Yesterday I got an email from Brit Tzedek, the American Jewish peace group, which has always had a generational feel for me– people in their 50s and 60s and 70s, who are still somewhat ethnocentric. (I know; I’m ethnocentric.) It contained a conversation with Amjad Atallah, of the New America Foundation, asking him, What do Palestinians want? I’m including a couple of the questions and answers below.
The significance of the conversation is the following. Many Jews have long felt that they can somehow puzzle the justice of the solution out on their own, or with the help of handpicked "good" Palestinians, rather than actually seeking out the Palestinian consensus on crucial issues. When in fact there is broad consensus inside the Palestinian community about refugees, the Nakba, Jewish expansionism; and you must engage that spirit. Brit Tzedek does the good spiritual work here of asking, What do Palestinians want?
The other significance of the conversation is this: I have long dared American Jews to do one thing, to speak openly to Israelis about the kind of state they like to live in. To pass on our learning and experience. And that is a state that respects minorities, is not religious, is tolerant, doesn’t built separate roadways on a religious basis, doesn’t bomb children of a different ethnicity, and so forth. The political values that the Israeli gov’t rubbishes at every turn. If American Jews performed this confession, you’d find that many would naturally accept the idea of one state in Israel/Palestine. I’m not saying this is necessarily the answer by the way, but the idea must be discussed rather than dismissed (as the Jewish writers at Politico, do, out of hand, calling it radical and fringe). When we enjoy the freedoms of such a state every day!
The answer to one-state among liberal Zionists has always been, We like the peace process! And meanwhile Palestinians are dispossessed and imprisoned, and the lobby triumphs. Remember, Brit Tzedek has sought to pressure Obama to make a two-state solution, and completely failed. And so at the end of the conversation, Brit Tzedek begins tentatively to grapple with the idea of a one-state solution. Liberating. Some of the conversation:
1. Why do Arabs and Palestinians reject Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State?
Palestinians and Arabs are prepared to accept a Jewish right of self-determination in Israel. What they can’t accept is that the Jewish right to self-determination abrogates or supersedes the Palestinian right to self-determination. So how do two rights to self-determination co-exist? That has been asked in Bosnia, in South Africa, in Rwanda, and other places. The easiest answer in Palestine/Israel is partition into two states. However, Palestinians are afraid that "right to exist as a Jewish state" is actually code for disenfranchising the 20% of the Israeli population that is Palestinian Arab. Palestinians are afraid that many Israeli politicians ultimately want to remove, "transfer," or further restrict the rights of the Palestinians who live in Israel who already have Israeli citizenship. The debate in Israel currently taking place as to whether Israel should be a "state for all its citizens" with a Jewish majority or a "Jewish state" impacts Palestinian thinking…
2. Isn’t the ultimate goal of Palestinians to destroy the state of Israel one piece at a time?
There will probably always be people from the generation that remember the expulsions of 1947-49 who won’t be able to ultimately be happy with the reality of Israel. But the truth is that for the majority, this is not the case. Arabs have lived with Jews since before the time of the Prophet Mohammed. The Caliph Omar was the one who opened Jerusalem to Jews again after conquering the city from the Byzantines. .. The current nature of the Israeli-Arab antipathy is actually an aberration from a long history of cooperation, co-existence, and in some cases common struggle against an external enemy. A just resolution of this current conflict and the ensuing peace will allow that aberration to be put aside and for the two communities to return to a more cooperative relationship…
10. Do the Palestinian people support two states or one bi-national state?
Both. The majority of Palestinians polled in the Occupied Territory consistently show support for a two-state solution, and this is probably a result of it being considered the most pragmatic and achievable solution as it overlaps so much with Israeli national security interests. However, there are few Palestinians ideologically opposed to living in a bi-national state and a distinct minority actually prefers it. What matters most to Palestinians is freedom and a normal life through realizing their national aspirations. Either a dignified two-state option or a dignified bi-national option could theoretically achieve that outcome. So at least one question that friends of Israel might ask themselves with greater urgency is what they expect Palestinians to endorse if they ever come to the conclusion that the United States will not or cannot induce Israel to end the occupation (having already assumed that Israel will not end the occupation on its own).
Brit Tzedek has not “failed”, is in the process of succeeding.
There has been Palestinian concensus on their varied and common experience. There has been nowhere near Palestinian concensus on their goal or means to remedy. And, that has been and is a great part of the problem of reconciling, as the range includes compliance and “we’ll leave you be, you leave us be” to terrorizing resistance.
There certainly is no Israeli concensus either, with proposals and remedies ranging from “we’ll leave you be, you leave us be”, to expropriation and suppression.
In BOTH a two-state at peace, and a single-state at peace, there is the requirement of “live and let live”. To the extent that anything less than an overwhelming majority hold that view, a single-state ends up suppressive and likely very violent civil war.
‘The land is OURS, not yours”. Either/or is not peace.
Law is the approach that can be convincing. The treatment of minorities within Israel, religious, ethnic, national, indicates the common danger of careless application of law. “We could be the ones that are persecuted”.
The significance of law is that noone can be persecuted.
Yeah, Witty, keep dictating to the Palestinians what they want and meanwhile conveniently ignoring the sort of laws that are proposed, supported, passed and enforced in the judenreich.
It’s like watching someone perform contortionism on the bow of the Titanic, reading Witty’s posts, isn’t it?
Anyway, the two state solution was tried and it’s basically failed because Israel is unwilling to honor a Palestinian state. Israel flatly rejects the Arab Peace Plan, which even Hamas and Iran will accept, as has been demonstrated to you multiple times. Israel has been actively thwarting and sabotaging the two state solution since 1948, when they first started snapping up lebensraum in excess of the already generous partition the UN offered them by military force and ethnic cleansing. And the ethnic cleansing has been ongoing ever since.
A two-state solution would be nice, if we can get Israel to accept it. Israel won’t. Israel is content to make war on her neighbors if that’s what it takes to expand her borders. And until we all put a stop to that, the two-state solution through diplomacy is impossible.
“What do Palestinians want?”
At last!! :applaud:
Even though most of the questions revolved around Jews, at least, its a start. Someone is thinking about what do the Palestinians want.
“The majority of Palestinians polled in the Occupied Territory consistently show support for a two-state solution, and this is probably a result of it being considered the most pragmatic and achievable solution as it overlaps so much with Israeli national security interests.”
what about all the palestinians living in camps in lebanon? what about the palestinians living in jordan, syria, egypt, iraq? do they support a one state solution or a two state solution? one major problem of most discussions of the question of palestine is that they equate the occupied territories and the palestinians living there with the palestinian people as a whole. but they are not all of the palestinian people and the west bank and gaza only represent part of historic palestine. the heart of historic palestine, culturally, intellectually, was not ramallah or nablus or hebron. it was jaffa, haifa, akka. the major cities on the coast. jaffa was ‘arusat filasteen, the bride of palestine and the biggest city in the mandate. solving the occupation of 1967 does not solve the entire problem. it only deals with part of the problem. there is still the problem of 1948 and the people who were expelled and dispossessed then.
It does make one wonder why the Herlz wave of Zionist settlers chose the Land of the Philistines and Phoenicians over the Land of Israel for their state.
[quote]what about all the palestinians living in camps in lebanon? what about the palestinians living in jordan, syria, egypt, iraq? [/quote]
I’ll see if I can dig up the report I had read which claimed that only about 10% of refugees outside Palestine want to be repatriated while the rest want compensation and are willing to stay in the country of refuge. Not surprising, since for most of them, that is home.
Of course, its from Forward so I don’t know how reliable it is [not sure if its kosher to say that :o]
link to forward.com
Home without citizenship? Every alternative held out to the Palestinians leaves them as 2nd class.
At the very least the dispossessed should be compensated. And Israel should pay. But they won’t even consider the simplest least bloody of sacrifices. You heard of the Ship of Fools, behold The Country!
if given the right of return, i wouldn’t go back to jaffa. and i am not sure that my cousins in lebanon would, either. but we would have different reasons for saying no. i live in the u.s., and have no interest in going to a country where i would be a second class citizen and where systemic efforts have been made to erase and efface the traces of pre-1948 society. palestinians in lebanon have very little in the way of rights and opportunities; if they are saying they would not return in high percentages, it is in part, i suspect, out of a belief that they have nothing to return to and that israel would never let them back in. if there was a real hope that people could go back, and receive compensation for their stolen property and reparations for decades of rent that wasn’t paid, so to speak, i wonder what any polling numbers might look like. at root, much of the zionist project has operated on the basis of the simple maxim of might makes right: we stole it and we’re going to hold on to it until you give up hope of ever getting it back. the hope, i think, is that 1948 and its injustice will disappear or be forgotten as that generation gradually dies off.
this is all in a way immaterial, however. my main point was that the debate over two states and the debate over the occupation focuses almost exclusively on 1967-related issues–Jerusalem, or the siege of Gaza, or continuing land theft and colonization in the West Bank. The voice of the victims of 1948 and their descendants is almost never heard; Mahmoud Abbas does not have the right to give away anybody’s right to return. at best, he represents a segment of the palestinian people–those occupied in 1967, and 1948 refugees who were living in the west bank and gaza at that time. but he does not represent all of them and the conflict will not be over until the issues of 1948 have been resolved.
Exactly! Thank you for pointing that out.
This conflict will not end until Israel rectifies the wrongs it did in 1948.
OK, the conflict won’t end. Life is very good in Israel and getting better all the time.
After the Palestinians turned down Olmert’s incredible offer it became pretty obvious that the only solution the Palestinians will accept is one they are never going to get.
What offer was that Julian? The legalization of the Israeli occupation? I’m sorry but that’s not an offer that’s merely might makes right.
In any case it is Olmert who scoffed at the Arab Peace Initiative. A Peace plan that stated that EVERYONE in the Middle East including Iran and Hamas would recognize Israel, open normal relations with Israel, and begin trade with Israel if all the Israelis did was allow for the creation of a VIABLE Palestinian state BASED on the 1967 borders.
The offer has been made 3 times now. Once in 2002, again in 2007 and again in 2009. Each time Israel has said “fuck you.”
James Bradley is correct. Julian is not.
You can say that again, MRW. And will probably have many occasions to.
One of the pervasive problems of the 2-state solution as commonly discussed, even in the most ‘generous’ (Taba) form, is that it legitimises a division of Palestine which, even if any division were acceptable, is extraordinarily and staggeringly unfair. Tariq Ali says that in Kashmir India got the snowy breast and Pakistan the bony rump; what is called Israel is the sultry breast of Palestine and what are called the Occupied Territories are barren bones in comparison. Everyone knows it’s so miserably unfair that the Palestinians could not consent to it, meaning what they say, even if a wretched usurper like Abbas would sign up to it. Which is one reason why Israel does not believe that it could ever find a genuine partner for peace on these terms. They seem to despise Abbas as much as Hamas does. And of course a one-state solution is an even more obvious negation of Zionism and everything it stands for.
what i don’t get is when zionists tell palestinians they need to get over 1948; have the people who say such things ever gotten over 70 AD or 135 AD? there are still people alive who were expelled from their homes in 1948. i am related to a number of them. nobody, so far as i know, is still around from 70 AD or from 135 AD. many of the palestinians, christians and muslims, who were expelled in 1948, no doubt are descended at least in part from people who in the first century adhered to some form of judaism. i am not sure how many of the european colonists who immigrated to palestine before and after 1948 had a similar such connection, although they themselves were often motivated by an ideology which at base had much to do with blut und erde.
the french were in algeria for 130 years. the crusader states lasted 100-200 years. israel is about 60 years old. time and demographics are not on israel’s side. i’d be surprised if it lasted as long as french algeria did. this is something which clear-headed zionists understand and something which explains why many zionists for whom the notion of a palestinian state has traditionally been anathema now support the establishment of something which they refer to as a palestinian ‘state’ but which on any reasonable definition of what a state is is in fact no such thing. this sort of thinking was behind olmert’s ‘amazing’ offer.
israel can only exist with extensive military, political, and moral support from western powers. this is the case now and has been the case since 1948. the legitimacy of a western colonial settler state, established by the west, for westerners, has not been accepted by the people of the region. my own experience, such as it has been, does not suggest to me that it will be. this should not be surprising. i am not aware of any example in history of a people or place that has been colonized and where the indigenous population has been murdered, terrorized, expelled, expropriated from, and treated as second-class citizens, where that population has embraced the ideology and justice of the colonial endeavor.
recent years have witnessed the beginnings of the erosion of israel’s support in the west. lebanon, gaza, goldstone, etc. israel’s current political trajectory suggests that it will unfortunately continue to engage in the same sort of ruthless, disproportionate and cruel acts of military savagery which have recently damaged its image. all the king’s horses and all the king’s hasbara will have a hard time in restoring its reputation again. the internet has also made it more difficult to shape and manage opinion in the west. the rules of the game have changed and are changing.
time is not on israel’s side. the longer it puts off making peace and trying seriously to win acceptance in the region, the greater the odds will be that there will be a palestinian mugabe one day who will treat the jewish population of the eventual one state that will be the end result in the same way that the jewish population of israel has treated the arabs since 1948. a two state solution is the last best hope to save the long-term prospects of the zionist project.
As you can see, Israel is working even more assiduously towards the one state solution than you
And people like Richard Witty, who enjoy their comfortable minority rights in the US should be ashamed of their complicity in undermining the basic human rights of other human beings, simply because they don’t believe in the same mythological gibberish. How they can look themselves in the mirror everyday is beyond me!
What is the issue here is not merely 70 AD which was the last territorial reference of the last of Israel returnees from Babylonian diaspora, after they were scattered by the Romans or what remains in Israel lands after the WW II in 1948. This national claim should even go back ideally to the times of David and Solomon when the national integrity of Israel was first established through its monarchy. However, reality seemed to have seeped-in that the Israelis ‘to buy peace’ (another ‘national mistake’) have compromised their original territorial claims back to 1948 international agreements or perhaps to 1967 borders only.
One significant weakness of the Israeli character, just like any other human being, is their penchant to be literal. The ancient scriptures decried, this was the root cause of their long-running controversy with the Almighty. Well that is given…what is worst now is that all the bright guys in the world seemed to hold and sustain the same literal ideas on human rights, equality, etc. In reality, in a war, particularly in the midst of a combat, there is no such good thing as mercy, human rights, equality, etc. War is an extremely tragic situation; where no one stands victorious in the real sense as the victory of one is sorrow of another. Every dead fellow on the sand has their loves ones hopefully and lovingly waiting for them to go home.
War is the fruit of foolishness among men. No matter how would we equate, had the Hamas obtained their rationality, the accusations against Israel would have never arised; no abuses, nor cruelty, no siege, no attacks, no tanks, no bullets, no bloodshed, no death, no sorrows.
Had not the Philistines attacked David many times during his days, the Palestinians could have not these troubles on territories these days.
If the present day Palestinians as they suggests, are truely the Philistines in those Davidic days.
??? who suggested that? They are probably the original Jews, now converted to Christianity and Islam.
Meanwhile, is there any archeological evidence of the ancient state of Israel? Cos there isn’t even a map that mentions it. And no artifact of Solomon or David either, its all just very nice fiction.
Yes. Solomon mentioned he built pools (Ecclesiastes 2:6), Nehemiah mentioned about a king’s pool as he inspected the ruins of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:12-14). The ruins of City of Jerusalem built by Solomon in 957 B.C.. on top of symbolic Biblical Mount Sion (described allegorically in Hebrews 12:22) stands before our eyes.
Zamaaz,
Your idea of archaeological evidence (Bible describes something, I see something that may resemble that thing – voila) is similar to your approach to the connection between biblical prophecy and reality. It requires two premises, without which, it is just a heap of nonsense: 1) that biblical accounts and prophecies are literally true; 2) that current reality actually corresponds to biblical accounts and prophecies.
You obviously accept these premises, because you believe them to be true. For those of us who do not share your beliefs however, arguments based on these premises mean absolutely nothing, and so, are wholly inappropriate to a forum like this. Please stop filling our screens with things we cannot possibly relate to except to make fun of them and you.
On a personal note, I find your pro-Jewish racism – biblically or otherwise sanctioned – completely revolting. I assume you are not Jewish, and so, as a Jew, I would like to ask you to please cut it out. Thanks but no thanks. We’ll take it from here.
I do not meant to offend you Shmuel, If I am wrong, because the Bible I am referring is wrong, then I should apologitically agree we have nothing to argue. Indeed Israel, has no right to exist…for this is the only one document millions of people in this world, including me, believed Israel has right to exist in that piece of land called Palestine…
This belief of mine was a personal choice to believe what Americans have taught us through our parents to believe that Israel has right to exist because the Bible say so…If I am wrong millions of Americans are also wrong. Then I should believe Americans has indeed no business to spend billions of dollars for your security on this Biblical falsehood.
I joined in this interaction because the title said so; ‘War of ideas in the middle east’. But if you believe that only those who agree in your ideas, or your bitter enemies are entitled to join. Then perhaps I should take a back seat. After all, you have shown me about some Jewish behaviour!
Zamaaz,
I think we may actually be getting somewhere. You agree that your argument depends entirely on the veracity of the Bible (as you understand it, of course) – a belief you say you share with millions of Americans, and without which your conclusions would be wrong. You must therefore also be aware that such arguments are meaningless to those who do not share your faith. Since we are, at best, a “mixed” crowd here, a more universal approach – i.e. one rooted in empirical evidence – would be in order, or you are simply wasting our time and yours.
Other than the Bible what is you evidence Israel has the right to exist? Your own written history books? Is the Jewish book Tanak is wrong, then why should we believe your history books are not wrong?
And besides was it not written, ‘In they faith you shall live…’ We live with this Biblical understanding because we have faith in it. Americans are supporting Israelis enge-to-edge also because of this foolish belief. Have you not realized America was founded on Christian principles? What is then the sole interest of America is supporting like a fool Israel? Oil? Technology? Arms? the rest of the Arab middle-east are waiting for America’s friendship! It is this Christian belief…
Zamaaz: Is the Jewish book Tanak is wrong, then why should we believe your history books are not wrong?
I repeat: empirical evidence. History books are right if they correspond to available empirical evidence. If new evidence is discovered, old theories are discarded in favour of new ones. Faith doesn’t work that way, and no amount of circular logic will change that.
By the way, I do not believe that “Israel has the right to exist”, if by that you mean as an ethno-religious Jewish state.
What emperical evidence? Have you not noticed , even the Bible (or Tanak if you wished) itself has mentioned there were communities already in Canaan when the Hebrews arrived? Without these books, what is your basis you have right over Palestine?
And if these ancient books are false, then what right has the Israelis have for digging for artifacts all over Palestine?
You demand for evidence? Without these books, those are not yours!
These ancient books are just like land titles given to you by divine providence thousands of years ago; which explains and supersedes all other claims that arise later.
Would you reject or deny these Jewish books?
Circular logic, full of holes. “The Bible mentions” is not empirical evidence. We do not know whether “the Hebrews arrived”, who they were or whether they even existed (passing mention of the “ebiru” in an Egyptian document notwithstanding). Even assuming the historical veracity of the Biblical account of the arrival of some “Hebrews” from Mesopotamia, and even the Israelite conquest of the land (I’m giving you a lot of leeway here), how does this give 19th-21st century Jews the right to take the land away from its current inhabitants? Unless we presume; a) that contemporary Jews are somehow descendant from those Hebrews, and b) that the Bible says they have that right – which brings us back to square one.
You mean like how Hamas conformed to the cease fire that Israel violated on November 4th last year?
The Nuremberg defense? Seriously? So where in the Bible does that appear, pray tell?
Chaos, you or anyone else has never answered why Hamas felt it necessary to build tunnels into Israel.
Yonira why don’t you tell us why Israel has a right to smash the Gaza strip with artillery, air, and naval bombardment whenever they please, while the Gazans are not allowed to create any mechanism of dealing with that brutal assault?
Can you also tell us why its “ok” for Israel to kill and wound dozens of Palestinians (mostly farmers and fishermen) during the 6 month ceasefire and launch airstrikes during that same cease fire? Oh and why is it “ok” for Israel to not gradually remove the siege from Gaza as was promised by the Israelis during the cease fire?
In any case, if Hamas was actually building tunnels into Israel (which is a purely Israeli claim) then they would have the right to do so at it gives them a way of defending themselves from superior Israeli aggression. Never at any point during the ceasefire did Hamas act violently towards the Israelis, in fact Hamas was arresting anyone that tried to fire a rocket into Israel.
Furthermore, Yonira you say you want a 2 state solution. If so, why are you silent about Hamas that has agreed to the Arab Peace Initiative 3 times now, AND has just issued a statement saying they will accept ANY solution that gives the Palestinians a state based on the 1967 borders (the statement was made in front of Jimmy Carter, the same man that brought you peace with Egypt). This solution is based on a FULL peace not a hudna.
So as an advocate of the 2 state solution Yonira, why have you not pushed the Israeli government and Israeli supporters to support that? What are you waiting for? The 2 state solution is almost impossible to implement as it is so why the hold up?
Now is the time for American Jews to urge that Israel sincerely seek peace, and reject expansion.
All of the tangible problems seem resolvable currently.
And American Jews thus should urge that Israel sincerely seek peace by urging Obama to
at least put some teeth into his Cairo speech and publicly demand again that Israel freeze all settlements, including all “natural growth.” And threaten some consequences: “Or else the USA will have to reconsider it’s constant gifts to Israel.”
Actually this is the sad reality the Palestinian Israelis will in either way definitely disfranchised. Looking into the dilemma of the Jews, at a) bi-national state they will lose their citizenship, at b) one-state solution they will still be disfranchised in their suffrage or power to vote; still an ugly dishonorable option. The least evil between the two is the bi-national state, because it will free both peoples from future political complexities, and allow them to move forward towards the future they want. However, the substantial impact of the bi-national state is that they (Palestinian Israelis) will be forced to relocate outside the Israeli border, and worst may lose their employment. The first scenario is somewhat politically reasonable and economically attainable, but the second scenario must be avoided for ‘heavens and humanity sake’. So far the optimum arrangement I can foresee is for the Israel government help them to relocate to better locations at no cost, and help them sustain their employment (could be in some other ways), to avoid the adverse socio-economic impact of socio-economic dislocation. The households maybe offered social welfare subsidies and other benefits to alleviate such dislocation for three generations. Other ‘certified’ good Palestinians citizens maybe sponsored by their Jewish friends or associates in the community to embrace the Zionist Jewish (which is almost impossible), Orthodox Jewish or perhaps Messianic Jewish faith to become fully Israel citizen (this is maybe a weird idea but cannot be discounted). Religion is actually not an issue here because in reality both have the same focus of worship (they only quarrel over the land and this ‘foolish national pride’). As for me, a Palestinian converted to become a Jewish citizen is the highest religious honor (historically and traditionally) they could ever achieve. In the context of Torah every Jew must recognize this conversion.
In this scenario the state of Israel must have established a legal system of offically recognizing religious groupings; Zionist Jews, Othrodox Jews, Liberal Jews, Messianic Jews, etc. A Jew by this system is a porson who by this present is a legal citizen of Israel, who embraces and truly exercise their legally recognized Jewish faith (of course, the Torah declared idolatry abominable which was historially the spiritually root cause of destruction of Israel as a nation).
Yes, indeed, zamaaz, and here we go again with the idolatry. I’m betting on an earthquake this time.
Actually, Zionism itself is idolatry, and if they don’t cut it out, the Land will do its thing and “vomit them out”.
Yes, somehow, if zionism fails, there is this possibility they, including the whole Israel will be vomitted out!
At the establishment of bi-national state, territorial expansion becomes irrelevant. After all, when peace prevails in the land, the Israelites would make their border open to Palestinians in good faith, and the Palestinians would remain employed by the Jews in their commerce and industry. Otherwise Israel would be a very economically sickly and loneliest place on Earth, and they will lose their ‘international strategic friends’ and be culturally isolated from the rest of the world. What good is pride if youre enclosed in a cabinet? What is prosperity and blessings when others cannot appreciate by enjoying it? What is blessing of ‘abundance of wine’ when youre drinking it alone? Such misery! Indeed this could be one idea behind the Thanksgiving.
zamaaz, take a break and watch Part 1 of this 2-hour feature. It is 30 minutes long.
link to youtube.com
Thank you MRW, yes lots of people these days are very much concerned with this Mayan Prediction.
Last year, I too has suspected based on prophetic dates that the most crucial year for humanity could be 2015 based on commentaries on Daniel 12:7. But these commentaries I dispelled because I totally relied on the direct meanings of two related verses: Daniel 12:7 which provided two conditionalities (the destruction and restoration of Israel and the completion of world evangelism), and Matthew 24:32-35 which Christ Jesus categorically upholds the reserved option or finality by the Almighty Father. This Mayan prediction will give us one great change for testing the validity of the Bible; Who is mightier, the Mayan prediction, or the Word of the Bible?
So far what is deeply interesting to me is the amalgamation of world events is underscored by the fulfilment of the cross-prophesies (Tanak, and the Gospels) regarding the rise of the Jewish state, the return of its ancient Jewish Temple rituals, and the final conflict between Israel and all its enemies. It seems, with these ongoing regional developments particularly on the Palestine issue, the direction is historically and politically irreversible.
These are just interests, no other claims, whatsoever.
Zamaaz: Who is mightier, the Mayan prediction, or the Word of the Bible?
You got me there.
As the Philistine said of David: “Do I lack madmen, that ye have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence? shall this fellow come into my house?’” (I’ve always been partial to the book of Shmuel, for some reason).
Ah, David was only pretending, you say? But what an act! Looked just like the real thing.
Yes, this is how clever David was, in his desperation to survive, out of fear (David was just a human too!) of Achish the Phillistine king… Somehow we can learn one thing here; we cannot entirely trust on our own perception, nor underestimate a person whom we think a fool…
Debating logic, rationality and current events with a Christian Zionist fanatic is really quite pointless, you know, guys. Even more so than with Witty. This guy is always going to find some contradiction to take shelter under in the Bible. The so-called Holy Book is rife with them.
You’re right Chaos, and I’ve had enough of this game. I was not actually trying to engage zamaaz (utterly pointless), but to take the piss out of someone who righteously deserves it.
Chaos4700, please don’t fume…I am not Christian Zionist fanatic. I do not agree on bombing innocents just to prove my agruments. As I would presume a fool before you, in the world of fools, I just took the stand because I cannot suffer one fool to be accused by a world of fools, for the sake of a foolish reason ‘national pride, humanity, justice, rights, etc.’ without a fair and just debate. What is the use of these arguments when everybody is a fool? I think as a fool, the Israelis and the Palestinians have the right to cut its other throats!
And besides, as the whole world is reading this e-page, this is not a game, we are in the court of world opinion.
Who should I should I refer Sheakespeare? Does he writes about the long history of Israel? I should constantly take refuge on the Bible. Considering its literary style, the Bible is the most beautiful process documentation ever written. Not a book in the world (even in the UN) is capable attaining at par its scope and depth. It also described the rise of a Jewish nation. Without which I have no sense to argue about Israel. I have been reading books for years, the writting structure itself of the Bible has already made me believed of its credence.
We are comfortable with contradictions, because the Bible itself is a book of contradictions…
zamaaz, take your xanax
ouk agathon poli corania
eis coranos esto! — some old Greek
I can google with the best of them, and I even remember a little Greek from uni. Your point in mangling Homer, would be?
in unity is strength, duh
show me the mangle
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη· εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω
ouk agathon polukoiranie. heis koiranos esto
It means: The rule of many is not good. Let there be one ruler.
I’m not sure how you got “in unity is strength” out of that (with or without the “duh”)
who cares? the First Yarns weren’t written down for at least 500 years. For all that time they were transported by word of mouth. Nobody cared what it look like on paper. They were illiterate, duh.
You’re not sure? Disingenuous mountebank!
I have the standard Liddell and Scott Greek lexicon and cannot find any word like ‘corania’. There is the standard Greek for ‘get lost!’ – es korakas (go to the crows).
I do hope zam can be cured by xanax or some substance . I’d just mention the extremely conservative author of the Oxford History of the Biblical World, Carol Myers, writing about the Solomonic monarchy p.190 – ‘Archaeological evidence for the new royal and administrative capital is disconcertingly poor’. Myers does her utmost to soften the impact of this statement for believers but she is compelled to make it.
Well, it’s Christmas. So ‘Chaire sphodra, thygater Zion!…Kai plethos kai eirene ex ethnon!’ – ‘Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion!…From the nations, both plenty and peace!’ Zechariah 9, 9-10. I’m quoting selectively but at this time of year it’s worth hoping and selecting the good bits from the great mass of words that is before us.
MH,
As I said, it’s a bit mangled. The word is koiranos. It’s a quote from the Iliad (II:204), and means “It is not good to have many leaders; let there be one leader.”
Plenty and peace to you too :-)
as you said? fuckin poofter. I learned my Homer at the foot of the Bard, patiently over many years. You think the english rattlin around in your brain has always been i before e except after c for all time?
Thanks to Shmuel for putting Homer in recognisable form!
What the Bible tells me is that there have always – or at least very persistently – been both Israelites and non-Israelites in Palestine. If God’s providence was at work that was what it achieved. If it’s still at work we should follow its direction.
You’re welcome, MH. I’ve been studying Canaanite/Phoenecian texts lately, and the similarity to biblical texts – language and even specific expressions! – is remarkable. What this shows is not only that different cultures and religions co-existed simultaneously in ancient Canaan and the Fertile Crescent in general, but that these cultures were very closely related. Of course the Bible itself draws a similar picture, if you sift out the adversarial political agenda of some of its authors and redactors. I still have hope for Jewish-Palestinian co-existence, recognising the similarities and potential for cooperation between the two peoples – not unlike the ancient peoples of Canaan, adversarial political agendas notwithstanding.
Please do not get angry with my ideas, I am just interacting with the ideas everyone has presented…Indeed these interaction has given me a valuable chance in measuring the breadth of our perspectives and attitudes, particularly with a Jew. I am much impressed with your line of thinking and arguments. Now I got a feeling what does the line ‘controversy between Israel and almighty’ meant. Truly, this is a world of chaos(4700?)
Please correct; Almighty, not almighty.
No, zammaz. Quoting Scripture (and arguments based on it) at those who do not accept its authority is not “interacting”.
If I am wrong, then present your better ideas. We are at ‘war of ideas…’ From you I am learning too.
OK. Of course as a Jew you reject the Gospels, but you can confine my arguments to Tanak. After all the Old Testament inthe Bible is a ‘derivative’ of this.
I agree. Any persistent writer (at least) knows enough to take what anyone says with a bag of salt; the bible was written by men, and how many of those were eye-witnesses?
And what do we know about the credibility of eye-witnesses? (See My Cousin Vinny).
History is not, after all, a science, yet the bible claims history. See the sub-thread
on archeology. A significant number of Germans took Mein Kampf as displaying
objective history, as a bible written with Truth as inspiration.
Zamaaz,
Despite our apparent “interaction”, we have nothing to say to each other. You are a racist who believes God has told him to be a racist. My ideas, “on one foot”, are that all human beings are equal and there is no such thing as “cultural purity”. Time for me to go enjoy my Sabbath dinner. I think we’re done.
Have a good Sabbath dinner, Shmuel. Good holidays to you and yours.
Thanks, Citizen. You too.
Ok. you may consider me a Christian-zionist if you want. After all that is the substance of my position. But frankly I am amused with my self; ‘Why am I debating against a Jew for the existence of a Jewish Israel?’ Knowing I am not a Jew, and this is not my country? I must be like a fool!
Anyway, fool or not, I do appreciate this debate and pray the Jews remain Jews, and Israel remains a Jewish Israel. And I am dearly grateful for such steadfast American support. God bless America!
But Zamaaz? Why should Israel remain Jewish? For what possible reason? What about the rights of the indigenous people that were there before the ethnic cleansing? What about them? Should Israel remain a Jewish state at their expense? Those people are still alive longing to return to their homeland, should we deny them that?
Zamaaz,
As a non-believer, I cannot offer you an argument that you will listen to, however, if you are really interested in an alternate viewpoint from a Christian and Bible-based perspective, please let me recommend that you read Gary Burge’s “Whose Land?” Whose Promise?”.
Burge is a Christian theologian and Bible scholar at Wheaton College. Here is his comment on his book:
I would also recommend reading the writings of Thomas Getman, another Christian theologian, and former director of World Vision in Jerusalem. And other books that may constructively engage your Biblical arguments would be
Stephen Sizer’s “Christian Zionism: Road map to Armageddon?” as well as “Blood Brothers” by Elias Chacour and “A Palestinian Christian Cry for Reconciliation” by Naim Ateek. Chacour and Ateek are both Palestinian Christian clergy.
I hope this helps, and I hope yo are willing to entertain countervailing arguments based on the same Christian and Bible-based perspective that you believe in.
And also, Zamaaz, I would recommend this website for a thorough discussion of the beliefs you raise.
“Challenging Christian Zionism”
link to christianzionism.org
Thank you all for such cordial delivery of arguments.
I too agree on the criticism over Christian Zionism in relation to the road to Armaggidon. I fact every time I think about these things my body chills with fear.
Yes, my heart also aches for the non-jew christians particularly the Palestinians. They too are people. But here I stand to argue not for my self, but for the sake of the other side of reason.
All of places on this Earth there is only one nation that our ‘humanist’ ideas on racism, rights, equality, and all kind thinkings are in reverse perspective; Israel.
In this issue Israel was uniquely establish at that; a nation of Children of Jacob. I believe every Bible scholars know that, and now were are debating on rebuilding the state of Israel. This is my point, let us put justice here, ‘In whose view we are about to rebuild the nation?’ Ours as humans, or by the power it was built according to the ancient scriptures. If is is by ours, humans, then the single state is enough and workable, we would not mind if it become a Palestinian governed state someday, by virtue of demographic trend. After all it is technically would be a secular state or a state of Gentiles. But the trouble is it is being reclaimed as a nation and fought by some Jews on reason rooted from their faith. This ‘homeland’ should we say is part of their national identity based on ancient scriptures (zionist). Now if we use the ancient scriptures as basis, then the concepts of rebuilding must be based on the ordinances of the Almighty, and lessons of history written in those books. And if we say based on those books; then justice is not our ‘human’ justice, the rights is not our ‘human rights’, etc. because these things are defined not by us humans but by the Spirit behind those books. And the books said Israel as a nation is defined by lands occupied by the ‘tribes’ of household of Jacob. If we based our concepts on political governance in Jerusalem, then the least is based on the land ruled by David.
If we reject these books than in our modern secular world, what would be our basis for reestablishing Israel? Speaking of Armaggidon, yes indeed there is this a dreadful prospect, but do we have the power to reverse the tide? I may look like a fatalistic idiot, but shall we ignore what hatred is building up throughout the world? What shall we do? Shall we sacrifice the nation of Israel again?
Sad to say, prophetically it appears the world is at the ‘end-game’…
About Isaiah, how can we rightfully judge soundly when even the Jews ignored the utterances of Isaiah? There is this group rising lately called the Messianic Jews. Does this phenomena confirms that the Gospels were true? For us, the Gospels were true ‘since’ we were children…
About justice, to be fair, shall we concern ourselves only to ‘our’ justice. Shall we not also give the Almighty His justice?
Another ‘sad’ reality, the western Christians can never be advanced like the Israeli and American Jews in this issues. The context of Biblical writings never moves nor changes…and we have to live with that fact.
Thank you tree, for all your suggestions. Our minds are kept open to other arguments. Can anyone offer arguments stronger than those in the ancient scriptures? These are welcome.
You know tree, there are moments I question myself. Why should I ‘dip my fingers’ on this burning issue of Israel? I do not have an iota of investment on it! Then in resignation I would just shrugg my shoulders off; perhaps it is my conscience, or perhaps the way we were brought up since we were children that as we age old we learned to appreciate, love, revere and have kind regards to this great Spirit behind the holy scriptures…or perhaps this is one American Christian influence permanently imprinted to us – which by all reasons we are somehow grateful to them being divine instruments.