabia), that included all of Mandate Palestine east of the Jordan River. There was no traditional or historic Arab name for this land, so it was called after the river: first Trans-Jordan and later Jordan. This violated the conditions of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate. The British had cut more than 75 percent out of the Jewish National Home! No Jew has ever been permitted to reside in Trans-Jordan/Jordan.

 

Less than 25 percent remained of Mandate Palestine, and even in this, the British violated the Balfour and Mandate requirements for a "Jewish National Home" and for "close Jewish settlement" by progressively restricting where Jews could buy land, where they could live, build, farm or work. British policy was now to curtail Jewish numbers and progressively limit Jewish immigration. By 1939, the White Paper virtually put an end of British admission of Jews to Palestine. They permitted or ignored massive illegal immigration into Western Palestine from Arab countries Jordan, Syria, Egypt, North Africa. In 1939, Winston Churchill, "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied." Exact population statistics are problematic, but it appears by 1947 the Arab population west of the Jordan River had approximately tripled since 1900.

 

"...the Arab majority would most likely have created a state which was open to Jews, ..."

By 1948, the Arabs were offered half, of the remaining 25%, of Palestine west of the Jordan River for a state. The offer was rejected by six Arab states who answered by launching a war of annihilation against the infant State of Israel. Their purpose was not to establish any independent Falastin. Their stated aim was to divide western Palestine among themselves.

 

Well, Trans-Jordan succeeded in taking Judea, Samaria (West Bank) and East Jerusalem by killing or driving out all the Jews who lived in those places. Then they banned Jews of all nations from the Jewish holy places. Egypt took the Gaza Strip.

 

These two Arab states held these lands until 1967, when Egypt, Jordan and Syria launched another war of annihilation against Israel, lost the war (in only 6 days!) and the lands they had taken from Israel by war in 1948.

 

Now that's something most of us citizens of the USA can appreciate, isn't it?

[Realspiritik]

In forum after forum, I have try to bring some truth to this longstanding conflict between Arab & Jew in the Holy Land. Let us remember a very famous and very important quote:

 

"The first casualty of war is truth."

 

The Arab versus Jewish war, and it is a war, goes back to the nineteenth century. In the Palestine of the Ottoman Empire, Jews and Moslems and Christians, got along pretty well in that region. And there was indeed room for more.

 

The troubles began when a colonial power, the UK, decided to impose its will on a native population. The British took a census in the early 1920s. There were 600,000 Arabs and 50,000 Jews. There was only a little conflict because there was still plenty of room for even more people. The Jews kept coming and the British encouraged them to keep coming. They bought more and more land and the native Arabs began to feel the squeeze. They began to agitate for independence so that the native population could solve the problem at home rather than aliens in London.

 

We are now dealing with the tragic consequences of not allowing that independence to take place in the 1920s or 1930s when the Arab majority would most likely have created a state which was open to Jews, like most Arab nations at the time, but with a limited immigration policy. Now that's something most of us citizens of the USA can appreciate, isn't it?

 

Hey, MT, I was hoping you'd come back on. Thanks for your balanced historical "blurb." The situation now is such a complicated mess. Yet I think it's important to remember the role major Western powers played in creating that mess (as you point out), along with the role of other major players who have an agenda. Meanwhile, people bleed.

 

I see no way out of this mess except for people on all sides to accept that God cries equally for everyone's tears and everyone's bleeding. God has no favourites.

 

Jen

[davidk]

Israel has no other choices because Arabs challenge their very existence. Whereas Israel doesn't do that. Israel is quite willing to coexist with Arabs as a Palestinian state and an Israeli state, side by side. Arabs refuse to acknowledge this option. They propose to destroy and replace Israel with Islam!

 

It is survival for Israel.

 

My heart goes out to the Palestinian Arabs living in the Gaza Strip who were spurned by the Egyptians and the Arab world from 1948 until 1967, then living under Israeli occupation from 1967, and now by their own leaders they are forced to live in a war zone. They live in squalor and poverty. They have no jobs to go to, and no food to for the table. They deserve better. Ironically, the quality of life was considerably better under the Israeli occupation. Now they have nothing.

There are no Israeli soldiers or military facilities inside Gaza. There are no Israeli settlers in Gaza. In fact, since the disengagement, Gaza is the first independent Palestinian Arab state. Instead of laying the foundations for a new and vibrant nation, Gaza has become rampant anarchy, a launching-ground for missiles against Israeli civilians inside the Green Line, with rival terrorist factions chaotically fighting each other inside Gaza at the same time continuing hostilities against Israel.

 

If the Arab-Muslims would stop lobbing missles and sending suicide bombers into Israel from these territories, the fighting would cease, and the homes could remain; the bleeding would stop.

 

It is written that God may favor Israel, something about the 'chosen people'. Islam is not 'winning any points' with God by trying to destroy them.

 

Israel, like any country, has its own problems of political corruption and the like. But unlike some countries, Israel has a history worth remembering that was once Israel: wisdom; common sense; creative thinking; the simple equation of right or wrong; merit according to achievements and not media rating; words with meaning rather than high and empty rhetoric. And at least they're not trying to destroy anyone!

[McKenna]

I see no way out of this mess except for people on all sides to accept that God cries equally for everyone's tears and everyone's bleeding. God has no favourites.

 

Amen, sister.

[October's Autumn]

Amen, sister.

 

 

Ditto that!

[davidk]

Did you know...?

Gen 6:8; But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Deut 7:12; God favors those who keep His commandments and the statutes and judgements which I am commanding... 14;"You shall be blessed above all peoples;...

Psalm 85:1; O Lord, thou didst find favor to Thy land;...

Prov 8:35; For he who finds me finds life, and obtains favor from the Lord. 16:20; He who gives attention to the word shall find good, and blessed is he who trusts in the Lord. 17:15; He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomonation to the Lord.

Luke 1:28; And in coming in he (the angel) said to her, "Hail favoured one! The Lord is with you, ..." 1:30; And the angel said to her ," Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God."

Joshua 11:20; For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that He might utterly destroy them, that they might recieve no favour, but that He might destroy them, just as the Lord commanded Moses.

Acts7:46; And David found favor in God's sight, ...

 

I could go on.

 

-canajan, eh?

...real people are suffering on all sides of this conflict.

God cries equally for everyone's tears and everyone's bleeding.

Yes, and yes! God hates the shedding of innocent blood.

 

 

If the Arab-Muslims would stop targeting Israel and her civilians with missles, suicides, and bombs, the fighting would cease and the blood will stop running in the streets. But they will not stop! Their hatred for the Jews is the best example of violent racism on the planet. They want the Jews eliminated. ( see post #6) Take Iran for instance, or Iraq with Saddam Hussein. I believe Saudi Arabia still maintains a declared war against Israel refusing to admit they exist. Arab-Muslims scrub the name of Israel off their maps. They edit out 'Israel' from any written or broadcast form of communication.

Egypt, Lybia, Jordan, all of Islam wants Israel GONE! They want all of the land.

 

How could anyone trust those trying to destroy Israel? They will not find favor with God.

[Realspiritik]

Did you know...?

Gen 6:8; But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Deut 7:12; God favors those who keep His commandments and the statutes and judgements which I am commanding... 14;"You shall be blessed above all peoples;...

Acts7:46; And David found favor in God's sight, ...

 

I could go on.

 

Davidk,

You could go on, I'm sure, and you would have lots of company in your reading of the Bible, as a great many Christians choose to read the Bible in the way you do. But I do not choose to read the Bible in this way, and there is nothing you can say, Davidk, to make me want to highlight the passages about slavery, or preferential treatment for men, or preferential treatment for the ably bodied, or preferential treatment for certain families, or preferential treatment for certain clans, or daily animal sacrifices to God, or God's apocalyptic judgment day. Sorry. I just don't experience God's loving word in any of those "traditions." I take my hermeneutics seriously. I look for the passages that match Jesus' teachings about loving our God, loving our neighbour, giving others forgiveness as well as receiving it, and seeking to live in the "kingdom of heaven" today, which demands that each of us try to be the best person we're capable of being.

 

It's important for each of us to understand that the way in which we read the Bible is a choice. It is a choice for you to pick out the passages that talk about favouritism, just as it is a conscious choice on my part to ignore the above-mentioned practices, and focus on the passages that help me better understand how to live with compassion in God's creation.

 

I hold no stock at all in the Covenant God made with Abraham, nor the Covenant God made with Moses about the land of Israel. Therefore, I don't see the current conflict in religious terms. I see it in political and economic terms. You say, "How could anyone trust those trying to destroy Israel? They will not find favor with God." I say, "There are no chosen people, and no chosen lands. For God the Mother and God the Father, all the deserts and all the mountains and all the forests and all the oceans are equally beautiful in their eyes, and all their children are equally loved."

 

So Davidk, I guess you and I will have to agree to completely disagree.

 

Jen

[David]

Very well said Jen. I especially resonate with your point about hermeneutics. I tried to make a similar point about epistemology. If persons attempting a conversation can not agree on a basic epistemology then there is no point in attempting to have a conversation. Likewise, if those persons can not basically agree on hermeneutics then there is no reason to attempt to talk about scripture. If we start out from such different places there is not much hope of having a conversation about most anything. That is unfortunate and goes against the natural desire of liberals/progressives to include everyone in the conversation. I just don’t see that happening however. What is dangerous obviously is that fundamentalists take this approach that is so foreign to us and apply it to history and politics. So we end up with fundamentalists bumping up against fundamentalists. Any attempt at trying to point out that both sides are wrong is not heard because there is no ability to hear.

[davidk]

Whoa!

 

"It is a choice for you to pick out the passages that talk about favouritism,... " - canajan-eh? (italics added)

 

I spoke of finding favor and of God having favorites, but never, NEVER, alluded they were at the expense of others, that is - favoritism! I don't mind you getting angry with me, just don't misrepresent me, or God for that matter! I suggest you sharpen up on your methodological principles of interpretation!

------------------

 

I discovered (even I occasionally stumble onto an epiphany) the problem doesn't happen to be with God. It happens to be with us. When we disobey (sin), s--- happens. God's been trying to tell us how He wants to get us back home, we merely must 'hear' Him.

 

Prov 16:20; He who gives attention to the word shall find good, and blessed is he who trusts in the Lord.

Proverbs 17:15; He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomonation to the Lord.

 

The problem is not with God or His Word, it is with us! That is what God has been trying to tell us. The Word of God explains how to get back home. It tells us of the failures of man and the successes of man. It explains not only how we should but why we should love. And when we do, He finds favor in us, despite our imperfection.

 

 

God is the ulitimate realist. He gives us the proper real guidelines for our real behavior regardless of our real earthly position or condition.

I take my hermeneutics seriously, and while we all study the Bible with some confusion, at the same time we see it revealing truths and love. You said so yourself. The key is, if it is giving us the truth in the areas we seek, maybe more of it is true than we realize. We just need to keep seeking.

Like you, I began, wanting to "better understand how to live with compassion in God's creation." Because, we know there has got to be a reasonable explanation why we should. The Bible has proven itself reliable. (epistemology)

-----------------

 

 

"Therefore, I don't see the current conflict in religious terms."- canajan-eh?

 

Why not, the participants do!

 

Why would you trust any country hell-bent on the destruction of another? Where is your compassion for their target?

They propose to destroy Israel and replace it with Islam! Where is your compassion for the ones who are sought to be destroyed?

 

It is survival for Israel.

--------------------------

[Realspiritik]

Whoa!

 

"It is a choice for you to pick out the passages that talk about favouritism,... " - canajan-eh? (italics added)

 

I spoke of finding favor and of God having favorites, but never, NEVER, alluded they were at the expense of others, that is - favoritism! I don't mind you getting angry with me, just don't misrepresent me, or God for that matter! I suggest you sharpen up on your methodological principles of interpretation!

 

Davidk, could it be . . . is it actually possible . . . that you have never asked yourself the meaning and consequences of the Bible's many verses about being favoured? Do you actually think that Old Testament passages about "favour" are not about "favouritism"? Could it be you are using a dictionary of the English language that does not define favourtism as "the unfair favouring of one person or group at the expense of another" (Canadian Oxford Dictionary)? Please do not tell me you think it was okay for Moses and his people to go ahead and take the land of Canaan away from the people who were already living there simply because "God told the Israelites they were favoured." In this case, the favoured people were clearly being given permission by the authors of Exodus to unfairly favour their own group at the expense of another. This is scriptural justification for a land grab on the basis of being favoured.

 

Davidk, it is your choice to read the "favoured people/chosen people" parts of the Bible, and view them as God's word. You're welcome to do so. But please be honest about your reading of the passages about "favour." Please be honest about the implications of talking about chosen people. You have to decide whether you think the Covenant with Abraham and the Covenant with Moses were and still are God's word, or whether those Covenants are part of an earlier historical and culture context when individuals were struggling with the same moral issues that today inform the Israeli/Palestinian/Middle East conflict.

 

Davidk, I am well aware that God is the ultimate realist, and that we are called to keep seeking for the truth. Part of the journey of seeking the truth is for us to be fully honest with ourselves about our inner motives.

 

I believe -- and this is my personal position, a position you are in no way obliged to agree with -- that it is not good enough for those of us who choose the path of Progressive Christianity to leave the "chosen people" parts of the Bible unchallenged. Such parts exist in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Wherever such ideas exist, they cause great suffering because they give people supposedly-divine-permission to think they're better than somebody else.

 

Lastly, I would ask you to please reconsider your implication that I am not showing compassion for the Israelis. I have been talking about nothing but our need to feel empathy and compassion for the individuals on all sides of the current conflict. There are no grounds for you to challenge me on the basis of compassion.

 

Jen

[mystictrek]

Please read "Ilan Pappe on How Israel was Founded on Ethnic Cleansing" and other articles by this important historian. The more I look at the current disaster in Israel-Palestine, the more I realize that history must not be ignored. The fiction of the official Israeli version of history must be challenged and challenged and challenged again until the Israelis and the European and American enablers of Israel come to their senses. Only then can a real just solution be achieved.

 

love, john + http://www.abundancetrek.com & http://www.abundancetrek.com/blog + "The spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure you are right.” – Judge Learned Hand

[Cynthia]

Wow. Thanks Mystic. Interesting and horrifying.

[davidk]

God favors the obedient over the disobedient, the believers over the idolaters. Is God safe? No, but He is good. His covenant with Abraham was good and just. The disobedient had opportunity to repent, but ignored it. The disposition of the land was neither unfairly nor unjustly in favor of Abraham and his descendants. God is a good moral governor of the universe. The Abrahamic covenant is precursor to the Gospel of Jesus Christ with both Ephesians and Galations underlining its importance to the Gentiles. They state those "strangers" to the Covenant of the promise have been brought near by the blood of Christ (Christians).

 

Our journey for seeking Truth must begin with God and understanding His purposes to ultimately bring redemption to the world. Your right when you say we should be fully honest with ourselves and our motives. It is to see if we are being obedient to God or do we remain in egotistical rebellion?

 

The people chosen by God know the great responsibility they have to reveal His truth. Not as being superior to anyone, but like Paul, as unworthy as anyone. It is true humility. It does not take unrighteous advantage of anyone, it is being a servant. Jews and Christians have been bought and brought into the Covenant. With it comes our great responsibility to love God first so we may love man.

 

Suffering is brought about by man and his rebellious behavior against God.

 

If the Arab-Muslims were to stop attacking Israel, the war would stop. In your compassion, convince the Muslims to stop the attacks. Not for Israel to stop defending themselves!

[Realspiritik]

The people chosen by God know the great responsibility they have to reveal His truth. Not as being superior to anyone, but like Paul, as unworthy as anyone. It is true humility. It does not take unrighteous advantage of anyone, it is being a servant.

Thank you for stating clearly and unambiguously that you believe you are chosen by God. This explains a lot. It tells me that one of your core beliefs is an irresolveable paradox. On the one hand, you believe that you are chosen by virtue of your being baptized. On the other, your believe that being chosen is not about being superior, but is in fact about showing humility.

 

Paul created this paradox for the early church, and it still haunts Christians today.

 

It takes a lot of mental, emotional, and spiritual energy to come up with inventive new ways of maintaining both sides of this paradox so that these two mutually incompatible belief systems can be forcibly squeezed into a "toothpaste tube" together. But "being chosen" and "having humility" are antipodal to each other. If you think you're chosen, it means you think that when push comes to shove, God will favour you or give you goodies not granted to others -- favouritism. There's just no way around this reality, Davidk. If you want to be "chosen", you have to take a measure of responsibility for all the harm that is caused by "chosenness." (Need I remind you that the majority of Germans in the 1930's began to think of themselves as chosen?)

 

If, on the other hand, you really want to be a humble servant of God, you have to let go completely of the chosenness, and focus instead on being just one child of many equal children in God's loving family. Take your pick, Davidk. You can choose to be chosen. Or you can choose to be a humble servant. It's a clear case of either/or. You have to pick, and then you have to take responsibility for the consequences of your pick.

 

Go ahead, make my day.

 

Jen