Gaza: Shock, Awe and Uncertainty 2006

Peace in this part of the world will only be obtained when people are willing to think outside the boxes of conventional thinking that has blinkered their views. Your piece is entirely conventional in this respect. I sense that trying to explain the two sides that can make peace would be a wasted effort here.

But follow some of the other articles where you find my comments, or look at some of my own articles, and if you are willing to look outside the conventional boxes of thought, you will see the dove of peace seeking release.

[And allow Palestinians directly descended to those "expelled" in the 1948 war to return and live peacefully in the newly formed Palestinian state.]

Inventing history vis-a-vis Israel has been such a tradition in the Islamic and the useful idiot media of the West. It is the Arab state's who attacked Israel and called to Muslims to leave their homes to avoid casaulties. So the Muslims left for neighboring countries.

And how about those equally big number of Jews who were expelled by the Arabs countries in the 1940s with their properties looted and confiscated. Where should they go? Is Mr. Bailey also insisting that those jews and their descendent be returned to the Arab countries.

The best solution is the Muslim world unequivocally accept the Jewish state which is due for a way long time. Then only Israel could be negotiated to return to its '67 border. The second thing is take all Jews from the Arab countries to Israel and All Muslims leave the Israeli territory. So long Koran and Prophet saying to kill the Jews completely exists on earth, Muslims can never leave with the Jews in mutual respect, dignity and harmony. Mr Bailey should read the History of Islam and Islamic theology ad prophet Muhammad's barbaric treatments of the Jews before writing such articles. Else, it remains a 'blind man's seeing the elephant'.

First of all MA Khan you obviously haven't read the link I submitted about the Arabs expelled in the 1948 war. The article the link points to proves that 70% of the Arabs displaced in the war of independence were expelled By Israel in one way or another, and blows your theory of Arab warnings out of the water. IT says something like 10% left because they were warned by Arab countries... don't you think invasion plans are kept secret?

Also, for your information Jews already have a right of return to Israel; any Jew anywhere in the world has automatic rights to immigrate to Israel if he/she should so choose. So how about they [those displaced in decades of conflict] do that if they want to.

And as for the Koran calling to murder Jews meaning Muslim's can never live alongside them in peace. Only the hard-line Salafi and Wahabi strands of Islamic thought interpret that section of the Koran literally, and funnily enough those hard-line strands are more common where Muslim's have a history of war and oppression. If peace was achieved after all the Palestinian deaths, do you honestly think the Palestinians would want to go back to war and lose thousands more friends and relatives? I don't.

And in the context of my article, it makes no difference how many Arab states accept Israel's right to exist. As long as the Palestinian coalition -which looks close to becoming a reality- accepts Israel, and early reports indicate that they will.

So, I maintain my thesis:
There will be no peace in the Middle East until Israel is forced to commit fully to this end.

show me how to clap with one hand

:)

if it can be done then i will buy this:


There will be no peace in the Middle East until Israel is forced to commit fully to this end.

OH Crap! I changed that after I pasted from word, but screen crashed, I had to paste again and I forgot to change it the second time.

What I meant as my thesis is: There will be no peace between Iraelis and Palestinians until Israel is forcedto fully commit to this aim. As you will see if you click on the embedded link.

OH Crap! I changed that after I pasted from word, but screen crashed, I had to paste again and I forgot to change it the second time.

What I meant as my thesis: there will be no peace between Iraelis and Palestinians until Israel is forced to fully commit to this end. As you will see if you click on the embedded link.

Hey Liam,

I'm the Israeli on this list. You want to talk about solutions, talk to me and stop parroting the Arab line. It's embarrassing to see a grown man squawk like a useful idiot. Keep it up and I'll have to bring a cracker for you when I visit this article.

If you are going to attempt to prescribe solutions for us Jews, you might want to get to know who the hell you're talking to and understand our streams of thought, as you take the trouble to understand Moslem streams of thought.

First of all, a question for you.

In the State of Israel, are you dealing with a Jewish state, or a Zionist one? Something for you to ponder...

ruvy:

you scoundrel:)

actually, in hindi/urdu i'd say tum badmaash!

Liam, brave of you to wade into the murky troubled waters.
MA Khan - assume that you have nothing to say about Deir Yassin? Or indeed the other massacres and expulsions that happened in 1948?
Judeo-Islamic relations deteriorated in the 20th century, curiously just as Judeo-Christian relations improved, especially post the establishment of Israel, and the geopolitical great game that developed with the loss of formal colonies in the ME. There are enough history books that record that process.
Also, Jews were so "expelled" from the "Muslim" countries that they continued to occupy high political office (cabinet positions) in Iran until the 1970s, when the "Revolution" installed a fundamentalist regime? Iran wasn't the exception either.
Btw, check the PASSIA website for detailed records of demographic changes in the Palestinian populations in Israel/territories.
Ruvy - could you explain hear the distinction between the "Jewish" state vs the "Zionist" one? Isn't the establishment of the Israeli state by humans in itself contrary to orthodox Jewish opinions? Isn't the right to aliyeh for all Jews but refusal of "right to return" to Palestinian refugees or their descendants intended to ensure Israel as a "Jewish" state?

ana:

ruvy did give a detailed response to jewish vs. zionist state couple of days back in a response to a query of mine to khan (who declined to reply:))

you can search and save him the bother to re-paste it here...try either alamgir or khan's recent articles

First of all, the reason I didn't answer your comment was your: "I sense that trying to explain the two sides that can make peace would be a wasted effort here." gave the impression that you were totally dismissive of my obviously valid viewpoints. I have had many debates with people who blatantly disagree with me and are closed to my arguments. I have found the debate can go on forever and get absolutely nowhere.
As I am only 23 and started off with an open mind, I can still admit I am wrong when presented with a strong enough opposing argument. When I started freelancing I was a firm supporter of Bush/Blair and the War on Terror. After my initial research all this changed.

Now, I want to apologise if my articles have given the impression that I hold Israel's entire Jewish civilian population responsible for Israel's ill-advise actions over the decades. I do not. I believe --ads the UN did 1947-- that after the holocaust Jews were entitled to their own state in a place historically tied to their religion. I just find it ludicrous that they committed acts of ethnic cleansing to increase its size.

To your question:
The Zionist movement was largely responsible for the creation of the Jewish state, and after it was created their military wings formed the IDF. However, my answer is it cannot be a Zionist state, as Zionism is a movement within Judaism, created to fight for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Israel and to defend it after the aim was achieved. In saying that, the reports I have read say that Judaism is currently overwhelmingly Zionist, and that secular or anti-Zionist movements are rare in modern Judaism. So your question was similar to what came first the chicken or the egg.

I am learning all the time. For instance yesterday I learned that the cradle of the rock, the 3rd holiest site for Muslim's has been left under Islamic rule by Israel, I thought Israel had taken it from them. This was factored in to my overall view of the conflict. But when I am criticised for not showing balance in my articles on these matters--always by people arguing just as vehemently from the other side--, I think to myself. I do show balance, you will note I haven't quoted Israel fired ex amount of artillery shells without also saying how many rocket attacks the Palestinians launched. Or mentioned Palestinian death tolls without comparing them to Israeli death tolls.

The problem is not my balance but the balance of the conflict. I.e. Israel's superior military and advanced weaponry--and its willingness to use it in civilian areas-- versus a few separate resistance movements with only basic weapons, forced to blow themselves up for maximum impact. I.e. "Israel fired between 7000 and 9000 heavy artillery shells into Gaza, killing 80 Palestinians in six months between its withdrawal in September 2005 and March 2006. Palestinian rocket attacks are estimated at 1000 for the same period. A further 5100 Israeli artillery rounds were fired tit for tat between the end of Mar. 2006 and the end of May 2006, with 800 Qassam rocket attacks." For example: "IDF spokesman said last week that there had been 157 rockets fired from the strip in November- attacks which killed two Israelis in Sderot. Despite the 105 Palestinians killed, according to medical staff quoted by the Palestinian maan news agency." You tell me where the balance is in this conflict, and because of this Israeli advantage, who is likely to want peace the most?

[For instance yesterday I learned that the cradle of the rock, the "3rd holiest site" for Muslim has been left under Islamic rule by Israel, I thought "Israel had taken it from them." This was factored in to my overall view of the conflict.]

I wish I had a thorough debate with you. I could do it if you come to my site.

However, the above quote from your article says how ignorant and idiotic your article is. Third Holiest Muslim site is the "Most Holiest Jewish" temple do you know that. Do you have any knowledge of how a Muslim entity that was forming itself in Medina in 630s can have the "Third Holiest site" in far-off place like Jerusalem. Do you have any knowledge of how Muslims captured that spot of "Holiest of Holy" Jewish temple in 637/38 and replaced it with Muslim holy mosque of As-Aqsa. Do you have any knowledge of how Muslims captured the Holiest of Christian site, Jesus' birthplace? Do you have any knowledge of how Muslims' captured the destroyed the Arabian pagans' holiest of temple of Ka'ba in 630 under Muhammad's stewardship? Do you have any knowledge of how Muslims captured and destroyed thousnads of finest Hindu tempples and Buddhist monasteries in India and replaced many of the temples with mosques?

Muslims have captured the 'holiest sites' of all major religions (Buddhist, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Christianity) of the time and often created mosque in their place as symbol of purifying those places of sinfulness of un-Islamism. They tried to go into the heart of Europe if not for Charles Martel stopped and defeated them at the battle of Tours in France. Then, we would have seen the Vatican standing their under the Catholic stewardship. We would have seen Muslims' "4th holiest site" their.

I regret that I am telling you repeatedly to learn first before you embark into an arena you have so little knowldge of.

How about the Jews, Christians and Hindus - who are powerful like the Muslims in those days - capture all the Muslim holy places and replace them with their own churches, temples etc. How will Muslims react if they become powerful 2 centuries later? Are they willing to see a Hindu/Pagan temple at the place of Ka'ba, which it originally was!? But today the Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Zoroastrains are all accepting the fact that their holiest sites being captured and replaced by the Muslims.

If you have a quick update of your knowledge on these historical events you should read this article on my site. Anamika also should also refer this article to see the color of invented Islamic tolerance of Jews over the history:

"Islamic Terrorism - Is it a New Threat?"
http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/IncessantTerrorism.htm

Also for Anamika, how was the secular Shahs Islamic. Should make any comparison with Prophet Muhammad to call them Muslim?

welcome back khan

:)

Liam,

Your're only 23! You're young enough to be my son. You deserve at least as much respect as I'd give them, if I wanted to teach them something.

What you write above, "However, my answer is it cannot be a Zionist state, as Zionism is a movement within Judaism, created to fight for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Israel and to defend it after the aim was achieved. In saying that, the reports I have read say that Judaism is currently overwhelmingly Zionist, and that secular or anti-Zionist movements are rare in modern Judaism," is what most Jews tell themselves.

It's a lie, but until 20 months ago, a lie that most Jews (including me) could swallow with little difficulty. Most websites of Jewish organizations in Israel will agree with what you have said; they are still lying to themselves, but with a lot more difficulty now.

So let's establish the first point.

Since the expulsion of Jews from their homes in Gush Qatif and northern Samaria by Israeli soldiers, police and border guards last summer, the perception of Jewish identity has begun to undergo a shift. This shift was hastened by the rocket attacks by HizbAllah on the north of this country.

Israelis, who once identitfied with the flag and the army (everybody views the government as a criminal mafia here) are having trouble doing so. The fact that they are Jews, as opposed to Israelis, is beginning to come forward in their minds, after being suppressed by over three generations of propaganda talking about the new "Israeli" identity. The painful truth is beginning to surface here, that this is not a Jewish state at all, but a Zionist one, and there is a real difference between the two.

What are the fundamental elements of the Zionist state?

1. Reclaiming (as in draining swamps, clearing off rock and planting forests) the land and settling it, all the way from Metúlla in the north to Netánya and Kesaría (Caesarea) in the west, to Eilát in the south and to Mitzpé YeriHó in the east, overlooking the Jordan. This dream was expressed best by Naomi Shemer (z"l) in her song "Yerushalayim shel Zahav" (Jerusalem of Gold);
"The shofar will be again heard blowing from the Temple Mount and we will travel to the Dead Sea via the Jericho Road."
This song was a hit in May 1967. This verse was added after the victory over three Arab nations in June 1967.
2. Resurrecting Hebrew as a spoken language among the Jewish people.
3. Ingathering the exiled Jews from outside the Land:
3a. Serving as a refuge for the Jewish people who are persecuted world-wide,
3b. Attracting Jews from prosperous countries like America, Britain and France.
4. Establishment of a state just like all the other nation states in the world!

Note what didn't make it into this list.

1. No Third Temple on the Temple Mount.
2. No Sanhedrin to fix up Jewish law.
3. No messianic redemption.
4. No establishment of the primacy of Jewish law in the Land of Israel.
5. No recognition that the Children of Israel will be a nation reckoned apart from the other nations of the world.

All the five elements above are primary elements of Judaism and of Jewish identity.

Zionism is not a religious movement at all. It is a secular nationalist movement among Jews who sought freedom from Christian and Moslem oppression. Its goal, the State of Israel is a standing accomplishment - but that goal is threatened by the fact that Jewish identity is split between two visions among our people; the fist one is the secular vision of being a nation like all the other nations, one that is recognized as an equal in the councils of mankind; and the other is the religious one of being reckoned apart from all the nations.

In India, this is a decided issue, or at least appears to be from what I read here, though there is yet much skirmishing about the details. But in Israel it is not, and the determination of so many states to see us delegitimized and ereased from under the sun indicates that the religious vision is the more valid one of the two.

Even if they do not wish to keep the Sabbath or keep kosher, many secular Jews are seeing the truth of this argument.

Why do I rag on about this so much? It seems entirely irrelevant to the article you have written. The reason is that before you can deal with the fellow over the fence, you need to comprehend the fellow in the mirror.

MA Khan:

The site was first built on by king David of Israel, who bought a threshing floor and built an altar on it. Intending it to be the site of the Temple. IT is called the Temple
Jesus of Nazerth worshiped there. And after his death and ressurection chritsianity was born in the Temple's shadow. His followers continued to teach and worship there until the legions of Rome crushed a Jewish rebellion and carted away most of the Jewish population they hadn't killed. A later Jewish rebellion, also crushed by the Romans 132-135 led to the roman decree that no Jew should set foot in the city nder pain of death.

Muslim Arabs took the city centuries later in 638, building the Dome of the Rock on Temple Mount. The spot on which they believe Muhammed ascended to heaven. Today it is considered the third holiest spot for Mulims, after Mecca, where he was born and Medina where he found refuge and died. The crusdaders slaughtered Muslim and jew alike and built a church on the site several centuries later. Which was recaptured by Muslims less than a century later. Jerusalem changed hands a further three times before Muslim's took and held it 1244-1917, when the Ottoman Empire lost its hold in world war one and the city came under British mandate. When the Jews once again took control of Jerusalema after the 1967 war they left the Temple Mound under Islamic rule.

Today, you can see Muslim's praying at the dome of the rock atop temple mount, Jews praying at the western wall barely a stones throw below and christians praying along the via-delarosa and at the holy sepulcher a few hundrend yards to the north and west. Surrounded by the rubble of centuries of conflict.

How's that.

Liam, great going, I do understand most of your points and you are making sense of the real geo-politics of Israeli-Palestinian problem, rightly so the occupation is the key word here, not what happen 54 or 67 or 73..! One is never too old or young to learn, take a quick look at these sites I'm sure they will give you more prospective to this quagmire, click on http://notinmyname.org/ or http://cactus48.com/

Ruvy, you have made few valid points but you need to see the bigger picture at times..! One more thing, antagonizing Liam for his view ain't gonna do you any go, considering that you are as old as his dad or so you said! Man has to say what he wants without worrying of been talk down to.

Moreover, if we gonna see peace between us, we do need more folks like Yasser Abed Rabo and Yosi Bilen and way less likes of Khaled Mishal and Avigdor Lieberman. Don't you agree with me, with out ponder so much on history and places of worships..! Called it Muetela or Mudilah, Judae and Samaria or Gaza and Dufah, you can not establish a nation state like anyother on a land you occupy by force..!

MK, you keep making blunder after and other, it's getting to point of "Total loss of logic and reason", you need to start learning how to disagree with someone without calling him names or sorting to verbal outrage and concocting stuff hollywood or bollywood could not use to make a flimsy movie...!

I spent couple of hours trying impartially to making some senses out of most of your posts and even your "infamous site" and the only logical conclusion I have come to is that you hardly understand Islam or Muslims and you so abhorrently hateful all that is linked to Arabs, Islam and Muslims. I could not figure out where this hate is coming from but usually I believe it's either bigotry or ignorance or both..! Either way, you get to do something about it otherwise it will eat way whatever left of your life if you have any left it..!Q

One last thing, you have made lots of ignorant misrepresentations in your response to Liam's post but one that particularly stands out is your total lack of knowledge about Islamic history, how is possible Prophet Abraham's "House of God" that God ordained him to build become a Pagan Temple..or the Ka'aba? and Do you know why is called Ka'aba today or what it was the original name? Where did exactly have you read that..? I suggest you do little bit of ""Accurate learning" and more reading by the "correct" sources this time around..!

Word of advice for you, free your mind and heart from hate, it is not going to do you any good..! Let the light of love in..!

The rest of the story..!

Is it Nameste or khuda "God" hafiz..!

P.S. I just learned something myself, the word "God" comes from Sasanian word "Khoda" meaning God!

Abdallah, I have not called anybody any names. It is you who have called names to sagacious secular-humanist scholars like Ibn Warraq. I have however pointed out some general characteristics of Muslims which does hold upto civilized behavior. Muslims's behavious over Prophet's cartoons, Pope's comments and raping of uncovered meats and all that are example of their utter failings.

[Abdallah: "how is possible Prophet Abraham's "House of God" that God ordained him to build become a Pagan Temple..or the Ka'aba?"]

Which history books tells us that Abraham ever came to Mecca. There is no mention of Abraham, the mythical Judaic character, ever came to Mecca - niether in Bible or Torah. It is idiotic on the part of God not telling Jesus about Mecca at all who came about 600 years before Muhammad. Muhammad's making up stories to make a claim on all the holy sites in the reason are hardly defendable facts.

About my misunderstanding Islam or hating Muslims, you have to point out where I have made an unjustified assessment. My sources are the Koran and Prophet's biographies by greatest scholars of Islam. If calling someone a murderer for mudering someone is hate - so be it. It stands good to Islamic judgement. But it is the responsibility of civilized person and society to comdemn a murderer. There is little wrong in condemning Hitlers for the barbarism he had perpetrated.

Abdallah,

I go on about figuring out Jewish identity because a confused man who does not even know who he is will not make intelligent decisions. I'm not deliberately excluding Arabs from my topics of discussion - I'm trying to get clear to Liam - and the rest of you (like Krishna at his article on a similar subject) that men of good will have to be honest with themselves and understand where they themselves stand, even if they do not wish to be honest with others.

The problem with this article is that it is headline driven. The issues here will not be dealt with by commenting on headlines. It is very important to understand what motivates men like Olmert, Lieberman, Yossi Beilin, etc., just as it is important to understand what motivates men like
Khaled Meshal.

Very simply and briefly.

1)Lieberman is a product of the Russian mafia here who has ambitions to sit in the "godfather's" chair. He has insisted on a reform in the Israel governing system thinking he can manage to do just that. Is he in for a surprise...

2)Olmert is a a thief afraid of being tossed into jail. Menny Mazuz, who was the protogé of Yossi Beilin, has several files on Olmert and is capable of having Olmert tossed into jail. So Mazuz tells Olmert what to do, and Mazuz' conditions are kicking out the "evil" settlers from their homes. That explains the "cease fire" and Olmert's latest proposals.

3)Beilin is a fellow who tried to advance in the Labor party and who failed, so he quit and joined the "further left" party on the Israeli spectrum, Meretz. But his basic idea is a Middle East without national boundaries at all. This is the ultimate "assimilationist," trying to drink tea and have cakes with Arabs and convince everybody that "we're all just good buddies." Sure...

In looking at Khaled Mashal or Hamas, I'm not on as firm ground. But generally speaking, both the PLO and Hamas are branch offices of the Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood, and they have their ideological roots with the Wahhabi in Arabia. Their solution is simple: a judenrein (Jew-free) Filastin from the river to the sea. The only issue of difference is how to achieve the aim. A fellow who headed Orient House (the PA's attempt at a foreign ministry in Jerusalem a while ago) whose name I have forgotten, explained a strategy of stages, getting Israel to pull out of here, then there, then the next place. This could be accomplished at the negotiqating table, or by violence, or by using both.

When you loook at the strategy of bombarding S'derot with Qassam rockets and then telling the Israelis that the bombardment will not stop until S'derot is evacuated, you see this strategy of staged withdrawals in action.

Olmert, always watchful of what Mazuz might do, allowed the military to masturbate about destroying Hamas, but then pulled back and followed the prescriptions of "no-borders" Beilin, and offered a "cease-fire" and a "Palestinian" state.

Beilin knows, as anyone with half a brain does, that a "Palestinian" state in Judea and Samaria would be a welfare case prepetually in need of foreign aid, if only because of the constant need to arm Arab troops to attempt to overthrow a continually weakened Israel. Money sent in "good will" by the EU and the US and others would not go to building peace, or building an economy or anything else but war with the Jews. The élites in th EU know this as do the élites in the US, like the Bush's and the Rockefellers and their many running dogs.

Now you have to ask the question: why would any Jew get behind or cooperate with such a program?

Ruvy, well spoken and points well taken,,!

On this, (Beilin is a fellow who tried to advance in the Labor party and who failed, so he quit and joined the "further left" party on the Israeli spectrum, Meretz. But his basic idea is a Middle East without national boundaries at all. This is the ultimate "assimilationist," trying to drink tea and have cakes with Arabs and convince everybody that "we're all just good buddies." Sure...)

I said to you why not..? what I can visit any country on earth at my wish and will and none will question but if ever visit the State of Israel, it's definitely sure thing, my name will be going to be in lots folks les "bad secret books" and same applies to you ever would want visit the Sultanate..!

On this (Now you have to ask the question: why would any Jew get behind or cooperate with such a program?)

On the above, my response is "for justice" for doing right to the people who are your neighbors as well as your enemies..? For stoping all these sensible bloodshed. and let me ask you have you ever wondered what their lifes is like? Don't you think they deserve a break..?

And for poor stellers who where dumped by Israeli politicians in a land that is "still fought-over" and lie to them about it.

I found your personal descriptions of each of these guys quite correct but I do happen to strongly disagree with you the fact that you tend to simplify where the lines crosses between Hamas and PLO. I think this one big mistake most of Israeli commentators make for more ulterior motives such as painting all your enemies with the same bruch, but the fact remains there is bid ideological and political differences between the two. Where Hamas is more leaning towards religion, PLO is more secular in there common political platform and making of their members, some of the most senior leaders are Christians and even have a Jewish member in the PLC..

I thought this would have been very clear to you been since you more exposed to the political wrangles of the Palestinians.

My friend if you are an Eastern Jew, without a doubt we are very much related through blood so it is time we make mends..!
If you were an European Jew then we are interconnected through bond of humanity so it's time we make mends..!

Don't take me for over realist or over passivist but keep blaming each other is not gonna solve much of our shared problems, it's time the public in both countries choose the right people to lead them to a lasting peace.

I said this without an intention to insult you, please let us just stop this rhetoric and hype of Israel been wiped out of the man or disseminated by Arab armies, you know and I know that is impossible and they would not and could not even if they tried.

I strongly believe that Israelis and Palestinians could solve their own problems an amicably in no time if there was is no outside interferences and presures on both sides.

Good going Ruvy,

Yallah,

Abdallah,

We have plenty to talk about, you and I. We're both in the neighborhood, and can discuss like gentlemen who understand the gravity of the issues. One point I will make with you right now. I don't "wonder" at what the life of my Arab neighbors is. I see a lot of it. And a lot of it, I don't like to see. Poverty is never pretty. So, in all truth, I do not want to see my neighbors to die, nor do I want to see them poor.

But right now, I have to get off... Can't use the computer on the Sabbath!!

Yallah, l'hitra'ót!
Shabbat Shalom

Last message was to Abdallah

To Ruvy, Shabbat Shalom Akhe..!
Be good and god bless.
Abdallah

Liam, Thanks mate, some told you I'm an expert, How on earth I would know! .... I all know is 3 people who have so much in common, believing in the same God and building stones houses or temples, mosques and churches or synagogues and fighting over...crazy punch if you ask me..! But then again who I'm to judge..!
My solution. Let it be a free capital of all 3 faiths...! What is so rotten about that ..!

Have a nice weekend end.

Abdallah

Now let us look at the religious side of this whole conflict. First, let's look briefly at the Jewish side.

We can take it for granted that the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, the Torah, grant the Children of Israel control over this country. In the final analysis, our claim to this land is not based on what some men in frock coats said in 1917, or in 1947. It is based on the Torah. That is the reason that the Russian delegates to the Zionist Congress of 1903 walked out on Herzl - he was willing to accept a "homeland" from the British in what is now east Africa. East Africa was not specified in the Torah, the Land of Israel was.

In essence, to make it short and simple for everyone all around, there are three interlocking covenants between G-d, Abraham and Moses that are the basis for the claim.

People Covenant - the Almighty is the G-d of Abraham, who promised him that he would be a great nation, and that the peoples of the world would bless themselves through him. The sign of the Covenant is the "Brit milah", the circumcision of the foreskin, to be performed on each Israelite male at eight days of age. Islam deems this ritual to be performed at age 13 on Moslems, as this was the age that Ismail (Ishm'ael) was circumcised. G-d also makes it clear that the child of his and Sarah's, YitzHak (Isaac) would inherit.

The Land Covenant - G-d promises Abraham that his descendants through YitzHak would inherit a land - the land where he himself lived. A the time this covenant is made, the land is called Canaan, but it is ultimately to be known as the Land of Israel. G-d doesn't disinherit Ishmael. But the Land of Israel is to be for the descendants of YitzHak (Isaac) and Ya'akov (Jacob).

G-d appears to Isaac and Jacob and repeats the essence of these covenats to each of them.

The Torah Covenant - this is the Torah that G-d reveals to Moses at Sinai, the laws that take up the last four books of the Torah, along with the commandments that our rabbis discern in the first book of the Torah. We, the Children of Israel, are expected to observe the commandments in the Torah. This is part of the "deal."

That's our end from the Jewish side. As I hinted at earlier, more than just Jews are involved. The remaining tribes that had "disappeared" from history seem to be popping up again, one by one, and they too, share in the Burden of following the commandments.

But what about the Qur'an? I am not a Moslem, and do not claim to have knowledge of the Qur'an. So for me to quote the Qur'an based on my depths of ignorance would be the height of arrogance and stupidity. But I do feel relatively safe in quoting the works of a Sufi scholar, Sheikh Professor Abdulhadi Palazzi, a man I'm privileged to have met. Here is where it gets interesting.

First let me recommend you to an interview with Sheikh Professor Palazzi in Front Page Magazine.com from September, 2005.

In the interview, you get his general viewpoints without specific citations from the Qur'an - for the most part. Basically, I view the Sheikh Professor as an authority.

Let's see what he has to say on Israel's "right to exist,"

"As a scholar of Islamic Law, I believe that Islam permits wars under certain conditions (i.e., it permits some soldiers to fight against other soldiers when ordered to do so by the State), but strictly forbids taking military initiatives by individuals, groups or factions (which is referred as "fitnah", i.e., sedition), strictly forbids targeting civilians and strictly forbids committing suicide. Consequently, as a Muslim scholar, I must necessarily condemn suicide bombing as a matter of principle, irrespective of who the victims are. I am obliged to say that a suicide bomber is by no means a martyr of Islam, but a criminal who dies while committing acts which Islam views as capital crimes.

Regarding Israel, I beg your pardon but may I ask you to please consider refraining from speaking of Israel's "right to exist." Affirming Israel's "right to exist" is as unacceptable as denying that right, because even posing the question of whether or not the Children of Israel (Jews) -- individually, collectively or nationally -- have a "right to exist" is unacceptable. Israel exists by Divine Right, confirmed in both the Bible and Qur'an.

I find in the Qur'an that God granted the Land of Israel to the Children of Israel and ordered them to settle therein (Qur'an, Sura 5:21) and that before the Last Day He will bring the Children of Israel to retake possession of their Land, gathering them from different countries and nations (Qu'ran, Sura 17:104). Consequently, as a Muslim who abides by the Qur'an, I believe that opposing the existence of the State of Israel means opposing a Divine decree."

At his website (follow the link at Sheikh Prof. Palazzi's name above), you get a taste of his views with citations to source works in the Qur'an and the Hadiths.

This is all from the mouth and pen of a man we Jews can all view as a friend. But what about our enemies? Like Al Qaeda? This was published in Debkafiles last year. Text follows below.

Al Qaeda's New Publication: "The Jews" Are Unworthy of the Promised Land
DEBKAfile's Exclusive Report
August 1, 2005, 10:10 PM (GMT+02:00)

Shown above is the cover of al Qaeda's new print-Internet magazine Zerwat al Sanam ("Tip of the Camel's Hump"). A lavishly produced, professionally-edited publication, it reads as though Iraq commander Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was dictating his operational creed -- yet another indication of his high rank in al Qaeda's hierarchy.

A five-page essay appearing under the transparent alias of Abu Zubeida al-Baghdadi is entitled: "How should Islam relate to the Jews?" This is the first time this question has been discussed in theological terms in any al Qaeda publication. The writer's choice of name -- a nom de guerre rather than a nom de plume -- and the cover, both bespeak violence rather than polemic.

From the first week of July, the terror group's releases have included "Israel", the "Jews" and "Zionists" in the same threatening context as "infidels", "Crusaders" and "sons of Satan", the epithets reserved for the Americans and their allies. This heightened focus on Israel and Jews dates from the internal directive Zarqawi passed to his adherents, which said: "Israel is on our list of targets...and very soon".


DEBKAfile's Islamist experts have translated passages from this article as it appeared in the new "Tip of the Camel's Hump". [DEBKA Editorial comment appears in brackets starting "DEBKA Editor:"]


Al Baghdadi divides Muslim lore on the Jewish People into two stages.


Stage One:


Allah decided to test the Jews when they were still an oppressed people. [DEBKA Editor: In Pharaohs' Egypt]. He [Allah] seeks to lead them [Children of Israel] to the path of faith and victory and therefore urges them [Children of Israel] to conquer the Land of Israel [acknowledging that Allah caused the Jews to return to and conquer the Land of Israel]. But the Jewish People's main weakness emerges at this early stage. Its [Jewish People's] shoulders are too feeble to carry the heavy burden; the Jews always aspire to victory, but they are not willing to devote the necessary effort, sacrifice or sweat to achieve this end.

The Jews have learned and must still learn, says al Baghdadi, that there is no victory without sacrifice. [Al Qaeda's followers, in contrast, are ready at all times to make personal sacrifices].

To this day, the Jews have not discovered that which heaven imparted to us [the Muslims], that Allah grants victory only to he who dares cross the threshold and face danger alone. But the Sons of Israel want God to go before them and win their victory for them.

The writer here differentiates between God's authentic representatives and Jews who, he says, make cynical use of the divinity.


Stage Two:


Throughout the generations it transpired that Jews, unlike Muslims, do not fear Allah and are incapable of understanding that the world's moving force is fear of Allah, not of people. For example, they [Children of Israel] are even more afraid to fight for the Promised Land than they [Children of Israel] are of God. [DEBKA Editor: This argument attempts to portray the Jews as cowards who are scared to fight for their paramount value, the Promised Land, and willing to give away parts in order to shirk war].

For this reason, says the al Qaeda essayist, the Jewish People does not find it hard to break the covenant between God and Abram, which awarded the Land of Israel to the Jewish People for all generations. [DEBKA Editor: The writer is referring to Brith Habetarim, Bereshit/Genesis 15:18: "In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy [Abram's] seed have I given this Land [Land of Israel], from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates"].

That is why Allah has despaired of the Jews, in the view of the al Qaeda essayist. After bequeathing them every possible means for securing victory and independence, God found his effort had been in vain. Therefore the time has come to get rid of the Jews, because that is Allah's wish, al Baghdadi concludes.

Why quote this? When you look at this essay alone, it appears to just be your standard garden variety "why the Jews are no good" piece that one would expect from Al Qaeda. But looked at in conjuction with the article and works of Sheikh Palazzi, one sees that the Sheikh has made serious religious arguments, and that Al Qaeda needs a forum to provide an answer. Even our enemies, Al Qaeda, recognize and cannot get around the fact their own Qur'an grants us the right to rule in this land. They thus need to find a way to do an "end-run" around the Qur'an, so as to justify their own activities. That is the purpose of this essay.

In summary, peace is possible btween the Children of Israel and the Children of Ismail, using the Torah and the Qur'an as a starting place.

In large respect, Al Qaeda is right in its assertions about Jews being more afraid to fight for their land than of G-d. For this reason, the secular scum ruining this land from Jerusalem will have to go. But that is a task on my end of the table.

Aaman,

My friend Aryeh Gallin from the Root & Branch Assn., just got off the phone, asking me to look at this article from Arutz Sheva.

So on the one hand, we have the possibility of real peace between the Children of Abraham that I've outlined above, and the likelihood of real war that the path Olmert is following will result in.

At this point, it's even money that war will happen in the Iran-Beirut-Palestine axis, especially if Mr Cheney has his way, as expressed by the sagacious Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker

Ruvy, I have copied the Allah's wish reference for my future articles. I have found this hadith (prophet Muhammad's saying) which is quite in agreement with your reference:

Hadith of Sahih Muslim, Book 041 (Kitab Al-Fitan wa Ashrat As-Sa'ah), Number 6985:

"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews."
---
Giant Islamic thinkers like Imam Ghazzali, Ibn Khaldun et al. have all emphatically affirmed these principles in their writings. The command against the idolaters/Hindus are even worse. Unless we understand that these are authentic principles of Islam and their execution is the bounden duty of every individual Muslim, it is difficult to grasp the problem world has at hand in the Israel-Palestine crisis.

Of course, one may argue that majority of the Muslims (pseudo-Muslims) do not agree to these heinous principle of Islam. Yet, a small fraction does. One must realize that even if just >0.5% Muslims take up this cause of Allah, they can turn the world upside down. It is because of the extreme fanaticism and suicidal zeal these fundamental Islamic principles instill amongst them.

Aaman,

This quote is from Foreign Policy, the mouthpiece of the CFR. It is very likely that when you see someting in Foreign Policy, you are indeed looking at foreign policy in the United States... The CFR forms a big part of the invisible (shadow) government in the States.

In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neoconservative, argued that the Administration had little choice. "Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office," he wrote. The President would be bitterly criticized for a preëmptive attack on Iran, Muravchik said, and so neoconservatives "need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes."

We'll know it's round the corner when they make 'Team America: World Police - the Sequel'

Incidentally, I love gaz, this exquisite sweet they make in Teheran.

Ruvy, I hope you had a pleasant and peaceful Shabbat.

Sincerely, I do respect, appreciate and highly value most of your comments and particularly this one {But what about the Qur'an? I am not a Moslem, and do not claim to have knowledge of the Qur'an. So for me to quote the Qur'an based on my depths of ignorance would be the height of arrogance and stupidity. But I do feel relatively safe in quoting the works of a Sufi scholar, Sheikh Professor Abdulhadi Palazzi, a man I'm privileged to have met. Here is where it gets interesting}

What you have said above above not only addes validity to your arguments but it earns you respect among your friends here and I wish someone who is particualrly ingnorant of the teachings of Islam would be as breave as you are. also it is what a wise person reflects and says when he or she is presented with a situation he or she is not fully conversant and well familiar with. Never-the-less, I do agree with most of your points concerning the Quran in terms of "Right to Exist" and Yes, Allah (SWT) has given the children of Bait Israel to lots of blessings, to name few most of the prophets are from that house and equally he has save them from likes of Pharaoh (May God curse him till dooms day)

Now, there are few points I disagree with you if I understood you correctly, first, I object to the validation of equating the divine teachings of Torah to most unjust and inhumane British or UN mandates that resulted the partition of historical palsatine or falastine, I believe it would be rather more just if the concerned people would decide among themselves how to go about it at least we would have less blood shed in the last 60 years and it is not fair and you are not doing any justice to the "Holly Books of Torah". Moreover, Torah was not designed as an exclusive land grab tool by few Zionist leaders. I believe you do know that and share the same opinion with me. Or I'm misreading you..?

If so do you mean to say that historical Palastine has to be jewish land since it was given to Bani Israel by God..? and all of it..?

Furthermore, it's quite clear from the Quran that Allah (SWT) has granted the children of Bani Israel and accorded them to a specific lands, now it's quite an other thing if these land or lands include or encompassed from Akkah up north to Beir Saba'a (Beir Sheaba) in the South or the borders of Gaza and from the sea to the sea of Galilee and the Jordan river. I believe this is what the Zionist leaders had in mine and it's what every extremist such as Avigdor Liebermann and any card carrying member or connected to the National Religious Party is pormoted vinomously and fighting with others blood. A matter of record, it's quite far from what the Torah reveals. Hence, the central the question is which lands or land and how does that effect or implicates the indigenous habitants of such lands or land, if one takes a look at the old biblical names of places like Mad'en Assaleh now in Saudi Arabia it could easily be justified as part of that lands or land of Bani Israel, again Sinai could be part "the promise land". Promised by god to whom..?

Contrary what someone on this forum wants us to believe with his misuses and arrogantly and ignornatly taken verses and hadiths out of it's the original context to satisfy his sick, intolerable, detestable mine and evil ends, I believe God would not accept the notion of total extermination of whole group of people without forewarning them and giving them all the chances and opportunities to repent for thier humanly earthly sins as it goes agaisnt the teaching "All humans are sinners and the best of sinners are those who repent"! Also include those who do good and follow his laws as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah or Pharaoh and his armies or the Anti-Christ and his followers.

Frankly, it is not my inabilities to comprehend but I'm having a great difficulties understanding such a logic, I.e. pre-ordinations of lands or land to specific race or people. I could and do understand if it was the Wailing Wall, Mount Sinai, Mecca , Madina, Church of Nativity or be it the red light district in Amsterdam, why because these are places, one could comprehend that...!

I read in one of Jefferson's books that the Anglo-Saxon immigrants started implement and heavily using the term "The Promise Land" against indigenous Red Indians..!

On the bases of the biblical enlightenments of those who need the hear the word of God in all four corners of the earth, but their aim was not to spread Christianity but to exploit the land"

Equally telling is what has been quite documented and I am not making this up someone I know does, but according to lots of historians then present day Palestine including all the land that belong or makes up the state of Israel was inhabited by the Canaanites. This is only a historical prospective and it is not my views. in all honest, I would not consider much of history when it comes to resolving the painful and never ending animosity between the Jews and Arabs be Muslims or Christians, particularly in the Holy Land.

I would like to comment and if you allow me and would point out that, the basic tenants of both Torah and Islam and the teachings of Prophet Moses (Peace and blessings of God be upon him) and those of Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings of God be upon him) is Justice for all, i.e. a comprehensive JUST system that is accorded to all livings and none living things alike.

So what we need in the holly land is justice for all on equal footing and level play filed, just for Palestinians as well as Israelis on equal accords and within the convents of God. Period.

No historical connatations and misgivings be Jewish, Christian or Islamic, colonial as those of British colonial and political agents, personal ambitions as those of then Amir Faisal (The leader of great Arab revolt against the Turks) with the help of then the empire Britannia and I guess you all read and remember where Laurence of Arabia comes to the picture.

Ruvy, please let me understand this clearly, should I take that the bond of entitlemt of who is a Jew is not blood but rather faith as such any other religion, hence and only if that is the case, then blue eyed, blond Russian Jewish immigrant does have the same rights and claims to the land of Bani Israel as anyone from the 12 tribes and particularly Eastren Jews, since he is neither a blood relative of the house of Bani Israel or he is from the 12 tribes. If that is the case then, how could he claim such rights and privileges that you depicted in your arguments when God clearly made it into his covenants with Prophet Moses(PBABH)that such has been degreed to the House of Bani Israel and their Tribes..?
What if a guy from Nigeria converts to Judaism..? Does he become automatically part of that promise..?


Logically, if it's not blood but faith that dictates who has right to the "Promise Land" knowing that this promise was made by God to the Bani Israel Tribes. the two things are wrong in this equation, first, Jewish is not of Blood but by believe so anyone who has one one of his parents not jewish is and can be a jew. as I understand and you need to correct me if I'm wrong is that most of the Rabbis will adherd to fact that both parents to be of the Jewsih Faith..? Again doea that contracdic the original covenants given to Prophet Moses (PBABUH)..? if it does not, please expaling..?

Here you need to do bit of explanation so we can learn one or two things from you.


It is like saying that as stated in the Quran Al Kareem "All Muslims are brothers" hence as a brother to a Saudi then I have equal rights and privileges to the land of Nejd and Hejaz or collectively Saudi Arabia.

It's only to logically conclude then what is Saudi Arabia today most definately includes in norms of of the devine "Promised Land"
So do I understand, is that the reason why Israel upto today has not known and clearly defined geographical borders..? or is it because most of the land is disputed..?

As for Al Qadia, I would not say it but sometimes I wonder even if they Muslims and I would not want say it because I'm not the one who has the right to decide who is and who is not Muslim but one thing I can share with you is that I strongly believe that they are at total loss of the teachings of the glorious Quran and noble Hatiths.Otherwise, were did they go wrong..? and why are they so bloody thristy for mass killings everywhere..?

The rest of the story,


P.S. Ruvy you may want to take a look at this site cactus48.com and lot other similar ones and explain to me how they come to the conclusion of the land of Canaanites as far as Judea and Samaria is concerned.

Let me correct myself, Neturei Karta in hebraw menaing roughly "the watchers or "Natur Karya" or in plural "Naturie Karya" in Arabic meaning protectors of the city/Village.

Just for those of you how don't know the semitic languages.

Peace to all.

"I would like to comment and if you allow me and would point out that, the basic tenants of both Torah and Islam and the teachings of Prophet Moses (Peace and blessings of God be upon him) and those of Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings of God be upon him) is Justice for all, i.e. a comprehensive JUST system that is accorded to all livings and none living things alike."

Abdallah,
So long people blind-foldedly believe in such assertion without investigation and proof, it is impossible to get into the bottom of the many problems that overwhelmes us today. It is good if your assertions were true but the need of hour is to put such hypothesis on strong foundations by detailed analysis of the scriptural and extrascriptural religious literatures - from both Jewish and Islamic sources and bring them to the people (Muslim extremist, terrorists) involved in the internacine conflicts around world. Only conclusive evidence would convince them - not abstruct and unsubstantiated assertions. They want to see it in the words of Allah, Muhammad and Muhammad's actions.

abdallah:

you must have noticed how the uncle-abduls love to speak from both sides of their mouth?

in #27 he quoted from none but the 'cat-lover' - the rent-a-hadith guys who dropped a hadith to the highest bidder

and in #32 he talks about 'investigation and proof' and 'not abstruct (sic) and unsubstantiated assertions.'

dervishes whirl but what do you call a dog chasing his tail -- tailing?

ruvy:

after #24 your take on #32?

Abdallah,

You have indeed piled on a pack of hard questions for this ignorant Jew to answer. I will try, but I cannot do so now. I need to catch a bus into town and I feel sick, so I'll be walking slowly to the village bus stop.

I'll have to sort the questions out, and then attempt an answer.

With the help of the Almighty, I'll return, hopefully no sicker than I am. It's windy and cold here.

Temporal, re: #34

I'd be hard pressed to comment. I do not know either the Qur'an or the Hadiths and could not judge. I'd be walking in a foreign forest. I have enough trouble with Torah, Tana"kh and Gemara. In the final analysis, wise men who are Jews and Moslems will have to nail down these issues, and afterwards, the Jews will need to consult among themselves and the Moslems will need to consult among themselves.

I can only guarantee that there will be plenty of banging on the table in all of the discussions...

Bringing reconciliation out of enmity will not be an easy task.

And now I must be off on my errands.

Abdullah and Ruvy - great debate there. But as the heathen/pagan/nonbeliever/kaffir etc in the picture, I don't understand one point - both of you are discussing HOW much land was given to the people by God according to the Old Testament. Or who it was given to - Biblical ancestors of Jews or Muslims etc.

Surely this is about faith and not reality? Weitzman turned down the idea of a "Jewish" state in Africa because he wanted the land promised by God.

Same goes for the Muslims - Dome of the Rock is sacred because the Prophet ascended to heaven from there and so they won't relinquish their claim to it.

And look at the result - thousands dead, mutilated, displaced, tortured, imprisoned - massive suffering on BOTH sides, just because God PROMISED?

Surely this is stuff of myths, legends, fairy tales? Am I the only one on this forum who sees the absolute madness in using FAITH as the foundation for politics or indeed nation-building?

On the other hand, reading the debate on this thread reminded me of Anton Block's extension of the Freudian idea of "narcissism of minor differences" where he posits that conflicts between cultures who are similar are more vicious, prolonged and bitter than amongst cultures that are different.

With the discussion above, I see more similarities than I ever had between the Torah and the Koran, the Jews and the Muslims. I guess that is why this struggle unto death. So terribly sad.....

(Full disclaimer: I must confess my rational mind tends to back the claim of mostly disempowered, disenfranchised people who inhabited the land for centuries (Palestinians) rather than the Europeans (Ashkenazis) who seized the land and have since tried to re-make a mid-Eastern state in the image of a European/Western nation all the while stressing the white "European" side of the Jewish identity, privileging the Judeo-Christian side of their own history and relegating the Judeo-Islamic heritage and the non-Ashkenazi Jews even within Israel to the margins.

But then I am an observer on this conflict and hold no stakes - personal, religious or otherwise, so please don't jump down my throat!)

Am I the only one on this forum who sees the absolute madness in using FAITH as the foundation for politics or indeed nation-building?

No Anamika. You have company :)

Anamika writes:
...conflicts between cultures who are similar are more vicious, prolonged and bitter than amongst cultures that are different.

I think those cultures which are similar tend to put more efforts to differentiate themselves from close relatives, and in the process seem to hang onto certain notions more obstinately.

For example, look at the Abrahamic religions- Judaism, Christianity, Islam..

For an easterner all these religion seem so similar. However, each of these people will fight to death to prove that they are completely different from the other, and in an effort to prove they are different, they put too much emphasis on certain 'minor' differences to make themselves believe and also convince others that these 'minor' differences are not minor but in fact very fundamental.

For example, Islam considers all the prophets who have preceded Muhammed as their prophets as well. For them Moses, Jesus are all prophets of Islam, Mohammed being the last. They disagree with Christianity on certain 'minor' issues- they do not agree with Christians elevating Jesus to the realm of gods. They consider him human, just like Mohammed. Christians deify Jesus, and that doesn't go well with Muslims. Portraying Christ as sun of god is unacceptable to Muslims.

Another example- Shias and Sunnis differ in interpretation of a similar concept. Can a human (after Mohammed) be elevated to be the messiah or a spiritual leader? While Shias seem to be OK with an Ayatollah, who is an 'equivalent' of a Pope, Sunnis see it as heresy. They cannot accept another human (after Muhammed) to be representing Islam or acting as their 'spiritual leader'. However, they do accept certain leaders within Sunni populations, but they differ on 'mere technicalities' of interpretation.

For many easterners, these are mere technicalities, mere interpretations- one way or the other, it doesn't make difference. For most of these Abrahamic religions, they mean vast oceans of difference. They are irreconcilable differences that they are to die for.

For most rationalists or atheists, religion sounds alien, but it still is the most prevailing idea of mankind that has survived eons. It is the reality. One cannot wish away or shoo away religion. One doesn't have to. Religion and faith has its own reason, rhyme, mandate and requirements which it satisfies. The way science has a role but can be misused, faith has a role and is also misused.

I strongly believe and advocate that Israel has to grant Palestine its statehood, respect its sanctity and allow them to live as a nation (instead of making them live in occupation, roll in tanks, dismantle their elected governments)

On why I think Israel has to make the first move?

Israel is in the position of strength. They are the ones who oppress Palestine using armed divisions, rolling in tanks, putting up barricades, imprisoning people, etc, while Palestine resorts to desperate means such as a terrorism, guerilla warfare, etc. I believe that the first move towards reconciliation should come from the one who is in the position of strength.

To expect a desperate and oppressed Palestine to make the first move is foolhardy and bound to fail from the time of such a suggestion itself. They have nothing to concede. They have already conceded their freedoms, they are only rebelling by resorting to desperate tactics. For most Palestine those acts of terrorism are acts of heroism, because that's the only force they can put up against Israel. Expecting Palestine to tone down is asking a desperate man to concede further.

The first move from Israel, such as sanction of Palestine as a nation, respecting its boundaries and its sovereignty will solve many other problems- such as official recognition of Israel by Muslim nations, terrorism, etc.

But again, Israel, like Indian Hindus seem to be more interested in demonizing Islam to portray themselves as victims to get sops and help from Western Christianity. They have their egos to the brim and are not ready 'think out of the box' as Ruvy suggests. They are ready to roll in tanks, not extend hand of peace.

'sun of god' should read as 'son of god'.

MA Khan:
Do you say that Arabs were not forced into vacating their lands to accommodate Jews from different parts of the world during the creation of Israel?

ruvy 36:

perhaps i was unclear and cryptic (after #24 your take on #32?)

i wantred your (jewish - torah ) response to this:

So long people blind-foldedly believe in such assertion without investigation and proof, it is impossible to get into the bottom of the many problems that overwhelmes us today.

anamika:

loved your full disclaimer!

to alter mark twain some "familiarity breeds contempt, children and war"

;)

not to mention religion, temporal. :-)

Ruvy, you are not ignorant far from it,It was not my intention to give you hard time, just want to understand few things for my own learning..!

Please take your time and do what you can..! you know it's always appreciate it, even when I don't buy it,...:-)

Sholom Aleichem

Temparol, Gosh I had scratch my head couple of times on this and istil can't figure it out..!

(you must have noticed how the uncle-abduls love to speak from both sides of their mouth?)

I thought you are refereing to one my "real uncles" or are you..?

Now going over boeard..feel bit smart..not....!!
Is that offer to write for you still on the table..??

Take it easy and be happy..:-)

It's dark outside, and I just got back. I kicked my kid off the computer (we have two computers but we don't have a router, so only one of them can be hooked up to the phone line - he'll just have to play his e-mule games later).

I still feeel lousy, but reading the comments here have been something of an inspiration. So I'll give this a try.

Anamika, your disclaimer is the perfect segue into the hardest question that Abdallah has posed...

So let's repeat the meat of it here, and I promise, I won't jump down your throat.

"I must confess my rational mind tends to back the claim of mostly disempowered, disenfranchised people who inhabited the land for centuries (Palestinians) rather than the Europeans (Ashkenazis) who seized the land and have since tried to re-make a mid-Eastern state in the image of a European/Western nation all the while stressing the white 'European' side of the Jewish identity, privileging the Judeo-Christian side of their own history and relegating the Judeo-Islamic heritage and the non-Ashkenazi Jews even within Israel to the margins."

First let's get to a question lurking behind Abdallah's observations and put it right up front.

THE KUZARI AND ASHKENAZI JEWS

For anybody who does not know, the Kuzari were a Turkic people who lived north and east of the Caucasus Mountains who converted to Judaism about a thousand years ago. Legend has it that the king of the Kuzari listened to a Jew, a Moslem and a Christian argue it out, and chose to be a Jew, ordering his subjects to do likewise.

The big assertion on the part of many Arabs (and many others) is that Ashkenazi Jews, with their blonde hair and blue eyes (like I had when I was a child) are not really from the tribes of Judah, Shimon and Levi, and that they are converts to the faith from the Kuzari, and therefore have a "lesser" claim to the land.

There are two problems with this idea that pull the rug out from under it. One, is that there are certain names the Kuzari carried, and the overwhelming majority of us have no tie to these names. There are a few Jews who became famous who are probably descended from the Kuzari - one that I know of was named Isaac Asimov and if you don't know who Asimov was, I will jump down your throats - there'll be a quiz later.

The second problem is language. Ashkenazi Jews spoke Yiddish in Europe, a language that is essentially 13th century German with Hebrew used for intellectual and religious concepts. Perhaps, a good handle on this for you folks would be to look at Urdu as opposed to Hindi. Unless I'm wrong, Urdu is basically Hindi with a heavy mixture of Arabic terms for religious and philosophical concepts. Where I am wrong about south Asian linguistics, feel free to correct me.

The point of this is that if Ashkenazi Jews were of Turkic origin, there would be a significant portion of words of Turkic origin in Yiddish. I'm a Yiddish speaker, as well as someone who struggles with Hebrew. I can tell you that there are three words in Yiddish that are of Turkish origin. "Halvásh", referring to a dying man, "Halváh, a food Turks eat during mourning (and that I eat any time I can afford a kilo or two), and Hakham Bashi, which is the title of the Turkish chief rabbi.

So, put simply, the Kuzari did integrate themselves into the Jewish population in Russia, but all the other Jews who lived in Eastern Europe came from Germany or France. This means that my DNA is rather close to Abdallah's. My daddy lived in Russia-Poland (we're going back almost 90 years here) and was no where near the Caucasus. I may look like a Ruski, but I am a descendent of either, Yehuda, Shim'on, or Benyamin. So, Abdallah we're cousins, about 120 generations removed...

Hi cousin.

Before I forget, the quiz.

Name the Three Laws of Robotics as formulated by Isaac Asimov. Please put in a separate comment...

Anamika, your perception of the State of Israel and its ruling élites in relation to S'faradi and MizraHi Jews is painfully accurate.

Jews from Iraq, Kurdistan and Yemen tend to pronounce two letters of the Hebrew alef-bet, "Het" and "'Ayin" more the way Arabs do, which means that you can hear in their speech the difference between the "Khaf" and the "Het." The "'Ayin" which comes from deep in the throat, (as does the "Het") is distinctly different from the "Alef." Those of you who can read Arabic should understand what I talking about rather well.

The point is that the Ashkenazi newsreaders of Hebrew on Kol Yisrael or Galei Tza"hal deliberately drown out these differences in the letters, marking those who do pronounce them as "lower class." I made a point of teaching my own kids to pronounce the letters properly, as do the Yemeni, Kurdish and Iraqi Jews. Because I did, my younger son was able to learn to recite the Book of Mishlei (Proverbs) in the ancient Hebrew pronunciation with little difficulty. Ancient Hebrew, like Arabic, has a voiced and unvoiced "th" sound, and a "w" sound.

The way that European Jews have shoved the culture of the S'faradim and MizraHim to the periferies of "Israeli" culture is a pet peeve of mine that pisses me off royally.

The attitude of this paternalistic arrogant pack of thieves and late arrivals with respect to Bedouin Arabs is just disgusting. Everyone knows that the Bedouin who live in or near Be'ersheva are excellent trackers. So instead of rewarding these Bedouin and making them firm allies of Jews, the régime blocks themn from getting water and electricity to their villages and then expects them to sign up for the IDF.

I've been dancing around the essential question that Abdallah poses to our readers.

WHO IS A JEW?

The simnple answer is: a Jew is the child of a Jewish mother. One can convert, but in a Moslem country, that can be hazardous - given that a fellow can be put on trial for his life for leaving Islam in some countries. In European countries, where Jews were treated like trash, it just was not a paying proposition. Why leave the privileged position of Christianity to live in a crowded stinking ghetto? Is it different now in Europe. Truth be told, I could not tell you.

Jews tend to discourage converts. But some folks do insist on doing so, and I know at least six converts from Christianity, four of whom live in our village of Ma'aleh Levona.

So, to try to sum up a bit here, basically, Jewish identity is based on blood (though these days, the DNA does the real talking). The vast majority of Jews are descended from the couple of million Jews who lived in Judea 2,000 years ago, along with the Jews who lived in Egypt and Babylonia.

I've only dealt with one of Abdallah's questions. I don't know how much of these answers you want to buy, but when you'vew decided, just pay up at the counter. Dinars, pounds, euros, rupees, dollars, ands even shekels will all be accepted, but Swiss francs are preferred...

Re: comments #37 and 38: count me in too guys!

Hi Ruvy,

What do you think of Defence minister Peretz then?

Who knows when the last suicide attack inside Israel originating from the West Bank was?

Anamika, thanks for your inputs and sharing your views with me, I thought to wait till Ruvy gets back with his points so I can build on those and benefit from him, as he is better positioned to discuss matters related to his faith and the under lining topic of these posts. I'm sure the old person is often wiser.....! (Ruvy no disrespect intended).

Yes, your point is valid, I think the overall outlook of this site is more curry and spices flavored and with no specific targeted audiences and yes the polarity and diversity of topics discussed encouraged me to join as a new kid on the block, even though one may assume at first browsing this is sort of all Indian Blog. Well that proves first impressions are not always correct.

Now going back to you post, I have to point out a small correction, burden me, not a correction but an alternative view ("both of you are discussing HOW much land was given to the people by God according to the Old Testament. Or who it was given to - Biblical ancestors of Jews or Muslims etc.")

The alternative view and a Muslim one for that matter may be different those of our Jewish friends who do know the Torah and other Holly Jewish books lot more than me, literally, my knowledge of Torah and other books and Jewish traditions is limited at best and but not totally oblivious or ignorant of it.

I do know about the five divine books from our lord and creator to Prophet Moses (Peace and Blessings of Allah may be with him) this is the Written Torah and we believe it to be so and its entirety and original form without an acceptations or altercations. Hence, I don' believe the existence of Old Testament from Jewish teachings and religion, I believe if I'm not mistaken lots of learned Jews will agree with me and particularly, the most of orthodox Jews. I believe it is a common and widespread mistake that most of the people refer the Torah and the Old Testaments as one of the same and yet they are not.

Additionally, the other Jewish Traditions and books including Talmud "Oral Torah" and so on are not as the same as the Torah but similar to the Islamic prophetic Sunna "Hadith and Traditions" of Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessing be Upon Him), in this respect the Tanakh or Written Torah and in its broadest sense and as whole body of Jewish law and teachings are similar to the Quran Al Kareem as a divine revelations.

By the way, the origin or both are derived from the covenants of our Patriarch Father and father of all Prophets the all piety Prophet Abraham (Peace and Blessing of Allah be Upon Him).

I do not intent to bore you with religious teachings but it's the foundation of my arguments dealing with the concept of "Promised Land". In addition, as clarification the Old and New Testaments as are these two are concerned, Muslims believe only the Al Enjeel or the Gospel of Yasue of Nazareth (Peace and Blessing of Allah be Upon Him) who was son of most highly revered Marry (Peace be upon Her) with particular references to books of John the Baptist (PBABUH).

In similarities between Judaism and Islam as matter of devine ones of god, in this case, you are 100% right and surprisingly there are lots of similarities as well as some difference in the traditions, though some are minor, fore instant, Jewish can drink wine and Muslims can't both don't eat any pork meat or products.

Precisely, all is based on relativity and same source, since we Muslims totally believe in all the prophets and do not favor one over the other and consider it basic tenants of faith in Islam, on the other hand, Jews believe none that is Islamic. Never-the-less, one unique and very important similarity is that both religions reaffirm "the only one god and single being without partner's or offspring's. Both religions are sent down to chosen prophets through archangel Gabriel by the one and true single lord of all beings , scared and supreme lord and creator of everything on earth or in heaven. We share and believe identically.

Noting that angel Gabriel is not commonly referenced in the Torah accept the Medieval Midrash writings such as Mishneh Torah by Maimonides and in the Books such as Daniel while in the Quran he is and so abundantly and frequently since the whole revelation is through him and never directly between God and the prophet. While Prophet Moses (PBABUH) spoke to God directly at Mount Sinai in today's Egypt.

Now I come to the points of my last post and I will try to be very specific and short this time. Putting all practicality and reality a side since the sate of Israel is in reality existing and will exist as long as the world exists.

1) - In the Laws of Torah it's clearly prohibited that the Jewish people to establish a state such as the modern meaning of the word as we have as the State of Israel, so lots of orthodox Jews will not accept such existence of statement as "Right to Exist" and consider this being as a great sin against God, why because it's degreed in Torah that the Jewish people to be exile and should not live in one certain dominion as their Jewish State.

Now Islam does not accept that and grants the "Right to Exist" of any people including the Jews and particularly House of Israel or Beit Israel and Bani Israel Tribes whether 12 more or less.

2- If we all accept that under strenuous efforts and very persuasive political and financial endeavors of Zionist leaders and movement with the sole aim of establishing a Jewish homeland in the "Promise Land" in historical Palestine and in consideration of all practical purposes that Jewish people after the holocaust and all the genocides committed against them and oppressions they have endured through-out Europe and far corners of the world included what is known to day as the Middle East since time in memory and keeping in mine the Zionist are not alone but even most of the Ultra-conservatives Christian in some denominations express the same idea and make the same demand.

The in light of the above, it only makes sense that Jewish people do have very right to their home land, this is acceptable provided the consideration are given to the indigenous inhabitants of the same land prior to the establishment of such state. contrary, Zionism does not give such consideration to the Palastinians. Hence, such hogwash propaganda as Palestine being land without people and people without land.

Personally, I'm all fore state of Israel and its existence and integration into the wider Middle East in every sphere of human life and activity. But this could not be achieved without an equal treatement of the Palastine questions, in other words, the core problem is that no considerations has been accorded to the rights and plights of the Palestinians in equal footing to that of the Jewish people in this context.

Equally important, the excessive ideological force deployed in Zionism to foster national and religious unity contradicts directly or indirect with the teachings of Torah as far as the "Promise Land "is concerned. Let say for argument sake that there is no contraction of both the Zionism and Torah ion regard to the Promised Land", then we can not afford but run in to some real problems with the whole idea because then you need to identify the meaning of the "Promised Land" and to who and whom the promise was made and who has the right to claim it and be part of the promise. Unavoidably, you end up dealing with a very thorny issue that is "Who is a Jew". Why...? Well because in accordance to the Laws of Torah and its tenants and all parts of both oral and traditions and all books thereafter were only sent to a specific people who have one specific ethnicity without universality.

As matter fact, my parallel questions about the Blue eye, blond Caucasian Russian Jew who ethnically is not from the same people but who belongs to the same faith. Or an African Jew who is not Semite and does not belong to any of the Tribes of Bani Israel at the same time both have God giving rights to claim their piece of the promised Land, hence the limitation of the promise as far as the Bani Israel Tribes are concerned and exclusivity of it's rightful claimants and none universality of the Torah complicates the whole issue of the "Promised Land" and in an nutshell shows how Zionism and Torah contradictory and as oxymoron..!

"Furthermore, As a closed and totalizing system, the Zionist enterprise precludes the representation of minority cultures and has yet to provide, if it ever can, an adequate definition of Palestinians, Mizrahim (Jews of Middle Eastern and North African origins) and other minorities - Karaites, Bedouins and Samaritans - much less one of gender sexuality, religion or personhood. Ironically, it was through the contemporization of Hebrew that a distinctive Israeli society was forged, which set the limits of the imagined geography of the body" A Land that Devours its People': Mizrahi Writing from the Gut,Ruth Tsoffar, University of California, Berkeley.



Keeping that in mind, if the law of Jewish exile does not exist and Zionism is correct to stake their claim to this divinely pre-ordained and geographically undefined piece of real estate then the only people who can do so are the rightful inherits of the ancestral linage of Bani Israel. Otherwise the whole concept "Promised Land" runs into lots of problems if one wants to understand it let alone applies it.

Perhaps, my older Rufy will be kind enough to point me to the right sections of the Torah (in any of the of the 5 books) or in the NEVI'IM or KETHUVIM or in the Talmud or even other writings where I can find specific and clear references of the "Promised Land" that is to be in Palestine and on which the State of Israel could be established.


Again, this is only my point of view and it could be a wrong and I stand to be corrected and it could be right if none contradicts in whole in parts.
Let's talk and Peace on.....!

Thank you both Ruvy and Abdullah for the detailed analysis.
Now can I pose my question slightly differently:
Lets say that you live in a house for many years, many generations etc. You are told that the house is a gift from God, or even a divine "promise" that you own that house forever.

Time passes, you are lose that house for political, social, economic, or military reasons. Its "reposssessed" by the bank, or taken over in war, or whatever.

Now imagine, 2000 years later - when the house is lived in and inhabited by others, your heirs walk in to say it is theirs. The reason - "God promised the house to them."

Forgive me - and I credit my nonbelieving pagan/kaffir/nonSemitic heritage for my doubts - but I find the above logic a bit hard to buy. In dinars, shekels, dollars, euros, rupees or pounds. Especially as the founding logic for a nation-state.

None of this means that I want Israel "wiped off the map," or that I am anti-Semitic and want the Jewish people destroyed. I am simply trying to UNDERSTAND how any state can be constructed on a logic as flimsy as "god promised this piece of land to me."

Tell me Holocaust and its consequences (survival fears), I will accept. Tell me the "last settler colony for Europe", and I will accept. Even credit the geopolitical interests of various postwar colonial and neocolonial powers in the ME and I will understand.

But this god business just doesn't cut ice.
Sorry if any offence is taken - there is certainly none meant.

Sujai

I do agree most of your analyses, accept I have small problem with couple of minor but very important points.

1- (Another example- Shias and Sunnis differ in interpretation of a similar concept. Can a human (after Mohammed) be elevated to be the messiah or a spiritual leader? While Shias seem to be OK with an Ayatollah, who is an...)

As the saying goes "the battle was lost because of a horse and the horse lost because of nail),

What I want say is that some times one makes whole lot of sense but overlooks a simple and at times very minor point that turns to a disagreeable error and this is the case with your above statement. Your use of the word "Messiah or Maseeh" as you know is the name or one of the names of Prophet Issa "Jesus" (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him), factually, NO Shiite school will apply or even use it so loosely to mean a spiritual leader, at the same time and as you know the term "Spiritual Leader" is an alien to Islam and has no use in Islam, but I do understand that your use of it as descriptive rather a religious principles. Is not that is the case..?.

In the Ja'fery imamate school, there is the 12 imams with at least one however unknown to anyone be the "Mahdi" thus the grand ayatollah (Ayah+tu-Allah) roughly translated "Sing of God" an Arabic term that become part of the post-1979 Islamic revolution vocabulary and used only Iran to mean a highest raking mullah as such Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq and Ayatollah Khomeini Iran who is the paramount Imam..

This has been catogoraly rejected by all 4 Sunni schools of thought as form of papacy as in the Catholic Church since neither the Quran nor the Hat hid will permit such implications. As for the Mahdi this also represent few problems and common misconceptions or Dunn "conjectures" which are not allowed in Islam so one does make up allegations, it's possible that others also take the Mahdi to be prophet Issa Alayhi Salaam) in his second coming.

The second point that I would like tackle is in your statement
(But again, Israel, like Indian Hindus seem to be more interested in demonizing Islam to portray themselves as victims to get sops and help from Western Christianity....)

I understand what you trying to say but the bit fall we all fall in is that we all love to "Generalize all maters and issues" this blanket inclusions of fox news style produces two problems..

a... it's wrong because not all "Hindus" or Israelis" do what you said, thus your statement lacks intended clarity and creates unnecessary bad feelings among people of different faiths, particularly that ones such statement was made against, does Islamic terrorism ring a bell.

b.... It defies reality, I can easily bet you that you know or have Hindu or Israeli friends (If you don't I would advice you strongly that you make some efforts to do so) anyhow if you don't then I can assure you they don't engage or have any interests to demonize Islam or Muslims however, said that I do not discount that the sad fact that there are lots of others out there who do it feverishly and with overzealous vigor to an evil ends.

I enjoyed reading your comments and encourage you write more...!

Thanks.

Back again, awake in the early morning. First, to attempt to briefly answer Liam's questions. Security Minister Amir Peretz is not competent for the job. Period. The same goes for "Crime Minister" Olmert. To put it politely, they are both the kinds of people I'd fire in five minutes if they were working in my establishment. Peretz has demonstrated his inability to represent Tza"hal (the IDF) at the highest levels of government. He has demonstrated his inability to prosecute a war. This recent Lebanon war over the summer is the first military defeat for the IDF that cannot be argued away.

Crime Minister Olmert demonstrated his ability to frame questions in only two lights. The first light is "What does it get me right now?" And the second is what will the Americans think?"

Faced with coördinated rocket attacks both from Gaza and south Lebanon, the IDF went into full battle mode and came up with reasonably good plans to combat the problem. But Olmert, thinking only of Olmert, followed American guidance for his strategy. This meant holding off attacks and consulting with the Americans who promptly informed the Arab side of what likely Israeli strategy would be; it meant bombing Lebanese civilians even when there was no reason to; it meant attacking HizbAllah along the line of expectation from the south, thus increasing casualties on the our side and minimizing them on HizbAllah's; it meant not touching the Syrian command and control centers for HizbAllah or the Syrian lines of supply for HizbAllah; it meant abandoning the northern third of the country to rocket bombardment along with towns along the Gaza Strip like S'derot. It meant withdrawing from the hard fought foothold along the Litani River in return for an empty promise(S/R 1701). In short, it meant losing the war.

WHAT REALLY IS THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT AND RESULTING STATE?

This brings me to a point I outlined earlier in comment #14, and must re-emphasize. The Zionist secular establishment of the STATE OF ISRAEL has no use for religious Jews and would make this country over into a secular "European" state just like all the others. This effectively means ignoring the Cherkess, who have been loyal allies, it means ignoring the Druze, and it has meant pushing the MizraHi and S'faradi Jews into marginalized positions in this "European Israeli" construct.

Nevertheless the Zionist movement is not all bad, nor is it all wrong. It attepted to institute a system of syndicalist socialism, which preserves the values of competion and benefits of competition inherent in capitlism with the leveling of income and other special benefits of socialism. Jewish messianic writings hold that there will be two messiahs, not one. The first will have the essential job of repopulating the country, of making reality of Ezekiel's visions of bones coming alive in the land. Presently 46% of the world's Jews live here in Israel. But this "messiah" is not in charge of spritual redemption - he is known as MashiaH ben Yosef, and dies off before the MadhiaH ben David, who would be known to Moslems as Khalif Daúd el Nebi, arrives and provides spiritual redemption and rebirth.

Rav Yossi Baumol of Ateret Cohanim, wrote in the year 2000 that the Zionist movement itself is essentially "MashiaH ben Yosef." It more or less fits the description of having begun in a very serious way the "kibbutz galuyot" the ingathering of the exiles prayed for three times daily, a process prophecied in our prophetic books. There is a great deal of injustice in this Zionist entity - both with respect to religious Jews and to non-Jewish minorities, as well as reappearing elements of the Hebrew people, like the B'nei Menashe from Assam, the Ethiopian Jews (who claim to be from the tribe of Dan), as well as other groups around the world who evidently were preserving ancient Jewish customs and are being denied the right to return home by either bigoted officials in the Interior Ministry or bigoted rabbis. Syndicalist socialism which at least gave the saving grace of making sure that the rich were not too rich and the poor were not too poor, is virtually gone. Instead, income gaps rivalling those in the United States are found. I know this would not impress someone from South Asia, but now we have homeless people. This never used to be so.

According to Rav Baumol, the tie between the MasiaH ben Yosef and Zionism comes from examining the actual role of Zionism in bringing Jews home and then comparing the name Tziyon to the name Yosef according to Gematria, or how the Hebrew letters project numerical value. Our scholars say that in the End of Days, links between one thing and another will be shown by, amongst other things, Gematria. Tziyon and Yosef have the same numerical value in Hebrew.

The dying off of the Zionist movement and its apotheotic achievement, the State of Israel, is inevitable in order to bring the spiritual redemption that Israel (not to mention the rest of mankind!) needs. And the State is dying off. Government employees go unpaid for months at a time, another occurrence that is relatively new. The government of Haifa hid and the city officials of Tzfat ran away under the fear of Katyusha bombardment. Imagine what would have happened if the north had been hit with real missiles instead of four foot rockets filled with nails!! The government offers to cut off limb after limb of the Jewish body in order to bribe Arabs into peace.

Let's look at part of that Al Qaeda piece from the "Tip of the Camel's Hump" again.

"Throughout the generations it transpired that Jews, unlike Muslims, do not fear Allah and are incapable of understanding that the world's moving force is fear of Allah, not of people. For example, they [Children of Israel] are even more afraid to fight for the Promised Land than they [Children of Israel] are of God. [DEBKA Editor: This argument attempts to portray the Jews as cowards who are scared to fight for their paramount value, the Promised Land, and willing to give away parts in order to shirk war].

For this reason, says the al Qaeda essayist, the Jewish People does not find it hard to break the covenant between God and Abram, which awarded the Land of Israel to the Jewish People for all generations."

There's the money shot. How ironic! The rabbinic formula for Jewish survival in exile, "better a Jew without a beard than a beard without a Jew" is the precise formula for failure in holding the Holy Land. Al Qaeda is not davka an enemy - it is a whip reminding us Jews that our duty to G-d comes first and "being practical" comes later. Obeisance to the Master of the Universe and Master of All Worlds is primary.

Anamika,

If you have trouble accepting the existence of a single Supreme Being as Master of the Universe, how can you be expected to accept Divine Election as a reason for holding on to a piece of territory? Zeh lo hegioní - it's just not reasonable or fair to you...

There are more points that need to be addressed, but my son wants to use this computer to burn something. I promised him, and a father cannot go back on his word if he expects to raise an honorable and dependable son.

So I'll be back (hopefully) in a little while.

Hi Abdallah:

You write:
but I do understand that your use of it as descriptive rather a religious principles. Is not that is the case..?

Yes, my use of the words like 'messiah' and 'spiritual leader' is descriptive. And I do understand that each of these words have very specific meaning for each religion. I am not religious (I am an atheist) and therefore cannot actually see the difference that much, but I do understand that religious people put heavy emphasis on these terms and would not like to use them loosely.

Thanks for the clarifications on different imams and little history. That helps. I know the sketchy details but not the accurate ones. My knowledge on this comes from talking to different people, and therefore the words and descriptions are not accurate but I guess the gist is conveyed.

a... it's wrong because not all "Hindus" or Israelis" do what you said, thus your statement lacks intended clarity and creates unnecessary bad feelings among people of different faiths, particularly that ones such statement was made against, does Islamic terrorism ring a bell.

I agree with you. Generalizations and sweeping statements need to be avoided.

There are two reasons for this generalization. First, I represent that Hindu and oppressing community here. Hence, the need to self-criticize the group I represent. Second, one cannot avoid generalizations when one set is pitted against another. If I were to say 'some Hindus' or 'some Israelis', then there is no case. For example, if I say 'India is poor', it holds good only in certain context. This statement can be easily refuted if one were to put some examples such as Azim Premji, Ambanis, Tatas, etc. Another example, if I say, 'Humans involve in genocide', it holds good only when comparing humans as a species against another set of animals. This statement can be easily refuted giving examples of benevolent humans, like Gandhi, Mother Theresa, etc.

I do believe that India as its mainstream classes, many of its politics, its elite, its media, etc, do demonize Islam. I do believe that Israel, as a state, as a nation, does participate in state terrorism, and also indulges in demonizing Islam. Not everyone participates in it, but many condone it and accept it. Moderates and the passive ones are being represented as such by the active ones.

Anamika.. My dear before I jump at your throat #37 and attempt to reply your thought question (of course with Ruvy's helping) #53.

I see a point to address couple of points you made earlier:-

(With the discussion above, I see more similarities than I ever had between the Torah and the Koran, the Jews and the Muslims. I guess that is why this struggle unto death. So terribly sad.....)

Actually this is not so, the blood and misery you see and felt sad about has nothing to do with neither Torah or Quran nor Judaism or Islam.

We have one simple yet humongous issue that has been with us over the last 3 decades and not centuries old as someone wants lots of people wants us to believe Two people who are intertwined and interweaved who has every right to a very small piece of land and who could not so far miserably failed to agree how to share it bundled together with so immense and so enormous tribulations as politics, personal ambitions of lots of corrupted tribal heads who only know to operate on entirely , age old feudal system, with colossal misunderstandings, total mistrust, small piece of land that everyone wants piece of it, geo-politics of a global scale, people who use scriptures to advance their own advancements, fear of the other and of the future, bleak outlook of what the future holds, historical oppressions, nationalism dressed up in religion, religion marred in politics and nationalism, wars, lots of killings, total luck of leadership on all sides within and without, hostile neighbors, yesteryear victims turn today's victimizers, dishonest and immoral, corrupt and scrupulous friends who want promote their own interest on the accounts of the smaller ones, huge unaccounted and unbalanced defense spending that automatically leads sorts of arms race in the region.....! Tell you what. I can easily go on till cows come home but I will stop here..!

As you see all that is horrifying about what is happening in the holly land is man made predicaments that has nothing to do with religion and it's only going to get worse unless we have a divine intervention before its too late...!

It's not yet Jews against Muslims or Judaism versus Islam or Arabs against Israelis yet...but Palestinian against Israelis and unless some "JUST" solutions are not reached in hurry. We are on roller coaster that will take the ride all the way a dark room if what is happening in Iraq continues and if Israeli military adopts more harsher tactics, keeps ups extra-judicial assassinations of Palestinian activists considered terrorists and continuously to subjugate the Palestinians with collective punishments and if Hamas's mindless firing of Qassam rockets in to Israel and killing or maiming and sending desolate hapless people to commit suicide attacks unchecked....!
grim and doom....this is terribly sad..!
Does it make any sense to you...?

Second point can wait..!

Liam,

The last suicide attack that I can remember was a 68 year old grandmother who blew herself up near some IDF soldiers, wounding them. This was within the last two weeks or so. I think it took place within Gaza near an IDF outpost...

Abdallah,

A few points for you to ponder based on your last post to Anamika. These points need to be clear before I attempt to continue. If you believe in a faith, you take it on faith that its prophecies, (providing it has them) are real. I am ignorant of the Qur'an and the Hadiths, so I would not dare to attempt to point out to you where some of the prophecy in Islam leads to. Suffice it to say, that you, a Moslem who appears to have quite a bit of knowledge of his own traditions and law, could teach me.

But in writing to you, I follow a prophecy in Yishayá/Isaiah. Roughly put, this prophecy states that the Children of Kedar (the second son of Ismaíl/Ishm'ael) will sacrifice bulls at our Temple in the End of Days. The implication of the prophecy is that there will be a reconciliation between the Children of Jacob and Children of Ishm'ael. If I can do something to hasten a reconciliation, I view it as a blessing achieved. That is why I am writing all this.

I write out of faith.

Not all of the prophecies in the Tana"kh (Hebrew Bible) are so pleasant. Zechariah writes of war in Jerusalem, implying the use of terrible weapons, some. So does Ezekiel. So does Bila'am.

If I can do something to alleviate some of the pain of the Hevléi hamashiáH, the painful birthing of the messianic era, it is worth the effort.

So, let's briefly outline what the issues are here. There is a huge dispute with several sides. On one side is the the US oil and banking establishments, with the Saudi oil money and American arms. ON THAT SIDE are the Zionist régime in Jerusalem, the "Palestinian" régime of Mahmoud Abbas and his allied terrorists, and the EU. They control the media and most of the world economy. Do not imagine that because the Zionist entity and Mahoud Abbas are on the "same side," that they are friends. They are partners in crime. And do not confuse for even one second the Zionist entity with Jewish identity. But do not confuse Jewish identity with the Neturei Karta, who are the rough eqyuivalents in Judaism to what the Wahhabi were 150 years ago.

On a second side are the Syrians, Iranians, Russiams, Chinese and North Koreans. Hamas, in spite of its base in Wahhabi theology, is drawn to this side, and so are the Taliban. Their common agenda is to challenge and overthrow the power of the United States and the EU. For the Iranians, the State of Israel is like an hors d'ouvres before the main course...

These people too, have differing agendae and are not necessarily all friends.

Finally, on the third side are the people like me, who see this pathetic picture, who are in the gunsights, and who want to do something about it, so that the poor of the world can benefit, so that there can be peace, prosperity and good health throughout all of mankind. From the most utilitarian point of view, religion here is an oil, one that can be used to bring people together rather than drag them apart in flaming conflict as has been done so often in the past..

The "non-believer" who doesn't necessarily believe, doesn't have to, but acts "as if", goes along with the progrqm, and after some time, finds he does believe, because he sees the results of his actions.

I happen to believe that the majority of mnkind who are literate are part of the third grup, and are looking for some way to espress the immense power locked up nside of them.

Some further thoughts for you Abdallah,

The Torah is a system of laws for the Children of Israel and righteous strangers who are living in the land of Israel. There are a couple of points here that should be drawn out, concepts that usually do not get a lot of attention.

First of all, the land is holier than the people living on it, and it is the job of the people to strive to be holy in order not to contaminate the land, and therefore not be kicked out. In other words, the dirt under my feet is holier than I am. In Leviticus 19 it recites "'I am holy therefore you shall be holy.'"

The Torah does specify borders for the Land of Israel and in the Book of Joshua, borders are specified for the various tribes.

Second, in the Song of Witness, it predicts that a)the Children of Israel would be expelled and b)that they would be returned to their homes. This means that there would be a Jewish entity, a state of some kind, in the Land of Israel, and that in the End of Days, the Torah would be followed by a people with a chastened heart.

The Torah does not specifiy a "Zionist land grab." Such a thought is ridiculous. The Children of Israel are gifted with this land, and told to follow a law that would keep them holy. In adition, they are told (Chapter 18, Leviticus) that the people who are being expelled indulged in a whole series of sexual practices that "contaminated the land" which cause the "land to vomit them out" (Leviticus 18:24-28).

The Children of Israel are warned not to do likewise.

Naturally, they do do likewise and break, over several hundred years, all of the commandments given them. Thus the warning in the Song of Witness comes true. But also, in the Song of Witness, is postulated the return of the people. I am part of that return.

So when I say that the reason we Jews live here is not the declaration of some fool in a frock coat at the League of Nations or the United Nations, but because of the Torah, this is what I am talking about. At the bottom of our return is faith, and the Hand of G-d working His way to fulfill His promises to His prophets, and to the Children of Israel. This is true even for the many "atheists" living here who refuse to see the Hand of G-d in events.

Later...
Reuven

"So when I say that the reason we Jews live here is not the declaration of some fool in a frock coat at the League of Nations or the United Nations, but because of the Torah, this is what I am talking about. At the bottom of our return is faith, and the Hand of G-d working His way to fulfill His promises to His prophets, and to the Children of Israel." - as per Rueven.

So god told you to go to Israel? To displace the people who were living there, to render them homeless so as to fulfill a promise that divinity made?

I am very sorry but from my perspective that is a very dodgy rationale and a slippery slope with no end in sight.

Since both the religious experts (you and Abdullah) have ignored my question, I go back and rephrase it with ANOTHER metaphor.

Hindus believe that Ayodhya is the birthplace of Lord Rama. The birthplace is not historically proven - exactly as in the case of Bible promising the land of Israel to the Jews - but it is BELIEVED to be so.

Fast forward to Islamic invasions of India starting the medieval times and then nearly 900 years of Islamic rule in north India. One grand achievement of the era was the destruction of major Hindu temple and building of mosques on the site.

Now fast forward again to the 20th century where a 16th century mosque in Ayodhya becomes a contested site because Hindus BELIEVE that it is built on the birthplace of Rama.

In 1992, the mosque is destroyed by a handful of Hindu "extremists" and the land is still disputed. Many were killed and the social fabric of India took a big blow.

Same sort of thing albeit on a different scale - FAITH is a dangerous basis for political action. Seems that there is little difference between claiming Ayodhya based on FAITH or claiming Israel based on the same grounds.

Of course, in the case of the Ayodhya scenario, few Hindus are militant or extremist enough to actively work for such faith-based political issues. Furthermore, perhaps there is an intrinsic Western bias which allows a faith-based Israel to claim territory LEGITIMATELY but derides the Ayodhya fanatics as "superstitous" or "extremists" etc.

Still don't see WHY God promising ANY land is a valid reason for a nation-state?

Anamika:
You write-
"Still don't see WHY God promising ANY land is a valid reason for a nation-state?"

So, what do you think is a valid reason for a nation-state?

Anamika,

You ask, "So G-d told you to go to Israel? To displace the people who were living there, to render them homeless so as to fulfill a promise that divinity made?"

No, dear. G-d is a lot bit more sophisticated than that. In my particular instance, I left America because I saw at long last that raising Jews in exile who would remain Jews with a strong Jewish spirit was a losing proposition. I could see no way to fulfill wha I felt was my obligation to my parents and grandparents in the United States or in any other country in exile and the opportunity to move here was available. In short, I felt stuck. Since then, I've learned that there was much that I could do here; ironically one of those things is exploring the possibility of peace with Abdallah on the internet. In this country, one man CAN make a difference.

A century ago, a young man came here to escape the tyrannical rule of the rabbis and the small time crooks businessmen who ran the Jewish community of Plonsk, Poland. David Green's ego was much bigger than his head, and his ability to grab up any opportunity was legendary. He made use of every opportunity that came his way, hebraicised his name and became the first prime minister here, David ben Gurion. Ironically the crooks "businessmen" seem to have followed and have corrupted our leadership, but ben Gurion didn't intend for that to happen.

Eighty six years ago, a stubborn woman with a big nose came here with her husband and a Victor-ola. The Victor-ola got the couple admittance to a kibbutz. Mrs. Meyerson organized the chicken runs, fixed up the kibbutz dining room and figured out a system for women to have subsidized daycare so that they could work at jobs. The system she organized seventy years ago still is the operative system here, but Golda Meir became known as a divorcee who was a chain-smoker, a sad woman who couldn't sleep at nights and who called her advisors over to discuss things in her kitchen on Saturday nights before the cabinet meetings Sunday mornings. She had the best lines out of her sharp head, and was the country's grandma.

She also made the biggest strategic blunder that a leader could have made - she let the Arabs attack and relied on America for help. The Americans almost didn't come through on their promises, and the country almost was defeated in war.

BUT neither she nor I nor David ben-Gurion came because G-d told us to. We all had our own personal reasons to come home. But looking at the entire phenonmenon, it is clear that this was the will of G-d that we be gathered home, whatever it was that we ourselves as individuals might have thought.

And Anamika - just so you know, I know what it is to have no roof during the winter and to be one of those homeless people everyone's eyes struggle to avert their gaze from. So when I talk about closing down refugee camps of Arabs and seeing to it that they have decent homes with decent futures, I'm not blowing hot air... I know how depression can close you down when every day is a question of where you will sleep.

I didn't answer you using the events surrounding Ayodhya to try to provide an answer is because it would show my true ignorance of South Asian history - somethng that would only distract from whatever points I seek to make.

Ruvy - you are right I don't accept a single being as the master of the universe, especially when that acceptance of such a being requires an implicit discrimination against those who do not fit the "chosen" type - for ethnic, religious, or racial reasons. Hence I don't believe that some population groups are "chosen people" of this "master of the universe", or that in case of other population groups that their belief or acting upon their beliefs will "save" them to the exclusion of all others.

I believe that while there may well be a greater energy in the cosmos that surpasses human understanding, all LAWS, ideas, teaching, and PROMISES are human-made and not divine.

Sujai you ask - "So, what do you think is a valid reason for a nation-state?"

All nation-states are artificial and yet a necessary system of socio-economic-political organisation. There are a host of historical, ethnic, racial, linguistic, cultural, geographical reasons for all of these.

However, I DO NOT WANT TO turn this into a hypothetical debate on the ideas of nation-state because I think we have gone round in circles often enough. Any hypothetical discussion of the Westphalia treaty, Benedict Anderson et al on the theories of the nation-state distracts from the main point at hand. THAT point happens to be simple - faith is not a very reasonable, humane, enlightened, rational (put your favourite adjective here) basis for a nation-state.

The issue at hand is SPECIFICALLY a nation-state organised principally and only on religius faith. Such a state looks not to human experience for its identity but to divine will. ONE major result of that is the state's implicit inability to negotiate, compromise or indeed reach agreements that may be mutually beneficial with those the religious/national logic qualifies as the "other."

Such a state automatically and inherently discriminates against others who are of different faiths or indeed against various measures of difference. And ANY such state would within its own identity carry a kernel of prejudice and discrimination - all discussed in detail under the Human Rights Charter - that we would not accept of a "secular" nation-state.

And this applies to ALL nation-states based on religion. They are simply spaces for exclusionism and discrimination to flourish and be legitimized.

Ruvy - I am disappointed by the rather superficial view of Zionist history you have presented earlier, or indeed the help Israel received and continues to receive (unwilling, unwitting, or for geostrategic reasons) from the US.

Also where in a "Jewish" land of Israel would the Arabs find homes? Isn't the logic of the state of Israel of a homeland for the Jewish people? Isn't the demographics in the occupied territories already termed a problem for "Jewish" Israel?

And this from the Chicago Tribune:

"Seeing the negative side of Israel's nationalism: The subsequent Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands rendered her an instant foreigner. Since returning in 1975, she has tried to obtain permanent residency status, but like tens of thousands of other Palestinians, she was given a tourist visa, which requires quarterly renewal. So she diligently left and came back. For 31 years. A Foreign Ministry spokesman recently told the British Daily Telegraph that Samara and people like her "are foreign nationals with no legal status, living [in the West Bank] as tourists while we turned a blind eye."

I happen to believe - with some decent evidence that peace isn't going to happen unless both sides STOP talking faith and belief and gods and start talking about humans instead.

Ruvy you say you moved for "personal" reason? But surely you chose Israel over other parts of the world because you chose to make "aliyeh"? You speak of "coming home" to a country that you have never seen, you have not lived in, that your ancestors inhabited 2000 years ago. That in itself is a politico-religious motive rather than such a "personal" one? And that "coming home" will automatically have to be at the cost of someone being forced off that same land?

Am I the only one on the forum who sees the moral/logical problem with this?

Anamika,

Let me return to an earlier comment here, so you comprehend just what is being talked about here. Let's go back to comment #14, which is the basis upon which all my comments here stand and recopy its essential points.

What are the fundamental elements of the Zionist state?

1. Reclaiming (as in draining swamps, clearing off rock and planting forests) the land and settling it, all the way from Metúlla in the north to Netánya and Kesaría (Caesarea) in the west, to Eilát in the south and to Mitzpé YeriHó in the east, overlooking the Jordan. This dream was expressed best by Naomi Shemer (z"l) in her song "Yerushalayim shel Zahav" (Jerusalem of Gold);
"The shofar will be again heard blowing from the Temple Mount and we will travel to the Dead Sea via the Jericho Road."
This song was a hit in May 1967. This verse was added after the victory over three Arab nations in June 1967.
2. Resurrecting Hebrew as a spoken language among the Jewish people.
3. Ingathering the exiled Jews from outside the Land:
3a. Serving as a refuge for the Jewish people who are persecuted world-wide,
3b. Attracting Jews from prosperous countries like America, Britain and France.
4. Establishment of a state just like all the other nation states in the world!

Note what didn't make it into this list.

1. No Third Temple on the Temple Mount.
2. No Sanhedrin to fix up Jewish law.
3. No messianic redemption.
4. No establishment of the primacy of Jewish law in the Land of Israel.
5. No recognition that the Children of Israel will be a nation reckoned apart from the other nations of the world!
6. No recognition of the role of G-d in creating the universe, or Jewish destiny.

All the six elements above are primary elements of Judaism and of Jewish identity.

Zionism is not a religious movement at all. It is a secular nationalist movement among Jews who sought freedom from Christian and Moslem oppression. Its goal, the State of Israel is a standing accomplishment - but that goal is threatened by the fact that Jewish identity is split between two visions among our people; the first one is the secular vision of being a nation like all the other nations, one that is recognized as an equal in the councils of mankind; and the other is the religious one of being reckoned apart from all the nations.

Zionism is largely the political movement of agnotics amd atheists, Anamika. It is a movement of people who have no interest in G-d or in religion. They view being Jews as being like lemons, and Zionism is their way of making lemonade. And socialism was the sugar in the lemonade...

Religious Jews have attempted to append themselves to the movement, but were accepted only so long as they gave up part of their own identity. Gush Qatif was a success largely of religious Jews following religious precepts in establishing an agricltural community independent of and without refernce to the secular economy of the State. It was their big "sucess" story. Uprooting them from their homes was more a matter of "getting religious Jews" (something admitted to at long last by Tommy Lapid, late of the militantly secular "Shinui" [Change] Party), more in light of the wholesale failure of the (secular) kibbutz and moshav movement than anything else.

The point of my subsequent comments is that this secular nation/state, the State of Israel, is collapsing. In other words, this entire artificial structure of secular Israeli nationalism is not doing the job it was meant to do. It can no longer provide the rationale for its army or its flag. It's leaders no longer believe in its fundamental goals, providing a homeland for the Jewish people from persecution. They are confused and because they no longer believe in the basics of their country, they are willing to give it away.

Zionism is what happens when you try to cut G-d out of the equation of Jewish identity, and the collapse of the Zionist state is the inevitable result of Jews trying to imitate the mentality of the "civilized" Europeans - those same wonders who saw fit to send a third of the Jewish people off to be made into soap and lampshades.

Hence we see the injustices that we do, the "negative" side to Israeli nationalism you highlight, the discrimination against Jews who do not have the European background of the "founders" of the State, the discrimination against non-Jews who would like to ally themselves with the State, like the Cherkess and the Druze, and the discrimination against non-Jews who ally themselves with the State out of perceived econmomic necessity, like the Bedouin who live in our country.

And now we see the willingness of this movement to discard its ancient homeland to get "peace." That is the story behind "Oslo", Camp David and all of the other bullshit that has moved this country from being indeed the fourth most powerful military on the planet to being a mewling dependency of America and the EU with all the sovereignty of Bhutan.

Faced with a choice of war with honor or peace with dishonor, they have chosen peace with dishonor - and they have gotten neither peace nor honor.

I could go into a lengthy and detailed description of events in the past, but I'd rather not resurrect old hates and arguments in an attempt to convince you of the justice of my words, and that is what I'd have to do. You will not be convinced by this puerile explanation in this comment. You will be convinced, if you are at all, by seeing events on the scale of a tsunami or even more terrible.

Ruvy, thanks for the explanation, although your tone has been increasingly condescending. But perhaps that is only to be expected.

You still have not answered the basic question I posed earlier despite my posting it in various ways. That question remains quite simple:

Why is a supposed promise from god ample reason to displace an entire population and take over land that has been inhabited by them for many hundreds of years?

Your theoretical weaving of Zionist vs Judaism reminds me of the writings of Herzl who was distressed by the number of "Arabs" in Palestine but implicitly expected their displacement and erasure for the greater purpose of the establishment of Israel.

Ben Gurion's implicit recognition of the removal of Palestinians from "Israeli" lands has been well documented as well. He was far too much of diplomat to frame it in explicit terms although his writings make the intent of removing Palestinians from their lands quite apparent.

And of course Golda Meir was less diplomatic when she claimed that there were "no Palestinian people" (a claim similar to the Chinese claim of "no Tibetan people" as prelude to the genocide in Tibet).

If the above language sounds harsh, it is simply because as a nonpartisan observer, I am stating the reality as seen objectively from beyond the confines of religion and faith, or indeed historical guilt.

You also have not answered why this "refuge" for the Jewish people "persecuted world-wide" came at the price of the Palestinians? Surely if the crime was committed by Europeans, the price should have been paid by them as well?

Your choice of the term "world-wide persecution" in any case reflects a Western (Ashkenazi) bias especially since the Jewish people weren't persecuted all over the world, but primarily in Europe.

May I point to the Cochin synagogue - 800 years old - that stands as the oldest continuous synagogue and testament that there were parts of the world where Jews lived in perfect harmony with their nonJewish neighbours.

In framing Israeli identity with sole reference to Western Jewish experience, the inherent colonial rationale of the final "settler colony" enterprise becomes distressingly obvious.

I can see this discussion going no further mostly because your own location will not allow you to see the contradictions between rationality and faith, or indeed the intertwined threads of Judaic identity and Zionism. Yes, even the "secular" Zionism that you so disdain is rooted in religous fundamentalism.

In any case, the discussion with you has been very illuminating as regards the levels of denial and ideological extremism.

Thus far I had only understood one side of the extremist rhetoric and ideology - of the Arabs (note, NOT the Palestinians!). Now I understand the other side of that equation, and why peace shall remain a fatamorgana in that part of the world.

ana:

fata morgana indeed:)

(let's see for how long you resist;) - please reconsider writing here)

I could go into a lengthy and detailed description of events in the past, but I'd rather not resurrect old hates and arguments in an attempt to convince you of the justice of my words, and that is what I'd have to do. You will not be convinced by this puerile explanation in this comment. You will be convinced, if you are at all, by seeing events on the scale of a tsunami or even more terrible.

I apologize. I did not mean this to sound condescending. I was once an atheist. Events occurred to me in my life that my rational construct of a world could not explain. So, I adjusted my philosophy bit by bit to what more and more seemed reality.

Rational argument could not have convinced me to hold the beliefs I do. Were that the case, I'd be rich now from having sold my best seller "Solid Proof of the Existence of G-d." People, even people who say they are atheists or who condemn those who worship G-d, hunger after faith. Give them something solid to grasp onto, and they're yours - at least until the next interesting book rolls around. So rational argument is not likely to convince you, and the seeming irrational arguments certainly won't.

Attempting to explain the history of the Arabs and the Jews here in the last nine decades is not really a difficult task, but in the process of it going through the comments of others, it would bring so up much anger, hurt and pain, not to mention disputation, that the one thing needed to get to any kind of peace, the willingness to move on and leave the hatreds of the past firmly in the past, would vanish in a second. And at the moment, it is peace that I'm pursuing. That is why I have not pursued the topic on this thread. Thsat is not dodging - that is discipline. I'd much prefer to argue over events of the past.

As for the approach, it is simple. Jewish politicians here have all been bought up like so many offshore subsidiaries. Arab politicians are cowed by the Kalashnikov-waving terrorists who have been making deals with, as well as killing Israelis. If I wish to see the objectivity of international bodies of the UN, I need only look at whatever monkeys are sitting on the latest incarnation of the Human Rights Commission. They have all the time in the world to condemn Israel, but not one ounce of sympathy for the human rights of the people of southern Sudan.

So politicians and the "international community' are not the place to turn for a just solution to the problems of the Children of Abraham in the Land of Israel.

That leaves the religious leaders of Jews and Arabs. They will need something to get behind - a concept, a program. One of the comments I had here which were removed during a spam removal campaign dealt with just this topic - a program to get for Arabs and for Jews a better solution than is being offered by the thieving and bought out politicians who talk "peace". Hopefully, it will return.

ruvy:


the believers worldwide believe in the same God...yet it does not stop them from killing and maiming each other in the name of the same God

khair

real estate ownership is the main culprit behind almost all world conflicts...

in the short term force can bring about a resolution - but for the long haul a just and equitable settlement (for all parties to a conflict) is needed - without divine help ... and this applies to all conflicts including israeli-palestinian dispute

Temporal, if the problem in Israel was a mere real estate issue, a couple of lawyers and a generous helping of moolah would have solved the problem long ago.

Sorry, it ain't that easy.

agree it is not easy:)

disagree... moolah is worthless here...the only real GOD here is land -- both parties would have nothing else

Let's move away from the theoretical for a moment and look at reality. This came to me courtesy of the Root & Branch Information Service. Anyone seeking to receive their e-mails can go to the Root & Branch Website and subscribe.

This is a story that shows how the Israeli "government" manufactures murder cases and tampers with evidence and the truth. While this is not particularly significant in countries where this is the norm, this particluar case is part of the constant propaganda against Jews generally (overseas propaganda), and against Jews who live in Judea and Samaria in particular (propaganda aimed at secular Jews in Israel). It is from these tissues of lies that Al Jazeera, CNN and the BBC manufacture their lies. The emboldening of the letters in some paragraphs is mine.


ISRAELI-AMERICAN TEENAGER, SHIMSHON CYTRYN, CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER IN MELEE
copyright © 2006 by Mrs. Elli Rodan


YERUSHALIYIM, Fifteenth Day, Ninth Month ("Kislev"), 5767; Yom Revi'i (Fourth Day of the Week/"Wednes"-day, December 6, 2006), Root & Branch Information Services:


A 19-year-old Israeli-American has been charged with attempted murder for what he said was throwing a clump of sand during a melee with Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Shimshon Cytryn faces a maximum of 20 years in jail if convicted in connection with a rock battle on the beach of the Gaza Strip weeks before the Israeli military evicted more than 10,000 Jews from the area in August, 2005. Cytryn, who said he threw sand toward a Palestinian, was the only Israeli in the melee charged with attempted murder.

"All they [the authorities] want is to see him [Cytryn] sit in jail", Marilyn Cytryn, Shimshon's grandmother, said after a hearing in the Beersheba District Court on November 21.

Cytryn has been charged with trying to kill 18-year-old Hilal Ziad Mujaida during a rock battle between Jewish and Arab residents of the Katif Bloc in the southern Gaza Strip on June 29, 2005. A video presented by the prosecution showed Cytryn hurling something toward the Palestinians, many of whom threw bricks and rocks toward the Jews. Several Jews were injured in the clash.

Mujaida, who was also seen throwing rocks, was struck in the melee, and the video taken by television news crews showed him bleeding from the forehead. The video then showed Cytryn leaping toward a stone barrier and throwing something toward Mujaida.

No Palestinian was arrested or charged in the melee, but four other Israelis were arrested and charged with crimes ranging from aggravated assault to disorderly conduct. Avinoam Crispin, 19, was charged with aggravated assault and spent 10 months under house arrest. In October, 2006, Crispin reached a plea bargain in which he was convicted of disorderly conduct and sentenced to five months community service.

"At first they wanted to charge him [Crispin] as they did Shimshon -- with attempted murder", Crispin's father, Shlomo, recalled. "Soldiers caught him when he tried to kick the Arab, but this does not amount to attempted murder".

Supporters said the indictment of Cytryn was part of a vendetta against his father. In 1995, Cytryn's father, Shmuel, was arrested and held without trial for eight months. The elder Cytryn, an activist of the banned Kach movement, was detained after he released hospital records that challenged the official version of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

"Shimshon is high on the list of the Shabak [Israel Security Agency]", Shmuel Cytryn said. "The Cytryn family is targeted because of its activities on the extreme right. We represent something that to them is the enemy".

The prosecution did not bring Mujaida to testify in the trial of the junior Cytryn, who has spent most of the last year either in jail or house arrest. Instead, the prosecution summoned an Israeli soldier, Shimon Marom, who said he sought to protect Mujaida from further harm after he was struck in the head.

In his testimony, Marom said he did not see Cytryn attack Mujaida. The 21-year-old soldier, who also appeared in the video, said he did not know whether Mujaida sustained additional injury before he was handed over to a company commander.

"During the incident I did not see the throwing of the object because my back was turned to the injured person", Marom testified. "Immediately afterwards, the injured person tried to stand but couldn't so a journalist helped me lift him up to take him, and after a few minutes we met Avi Shaked [company commander]. He took the injured with the journalist to another place and then I was out of the picture".

"When the injured person got up and fell down, were there any injuries other than his forehead?" defense Attorney Yarom HaLevi asked.

"I didn't pay attention", Marom said.

Mujaida never filed a complaint against or identified Cytryn as his attacker. Despite a police search, the prosecution failed to retrieve the stone that allegedly struck Mujaida in the head nor did the prosecution supply medical evidence detailing Mujaida's injuries or hospitalization.

After the melee, Israel's state-owned media accused Cytryn of seeking to "lynch" Mujaida. But Mujaida told Israel Radio in early July that the injury on his forehead was caused by being struck by the rifle butt of an Israeli soldier.

"One soldier took me to a separate place -- not any settler -- and hit me with the rifle butt in my stomach and in my head", Mujaida said. "He put me against the wall and let children hit me".

Mujaida said he lost consciousness and did not know what happened next. But later in the radio interview, he said he was struck and injured by a stone. "Someone came behind the wall and threw a stone on my head and then I fainted", Mujaida said.

For his part, Cytryn acknowledged that he participated in the melee. But he said he threw clumps of sand rather than rocks. "I threw clumps of dirt", Cytryn testified. "I wanted to deter them".

The trial was scheduled to end on December 10. Cytryn has been arrested several times for violating a court order to remain under house arrest.

"They [the police] were waiting for him when it was clear he had permission to be with us", Hedva Herbst, Cytryn's host, recalled. "They [the police] said they made a mistake".

Despite the lack of prosecution witnesses, the three-judge panel appears ready to convict Cytryn. At one point, the judges sought to adjourn the trial until February, 2007, while Cytryn remains in jail.

"How long has he served?" presiding Judge Ruth Avidah asked Judge Chana Slutky.

"Three months", Slutky replied.

"This time will be deducted [from the sentence]", Avidah said.

thanks for this story about internal schism and political jockeying ruvy:)

but this does not detract from the earlier discussion with anamika

also one query for you...earlier you mentioned moolah...tell me honestly if there is enough money in the bank of england vaults or at fort knox that can make you abdicate your claim to the land?

Temporal,

I see you haven't been paying any attention to what I've been writing at all. I'm not some paper waving Hassid from Williamsburg who gets bought off with a generous wad of cash. If I were, I'd be deserving of all the Jew-hating contempt that could be poured my way.

No, Temporal. I could say it is a matter of honor, but it goes beyond being a mere matter of honor. It is a matter of identity.

The man who emerged from the Williamsburg slums in Brooklyn to eventually make his home here will not be bought off. I will not sell my soul for money. And I hope I can say the same about my neighbors in Ma'aleh Levona, Shilo, 'Eli, Sh'vut RaHel, 'Ofra, and Kokhav Ya'akov.

ruvy my friend:

i am not the one who is not paying attention here;)

you wrote: Temporal, if the problem in Israel was a mere real estate issue, a couple of lawyers and a generous helping of moolah would have solved the problem long ago.

the point i was trying to make is whether it is jews or palestinians...moolah is not a valid consideration ... it is LAND...their land, your land, God's land!

hence the intractability from both sides

Thanks temporal - the issue is precisely of using god as reason for the land, and hence as you right say, the intractability.

The best thing about using god as rationale is that all anti-humanity excesses can be explained away, ignored or justified.

Some of the posts above remind me of Spielberg's opus (especially Munich) where injury to the Jewish soul due to Israeli political excesses are considered far more important than the wounds left by Israeli bullets on Palestinian bodies. Thus internal dissensions of the Israeli or indeed Jewish society takes precedence.

Ruvy - I could bring post an equal number of harrowing stories about the Israeli state which has little respect for Palestinians. The "framing" Palestinians for fictitious crimes or "terrorism" is all too frequent to even warrant a comment from most Israelis. The IDF has also been proven in international courts to deliberately shoot journalists, NGO-workers, and even UN officials who are covering the confict.

The point here is not that Israeli state is corrupt or unjust. The point is that a purported democracy (of couple of million voters) chooses to maintain a state that is patently so.

The difference here also is of the "narrative" and its correlation to power (as Edward Said would say). That makes Israeli political and military decisions "acceptable" if not entirely moral in the Western world. At the same time Palestinian or indeed "Arab" actions are judged as immoral and "barbaric."

Hence no peace and no end in sight.

PS - temporal - I can resist. :-) Why trade freedom for institutional privileges when remaining on the outside is far more interesting!

Haya everybody, I was away for couple of days and I see I have missed plenty...!

Ruvy, How is it going..? I see you have taken the time to reply some of my questions, thanks that is very kind of you.

Now, allow me to jump the debate, and ask you one more question, whatever happen to the people who were living in all thses places you mentioned...! personally I know most of them are west bank settlements and not arab vilages, but what happen to the arab viilages close to where these settlements are built on..?

Good to see you all are healthy and still kicking..!

Ruvy, I missed quite few of your points and it's not getleman like to be selective in picking up the points to seem like I'm picking up on you, but I have one point that is really sticking out..as far as the "Promised Land" is concerned and I believe this is the central issue to our discussion, from Torah point of you could you clearly explain the following 3 points and point out clear section or verses from the Torah (Not Telmud or other writings or traditions) let's urgue on the basis of the Books of Prophit Moses(Peace and Blessings of G-D be upong him).

1) In the past two thousand years of the dangers and sufferings of exile and oppresions the Jewish people undergone not once did any of the Sages of Israel suggest that Jews make a state to protect themselves. In every generation Jews had thousands of Sages well versed in the Torah.

2) There are so much of legal work of Torah law that have been handed down to todays Jews by the Sages of all generations. Not once do did it say anywhere a word suggesting the establishment of a state. Actually most of the Jews agains establishment of Israel, specailly those based in the States and particularly in New York, perhaps in Williamsburg are find it totally against teachings of Law of Torah and are bitterly fighing agai

Ruvy, I missed quite few of your points and it's not getleman like to be selective in picking up the points to seem like I'm picking up on you, but I have one point that is really sticking out..as far as the "Promised Land" is concerned and I believe this is the central issue to our discussion, from Torah point of view, could you please clearly explain the following 3 points and point out clear section or verses from the Torah (Not Telmud or other writings or traditions) let's urgue on the basis of the Books of Prophit Moses(Peace and Blessings of G-D be upong him).

1) In the past two thousand years of the dangers and sufferings of exile and oppresions the Jewish people undergone not once did any of the Sages of Israel suggest that Jews make a state to protect themselves. In every generation Jews had thousands of Sages well versed in the Torah.

2) There are so much of legal work of Torah law that have been handed down to todays Jews by the Sages of all generations. Not once do did it say anywhere a word suggesting the establishment of a state. Actually most of the Jews agains establishment of Israel, specailly those based in the States and particularly in New York, perhaps in Williamsburg are find it totally against teachings of Law of Torah and are bitterly fighing against it.

3) Do you agree that, the founders of Zionism were all atheists who denied the Torah. All the Torah Sages of that time opposed them and opposed Zionism, saying that Zionism would lead only to destruction.

Please try to figure out the above and as I said help me with the supporting verses.

Honestly, I just can't accept the idea of "God giving land" specially when you are have other people living in the same people.

Imagine, if everyone of us decides that God ahs giving him or her an eternal right to certain land or lands? I mean it's understandble if it was a place of worship, like a teple or a mosque, church or synagogue. I remeber few years ago how sadned we were all after the incidents in Ayodha in Utter Pradhesh in India. I remember telling one of my friends, why don't the Muslims just give up of the site or share it with thier Hindu countrymen if these guys believe so much that spot is so holly to them, at least if they could proof it was the birth place of one of their Lords just to save human lives....!

I don't but if each one of us acts on behalf of his God without any consideration to justices, human suffering and the pain we cuase to others, then we are should be all Atheists. becouse the God I know demands me to be just, righteous, fair-minded and companionate to all of his creations. particurly to all people of all races and religions.

Do you agree with me...?

Guys, I do apologize for the grammatical errors or missing words in most of my posts..! I'm learning so be patient with me.

Ruvy, I find in tune with Anamika's post #68, I think, he is right on the money all most 95%, I took away that 5% coz he /she found you condescending and I did not..! yet again each one of us has every right to his points of if you and we all MUST learn to live with it but not necessarily by it....!

Just though to put it across.......!

Just for the record Abdullah, am a woman. :-)

Abdallah,

Glad to see you back.

First of all, a few points for you to understand.

WHO FIRST PROPOSED ZIONISM? WHO CARRIED IT OUT?

The initial writers 150 or 160 years ago who suggested the re-establishment of a Jewish state were all rabbis. They were condemned by their fellow rabbis of the day who had a narrow interpretation of the messianic concepts of Judaism.

The later writers who advocated the re-establishment of a Jewish state were largely socialists who hated the rabbis (whom in Eastern Europe at the time were mostly narrow minded allies of the "rich" Jews in the Jewish villages of Eastern Europe who maintained power through pushing ignorance), and who wanted to overthrow the existing order of Jewish society and wanted to use a re-established "Jewish" state as the tool to do it.

Of course their version of a "Jewish" state was one without G-d, rabbis or religion. The concept of returning to to Israel is very much rooted in Judaism and in our prophetic books, but to the degree they could, these "labor Zionists" wanted to cut the religion out altogether.

These are the people who actually made aliyah, cleaned the soil, etc., etc. Their descendants, who have ceased to believe in what their predecessors did here (as Rabbi Kook predicted would happen in the 1920's), are the criminals who run the State now.

Further points.

HOW THE TALMUD RELATES TO THE TORAH AND WHY IT DOES NOT ADVOCATE A JEWISH STATE

To clear up a misconception of yours. The Written Law and the Oral Law go together. The Written Law is the Torah. The Oral Law is the Talmud, which originated in the oral instructions Moses Gave to his brother Aaron (Haroun) for the purpose of making the Hebrew faith work. These instructions were passed on orally from priest to priest until they were reduced to writing by the remnant of the Sanhedrin meeting in Yavne after the Romans had destroyed the Temple along with the Kingdom of Judea.

The original Talmud was known as the Talmud Yerushálmi. Much of it was lost, but rewritten as the Talmud Bavlí in Babylon. We use both today.

The key point is that the Oral Law is the equal of the Written Law and both are binding on Jews. That law is a law designed to govern Jews here. In other words, the norm is living here. The adjustments that need to be made are made to alien situations and alien environments that exiled Jews havd found themselves in over 1,800 years. While the Torah does not talk about re-establishing a state, the rest of the Hebrew Bible does. Since the Talmud is written with the assumption that its readers will live here to follow its precepts, it too does not talk very much of re-establishing a Jewish state.

WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE ARABS?

Finally the key point I wish to drive home to you is this. The "two state" proposal is one that cannot benefit the Arabs living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The reason is simple. The Arab "state" would be a dependency of the Israeli economy, which it would consequently drag down, and in addition would be a recipient of European and American largess just to get by.

Just so that you comprehend, without the burdern of maintaining a military like that of a world power, Israel could get by easily without the foreign "aid" the Americans provide. It is the security burden that weighs down the Israeli economy.

But let me get back to my main point here. Any solution that is to bring about reconciliation between Moslems and Jews must provide for the economic security of Moslems. It is injustice now that Moslem kids have to search the garbage dumpsters of Jerusalem, and that Moslem adults are considered as people to be paid a sub-standard wage. A "two state" solution, as is constantly harped on by people like Temporal, Anamika and Sujai would only further that injustice and create more poverty and anger among Arabs in this neck of the woods... The result would be an irredentist Wahhabi based movement to destroy Israel getting more and more support from Arabs here.

That's not peace - that's war.

And yes, there is a way out.

Abdallah,

As I pointed out to you "there is a way out".

Initially, when the Arabs conquered this land, Omar, for whom the Golden Dome on the Temple Mount is named, considered building a mosque north of the original site of the Holy of Holies on the Temple Mount, so that Jews and Moslems, worshipping pretty much together, would both face south - Moslems toward Makka, Jews toward the Holy of Holies. At one time, apparently, Jews could worship as Jews in a mosque.

There are enough similarities between Jews and Moslems that they can worship together. Wrest reconciliation out of hatred, and that could possibly occur again. The prophecy in Isaiah about the Children of Kedar sacrificing bulls at the Temple indicates that it will happen again in the future. How near that future is depends on what we do.

THE STEER SHALL NOT BE PRESENT TO PROTEST WHILST THE BUTCHERS DISCUSS HOW TO CUT HIM UP

First a brief note on why I pay so little attention to the doings of the Israeli government. I don't know if you noticed but they are on their way out, being slowly executed by Americans whose loyalty is to the Saudi thugdom and their corporate masters in the oil and banking establishment, pigs like James Baker. Baker proposes a meeting at Madrid (or somewhere like it) where ISRAEL WILL NOT BE PRESENT SO THAT THE MEETING WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO JEWISH PRESSURE Baker is telling Olmert and all the other fools who think that America is a friend to Israel that the steer shall not be present to protest whilst the butchers discuss how to butcher him.

Why waste words on what will soon be a corpse? It is wiser to look to the future and build an alternative.

There will be a Jewish entity here after the State of Israel either collapses or is brought down, and there will be a need to secure a decent future for both Jews and Moslems on a basis of justice and common beliefs. That will NOT occur at the hands of the oil and banking establishment, to whom we are mere wogs to be exploited and ordered around.

BUILDING A COMMON FUTURE OF PROSPERITY

I had posted a comment here indicating how I thought we could proceed to provide a secure economic future for Arabs in this country, end a humiliating military occupation, and provide political representation for the Arabs living in Eretz Yisrael - all without sacrificing Hebrew sovereignty over this land. Why can't we sacrifice Hebrew sovereignty? Because we do not have the right to give away G-d's land. Any Hebrew who seeks to give away what G-d has gifted him with to a non-Hebrew will fail in his efforts. All the innumerable plans to bring peace here by denying Hebrews their home have failed. One definition of insanity is repeatedly trying to do what has been already demonstrated as a failure.

Let us step into a sane world. Let us talk about peace.

Let's start by granting Jordanian citizenship to all resident Arabs here (nota bene: Druze and Cherkessim, though they speak Arabic, are not Arabs). The king of Jordan becomes "king of the Palestinians", making legal what is already nearly a reality. This means that all resident Arabs will have a "homeland," and will, under no definition of international law, be stateless persons. At present, those under the control of the Palestinian Authority are very close to being stateless persons. Palestine is not a sovereign state, and the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria are not Israeli citizens.

Let's give the king of the Palestinians the right to have a home in Jerusalem, one near Pisgat Ze'ev that overlooks the Temple Mount from the north - one such home was already under construction before the Six Day War.

Resident Arabs will have the right to elect delegates from the Arab provinces of Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Nablus, and a new one in Gaza to the parliament in Amman, and for the most part, they will be under Jordanian law. But the entire territrory will be under joint control of the Jewish entity and Jordan with the Jewish entity having sovereinty up to the Jordan river. Bear in mind that Jordan is already a "Palestinian state," so the issues will be how to make this enlarged "Palestinian" state viable and prosperous, AND how to make sure that the descendants of all those Arabs who had to leave there homes west of the Jordan in 1948-9 have prosperity and security.

This Arab state, partly independent, and partly under Hebrew sovereignty, will be able to absorb all those in refugee camps who now suffer from anger and a lack of justice, and give them prefabs and the long deserved opportunity to imrove their lives. The day of the Arab refugee must end. The day of the UN intervening in the lives of such peple to enable terror groups to grow must also end.

FUELING PROSPERITY

This is a land that grows olives, and olives, aside from being good in martinis, make good oil. This oil can be used in cooking and eating to the benefit of the eater - it is far superior to the rapeseed oil (aka Canola) now being pushed all over the world by the Canadian Agriculture Ministry.

It is also good for fuel.

Biodiesel - diesel fuel made without petroleum - is the key to prosperity for this part of the world. You modify the diesel engine slightly, use olive oil and some other chemicals to make a bio-diesel fuel to run the engine, and you cut down immensely on both pollution and the use of oil. You still do need petroleum as a lubricant for the engine, but one uses far less of petroleum for lubricating oil than for gasoline.

One result of switching to bio-diesel is that the price of petrol would drop immensely.

One could continue to use petroleum to make plastics to house computers and other products that are do not come in contact with things that people eat, and the housings would be less expensive than they are now, thus further depressing the price of computers, making them more common and available to poor people. This would give many poor people with reasonable educations a chance to make money educating those with less education, so that all could benefit from the benefits that computers bring (the ability to do an immense amount of mathematical operations in mere seconds)

The key to all of this is finding the money that will fund this kind of economic development and in seeing to it that any economy that develops here develops without reference to the soon to collapse economy of America, not to mention that of Europe...

EVERYBODY CAN SIT UNDER HIS PWN FIG TREE IN PEACE

There is an immense amount of money floating around in Israel. The reason nobody mentions it is that Israel's version of Inland Revenue would come sniffing it out like a junkyard dog, turning everybody's pocket upside down to empty every shekel it could find and put in the Israeli treasury, where it would be promptly stolen by the politicians in control. That is the money that can be used to build the prosperity I'm talking about.

Let's bring this down to base level.

There is nothing wrong with resettling Jews in their homes in Gaza and refunding the hothuses they used to grow Qatif vegetables. Also, there is nothing wrong with building Arab owned hothouses so that they too can grow and market vegetables using the technology we have developed. The price of the vegetables will drop and they can be shipped all over the world, not just to Europe. People in India and Pakistan also can have Gaza grown vegetables on their tables if the prices are low enough, and the profit to the growers will come from the volume of the sales, rather than a high unit price.

There are similar joint projects that can be pursued in Samaria and Judea, where Arabs and Jews, instead of trying to use olive trees and grape vines to make political points against
each other, work them together for common benefit.

I frankly admit that I am not an expert in economic development, and my ideas, as they look right now, seem half baked. But the home grown experts are here and certainly in Jordan as well, and given that there will be funding for economic development, economic development will result, provided the international banking giants and corporate mafias are kept out.

The big price that will need to be paid will be the determination to keep the hate, anger and spirit of recrimination and blame that has dominated the past in the past, and the recognition that the common enemy of the Children of Abraham, all of us Semites, is America and Europe.

If this seems like a comment you have already read, it is. A comment like this that I posted was erased in chasing down spam and has not be reposted to his article.