Bush Plans Iran Invasion

[Carrera]

"History also shows us that these people have managed to antagonise just about everyone, at various times.
That is why they have been on the receiving end from practically everyone."

So far as Roman history is concerned (or Edward Gibbon was concerned), it was the Christians that fit the description of what you point out above, as the writers Suetonius and Tacitus described:

"afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae;" ("the Christians were penalised as men who adhered to a new and evil superstition."

Again, the Romans were able to control the Jews up to a certain point, but their main conflict lay with the Christians since the latter refused to enlist in the army, accept the pagan gods or recognise the Roman state. Christians came from all races and the doctrine basically split from Jewish orthodoxy.

Persecutions of the Christians were similar to the Nazi persecution of the Jews, and for the same reasons, more or less. Christians in the East were forced to sacrifice to the Roman gods or face being declared outcasts. In many cases they were tortured - Nero had them torn to pieces by wild dogs in the arena or crucified e.t.c. Thousands perished.

All minority groups have suffered such persecutions in history, especially if such groups retain a separate identity. Hence, you have moral campaigns against gays and lesbians, persecution of Moslems, Jews e.t.c. e.t.c.

Both Jews and Moslems seem to be regarded with suspicion in Europe.

Hezbollah.
Hezbollah successfully forced the jews/israeli's out of Lebannon in the early 1980's and have underpined the relative calm of Lebannon - so the issue of Hezbollah being involved in Palestine is factually incorrect.

(Great program recently on BBC about Lebannon and how Hezbollah have set up medical and educational services throughout Lebannon).
As regards Hamas, they operate there because of General Sharon and his shooting 3 year old kids and bulldozing houses etc.

Essentially, this discussion is pretty fruitless.
Personally, I do not believe that jews/israeli's ever want peace.

History also shows us that these people have managed to antagonise just about everyone, at various times.
That is why they have been on the receiving end from practically everyone.

When they're given an inch (as in 1948), they stole a mile.
Perhaps this is why they have suffered throughout history - other people recognised what they were dealing with at various times, and they acted accordingly.

Your country plays a dangerous game indulging them, as your country does.

 

[FredC]

You introduced the issue of legality in to this discussion.
You advocated that the Balfour Declaration, League of Nations, gives legal
backing to the creation of Israel and thus you have acknowledged the right of Israel to exist in Palestine.

I contend that none of these declarations have any legal bearing and that the right of Israel to exist in Palestine is not legally binding.

Can you show me proof of the transfer of property deeds from the Palestinians to the Jews who occupy Palestinian land in 1948 ?

Technically this will never be a case, as the land deeds will no longer exist in many cases, it is a spurious as would be the case as trying to redeem lands and property from present day Germany and all other lands. Whether there is law and time on abandoned property is another matter. It is not a recommended procedure due to the exhorbitant cost involved, whereas works of art that were stolen and their provenace proved is a similar but different issue.
The SOI was legally created in 1948 as a homeland for the displaced Jews. The previous catalogues of history leading up to this situation have been well put by Bikerman and Limerickman.
The present day scenario stems from the 1967 war and the illegal occupation and subsequent confiscation of West Bank Arab owned land in contravention of the UN, but with the support of the USA. The building of settlements on territory to which the Jews have no deed of land, and which, no doubt West Bank Arabs can substantiate a claim. Then there is the new wall, which again confiscates legally held Arabs land and properties. No wonder they are hated by others, and has Lim has pointed out for a long time, they have a history of the same attitude.
Oh I see it's the anniversary of Auswits, theyve rolled out a few old tearful ones, not seen much of any of the persecuted others yet.
Hava Nagila.

 

[limerickman]

What makes you think the Argentines would be accepting of Jews? You've stated they were a viable alternative to Palestine.

In my direct answer to you , I said, in the event of the inhabiting population of a territory, agreeing to the annexing of their land............. - I didn't refer to any specific country, Argentina, or otherwise.

 

[limerickman]

"History also shows us that these people have managed to antagonise just about everyone, at various times.
That is why they have been on the receiving end from practically everyone."

So far as Roman history is concerned (or Edward Gibbon was concerned), it was the Christians that fit the description of what you point out above, as the writers Suetonius and Tacitus described:

"afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae;" ("the Christians were penalised as men who adhered to a new and evil superstition."

Again, the Romans were able to control the Jews up to a certain point, but their main conflict lay with the Christians since the latter refused to enlist in the army, accept the pagan gods or recognise the Roman state. Christians came from all races and the doctrine basically split from Jewish orthodoxy.

Persecutions of the Christians were similar to the Nazi persecution of the Jews, and for the same reasons, more or less. Christians in the East were forced to sacrifice to the Roman gods or face being declared outcasts. In many cases they were tortured - Nero had them torn to pieces by wild dogs in the arena or crucified e.t.c. Thousands perished.

All minority groups have suffered such persecutions in history, especially if such groups retain a separate identity. Hence, you have moral campaigns against gays and lesbians, persecution of Moslems, Jews e.t.c. e.t.c.

Both Jews and Moslems seem to be regarded with suspicion in Europe.

I take your point Carerra,

Maybe I didn't articulate my point correctly.
At different times, throughout history, in many diverse locations, the Jews have been persecuted.

It is my contention that perhaps, the Jews themselves may have contributed to this sense antagonism, by refusing to assimiliate.

It is curious that of the three monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), Christianity managed to be adopted by the Romans (after years of persecution) and thus flourished.
Islam was adopted by the Arab peoples and thus flourished.
Judaism never managed to be persuade people, in the same numbers that Islam and Christianity achieved.
Perhaps their refusal to assimilate, precluded their relgion being adopted by
large numbers, as happened with Islam and Christianity.
One cannot simply say that it has been accident of history that Christianity and Islam managed to convert people to their respective priniciples.

I accept your premise that Christianity was devolved from Judaism.
The Jews chose to reject Jesus Christ.
The crossroads where that rejection of Jesus Christ sealed, from a Christian
viewpoint, was in accordance with the pre-ordained (prophesised) return of the Messiah.

 

[Bikerman2004]

In my direct answer to you , I said, in the event of the inhabiting population of a territory, agreeing to the annexing of their land............. - I didn't refer to any specific country, Argentina, or otherwise.

Actually you did refer directly to Argentina. I'll refer you to post #101 on this thread.

If Arthur Balfours 1917 suggestion of South America (Argentina) had been enacted, the problem would have been solved.

 

[limerickman]

Actually you did refer directly to Argentina. I'll refer you to post #101 on this thread.

The exchange has moved on from message 101.

In message 219, you stated

So in others words you would be ok with taking Argentinian land and giving it to the Jews. Just as long as it isn't Palestine? Forgive me for not understanding your logic. Then you would start a thread entitled "Fix the Israel problem and we'll have peace in South America".

Your message (above) was your reply to my message 218 :

"If the inhabiting population of a territory, agreed to the annexing of that territory, then no I wouldn't have a problem with the creation of a homeland.

But that did not happen in Palestine."

Message 218 contains no reference to Argentina or otherwise.

 

[Bikerman2004]

The exchange has moved on from message 101.

In message 219, you stated



Your message (above) was your reply to my message 218 :

"If the inhabiting population of a territory, agreed to the annexing of that territory, then no I wouldn't have a problem with the creation of a homeland.

But that did not happen in Palestine."

Message 218 contains no reference to Argentina or otherwise.

Message 101 does contain your reference to Argentina. Did you mean Argentina in #101, but now don't mean Argentina in #217? Please explain why Argentina was acceptable but now you deny it.

 

[limerickman]

Message 101 does contain your reference to Argentina. Did you mean Argentina in #101, but now don't mean Argentina in #217? Please explain why Argentina was acceptable but now you deny it.

I mentioned Argentina in message 101.
That is not in dispute.

In message 218, you refer to "taking Argentinian land".

Message 219, I state clearly that "If the inhabiting population of a territory, agreed to the annexing of that territory, then no I wouldn't have a problem with the creation of a homeland".

Taking of land does not denote - "the inhabiting population of a territory, agreeing to the annexing of that territory".

It was the taking (stealing) of land that has created the Middle East problem.

If the population of any territory (Argentina/anywhere) agree to the annexing of part of their territory, to create a Jewish homeland (State), then I would not have any disagreement.

I told you this in message 219.

We are going over old ground here.

 

[Bikerman2004]

I mentioned Argentina in message 101.
That is not in dispute.

In message 218, you refer to "taking Argentinian land".

Message 219, I state clearly that "If the inhabiting population of a territory, agreed to the annexing of that territory, then no I wouldn't have a problem with the creation of a homeland".

Taking of land does not denote - "the inhabiting population of a territory, agreeing to the annexing of that territory".

It was the taking (stealing) of land that has created the Middle East problem.

If the population of any territory (Argentina/anywhere) agree to the annexing of part of their territory, to create a Jewish homeland (State), then I would not have any disagreement.

I told you this in message 219.

We are going over old ground here.

You stated that Balfour Declaration mentioned either Argentina or Palestine. That was incorrect. It specifically stated that Palestine should be the homeland. You also stated that if the Argentina plan had been adopted, then we wouldn't have any problems. Balfour didn't mention Argentina because the British had no control over Argentina. However, with the Sykes-Picot Treaty the British knew that if they won the war they would have control over Palestine. The British could then promise Palestine to the Jews.
It is important that we go over old ground. You have no proof that Argentina would have agreed to such a plan, and it is unlikely that they would. Therefore, if the Argentina plan was chosen then it would have resulted in stealing land from Argentines.
That being said, I'm neither pro-Palestinian nor pro-Israel. I am able to see both sides of this argument. I'm also enough of a realist to realize that it will never revert back to pre-1948. They are stuck with either the stupidity of suicide attacks and retaliations or the removal of Israel. It is very evident that it will be the former.

 

[Carrera]

Limerickman, the suggestion simply isn't possible. This would be like asking the Greeks of Athens to abandon Greece and then go to live in the Falkland islands. Or you might as well suggest the Egyptian Arabs abandon Cairo and take up residence in Thailand.
Since way before Islam was ever conceived, the territory the Jews now reside in has been the heritage of Israel and goes back thousands of years. It may well be the case that the Jews stole their original land back from the Arabs but the word we are looking for is "retake by force" not "steal". Certainly you can argue that the legality of forcefully displacing the Arabs is questionable but that's another issue. What you suggest is that the Arabs have more historical right to live in the so-called Holy Land than the Jews do.
To my mind there are several realities to consider:
(1) Judaic religion is considerably older than Islam and Jewish history/culture is deeply rooted in Jerusalem and the surrounding territory. As I said, the Romans themselves never disputed that fact and took the same attitude to Egypt. The reason the Romans crushed Israel in 70 A.D. was due to extreme zionist movements that opposed Roman occupation.
(2) 3000 Jews a day were murdered by ****** for many months. Millions of Jews were wiped out. Therefore, Israel decided to retake land that had belonged to them for thousands of years and from which they had been forcibly scattered by various imperial powers in the past. It was an ugly business but perhaps the Jews perceived it as an act of pure survival.
I suppose Israel was backed by the U.S. at the time for simple reasons: European and American culture has been influenced far more by the Jews than by Arabs, except perhaps in Southern Spain. Israel also shares some degree of democratic values with the west and is the source of Catholicism which in turn predominates in Spain, Italy, Ireland and the U.S. From a cultural, historical perspective, the west has more in common with Israel than we do with the Arabs - though that might not have been the case had Persia won the war against mainland Greece around the 6th century BC.
Therefore, we are left with a major problem. There is no possible way the Jews would ever abandon Israel from their current position of strength. Likewise, I doubt the Arabs will ever accept any kind of compensation for the land retaken from them.
The only possible solution is for the 2 sides to agree to reach some kind of compromise and agree to seek peace but if that doesn't happen the whole conflict may well escalate.

I mentioned Argentina in message 101.
That is not in dispute.

In message 218, you refer to "taking Argentinian land".

Message 219, I state clearly that "If the inhabiting population of a territory, agreed to the annexing of that territory, then no I wouldn't have a problem with the creation of a homeland".

Taking of land does not denote - "the inhabiting population of a territory, agreeing to the annexing of that territory".

It was the taking (stealing) of land that has created the Middle East problem.

If the population of any territory (Argentina/anywhere) agree to the annexing of part of their territory, to create a Jewish homeland (State), then I would not have any disagreement.

I told you this in message 219.

We are going over old ground here.

 

[Carrera]

On Hard Talk the other day, a member of the Bush Administration was invited to discuss the Iran situation. He expressed the notion that it is more or less inevitable the U.S. will attack Iran. The guy was talking about taking out Iran's entire air force by precision bombing.
All in all, seems to me live a highly volatile situation. Many journalists have commented that resistance in Iran will be pretty stiff.
There is another problem to consider as well. If Bush attacks Iran, North Korea will assume it's inevitable they will also be attacked at a later stage and start getting jumpy. Militarily Noth Korea is way ahead of either Iran or Iraq.

 

[limerickman]

You stated that Balfour Declaration mentioned either Argentina or Palestine. That was incorrect. It specifically stated that Palestine should be the homeland. You also stated that if the Argentina plan had been adopted, then we wouldn't have any problems. Balfour didn't mention Argentina because the British had no control over Argentina. However, with the Sykes-Picot Treaty the British knew that if they won the war they would have control over Palestine. The British could then promise Palestine to the Jews.
It is important that we go over old ground. You have no proof that Argentina would have agreed to such a plan, and it is unlikely that they would. Therefore, if the Argentina plan was chosen then it would have resulted in stealing land from Argentines.
That being said, I'm neither pro-Palestinian nor pro-Israel. I am able to see both sides of this argument. I'm also enough of a realist to realize that it will never revert back to pre-1948. They are stuck with either the stupidity of suicide attacks and retaliations or the removal of Israel. It is very evident that it will be the former.

I think you're engaged in a "who'll have the last word" on this topic.
You continuously shift the goalposts to this end.

Messages 200-to present, appeared to be about discussing possible solutions.

Today you revert to message 101, to try to contradict the solutions that I advocated, in message 219.

You falsely allege that I suggest "taking land from the Argentinians".
I never suggested the taking of land from anyone.
I said that the only way a peaceful solution can be arrived at - is by persuading the inhabitants of a territory to agree to the annexation of their land.
This is totally different to "the taking of land" as you infer.

And above, you claim to be impartial - yet you say and I quote "with either the stupidity of suicide attacks and retaliations", when referring to Palestinians.
That statement doesn't denote impartiality on your part toward the Palestinians.

My message 219 is quite clear and unequivocal - "If the inhabiting population of a territory, agreed to the annexing of that territory, then no I wouldn't have a problem with the creation of a homeland".

If the people of Argentina/Ireland/USA, or anywhere else for that matte, were prepared to agree with the annexing of their territory, I would be agreeable.
You asked me for a solution - and that is the solution.

No agreement was sought with the Palestinians for the annexation of their land in 1948.
That is why we have the Middle East situation.

Finally, in relation to Balfour, the final draft communicated, only referred to Palestine.
The initial draft, never mentioned any country.

Argentina and Palestine and Uganda had been proposed locations for a Jewish State - which the British were formulating.

However, no amount of Balfour Declarations, League of Nations Declarations,
statement or words, legalises what happened in 1948.

You chose to recognise and support the creation of Israel in Palestine.

I do not recognise or support the creation of Israel in Palestine.

 

[limerickman]

Since way before Islam was ever conceived, the territory the Jews now reside in has been the heritage of Israel and goes back thousands of years. It may well be the case that the Jews stole their original land back from the Arabs but the word we are looking for is "retake by force" not "steal". Certainly you can argue that the legality of forcefully displacing the Arabs is questionable but that's another issue. What you suggest is that the Arabs have more historical right to live in the so-called Holy Land than the Jews do.
To my mind there are several realities to consider:
(1) Judaic religion is considerably older than Islam and Jewish history/culture is deeply rooted in Jerusalem and the surrounding territory. As I said, the Romans themselves never disputed that fact and took the same attitude to Egypt. The reason the Romans crushed Israel in 70 A.D. was due to extreme zionist movements that opposed Roman occupation.

(2) 3000 Jews a day were murdered by ****** for many months. Millions of Jews were wiped out. Therefore, Israel decided to retake land that had belonged to them for thousands of years and from which they had been forcibly scattered by various imperial powers in the past. It was an ugly business but perhaps the Jews perceived it as an act of pure survival.
I suppose Israel was backed by the U.S. at the time for simple reasons: European and American culture has been influenced far more by the Jews than by Arabs, except perhaps in Southern Spain. Israel also shares some degree of democratic values with the west and is the source of Catholicism which in turn predominates in Spain, Italy, Ireland and the U.S. From a cultural, historical perspective, the west has more in common with Israel than we do with the Arabs - though that might not have been the case had Persia won the war against mainland Greece around the 6th century BC.
Therefore, we are left with a major problem. There is no possible way the Jews would ever abandon Israel from their current position of strength. Likewise, I doubt the Arabs will ever accept any kind of compensation for the land retaken from them.
The only possible solution is for the 2 sides to agree to reach some kind of compromise and agree to seek peace but if that doesn't happen the whole conflict may well escalate.

Maybe I am not articulating my points.

I haven't advocated that the first inhabitants have all claims to respective lands.

What I am saying is that, we're on a property in Palestine in 1948 and suddenly a whole group of Jews arrive and move in to our property, that we occupy at that moment in time.

This is what happened.

The people on that property were forcibly removed from that property in 1948 to accomodate Jews.
To me, that is an injustice and it is illegal.

People can decide if they support or reject, what happened in 1948.

I am aware of what ****** and countless others, in many different regions, did to the Jews throughout history.
But none of what happened to the Jews, vindicates what happened in Palestine in 1948.

 

[Bikerman2004]

I think you're engaged in a "who'll have the last word" on this topic.
You continuously shift the goalposts to this end.

Messages 200-to present, appeared to be about discussing possible solutions.

Today you revert to message 101, to try to contradict the solutions that I advocated, in message 219.

You falsely allege that I suggest "taking land from the Argentinians".
I never suggested the taking of land from anyone.
I said that the only way a peaceful solution can be arrived at - is by persuading the inhabitants of a territory to agree to the annexation of their land.
This is totally different to "the taking of land" as you infer.

And above, you claim to be impartial - yet you say and I quote "with either the stupidity of suicide attacks and retaliations", when referring to Palestinians.
That statement doesn't denote impartiality on your part toward the Palestinians.

My message 219 is quite clear and unequivocal - "If the inhabiting population of a territory, agreed to the annexing of that territory, then no I wouldn't have a problem with the creation of a homeland".

If the people of Argentina/Ireland/USA, or anywhere else for that matte, were prepared to agree with the annexing of their territory, I would be agreeable.
You asked me for a solution - and that is the solution.

No agreement was sought with the Palestinians for the annexation of their land in 1948.
That is why we have the Middle East situation.

Finally, in relation to Balfour, the final draft communicated, only referred to Palestine.
The initial draft, never mentioned any country.

Argentina and Palestine and Uganda had been proposed locations for a Jewish State - which the British were formulating.

However, no amount of Balfour Declarations, League of Nations Declarations,
statement or words, legalises what happened in 1948.

You chose to recognise and support the creation of Israel in Palestine.

I do not recognise or support the creation of Israel in Palestine.

All I want to know is how Argentina or Uganda would be any different than Palestine? Since the British were formulating a plan, how did they intend to acquire the land in those countries? There is no proof that these countries were willing to forfeit land.
With all respect, you are shifting the 'goalposts'. I initially replied that the Balfour Declaration made no mention of Argentina. I also stated positions from which both sides draw their conclusions. From there we've gone over legality and that I recognize and support Israel. These are positions forwarded by you.

 

[davidmc]

From: The World of Christopher Marlowe. Marlowe was one of the best poets Britain (read-"the world") has ever produced. The poet (Marlowe) asserted that Moses was a "juggler" who could easily fool the gullible Jews, that Christ was a ******* and his mother dishonest. Also that he, Marlowe, could come up pronto with a much better religion than the filthily written New Testament. Further, that St. John the Evangelist was Christ's bedfellow, who used him as the sinners of Sodom,...Moreover, that he had as good a right to coin money as the queen. I post this to point out the absurdity of the past & present wars/bloodshed perpetrated in the name of who's religion is better. Bush has made "veiled" statements alluding to the fact that he is fighting a crusade of sorts. It would be comical if it weren't so costly in lives & bankrupting our country's economy & standing in the global arena

 

[limerickman]

From: The World of Christopher Marlowe. Marlowe was one of the best poets Britain (read-"the world") has ever produced. The poet (Marlowe) asserted that Moses was a "juggler" who could easily fool the gullible Jews, that Christ was a ******* and his mother dishonest. Also that he, Marlowe, could come up pronto with a much better religion than the filthily written New Testament. Further, that St. John the Evangelist was Christ's bedfellow, who used him as the sinners of Sodom,...Moreover, that he had as good a right to coin money as the queen. I post this to point out the absurdity of the past & present wars/bloodshed perpetrated in the name of who's religion is better. Bush has made "veiled" statements alluding to the fact that he is fighting a crusade of sorts. It would be comical if it weren't so costly in lives & bankrupting our country's economy & standing in the global arena

Religion is used as the pretext to start war.

I feel extremely uncomfortable with Bush (or anyone else) invoking God.
Like your signature says - Politics and Religion ought to be separate.
But can they ever really be separate ?

I didn't see Bush's inaugural address but I understand he invoked God, 20 times during his speech.
OK - we all know that a substantial amount of Americans are churchgoing people and that perhaps he was talking to them in language that they understand.
But it worries me when I hear that type of language - used by a politician

Clergymen are entitled to invoke and speak about God.
I don't think any politician - for any political persuasion - is qualified either ethically or morally, to speak about God.
Especially a warmonger like Bush.

 

[Carrera]

Sure, then we agree on that point. I never expressed the idea that the Palestinians should have been booted out just like that. Neither does any country have the right to abuse foreign peoples or humiliate them, as has been the case with the Palestinians.
I was just watching the Hollocaust memorial and one Jewish surviver said something interesting. He expressed the idea that we all need to stop hating and not persecute minority groups or foreign peoples. Maybe he had Iraq in mind. I always thought that maybe the Iraqis have almost become the Jews of today, though on a much smaller scale.
What does need to be considered, though, is that millions of Jews were slaughtered in concentration camps, together with many Russians and slavs. The Jews had suffered horrific persecution throughout Europe and felt their only refuge was the promised land of old, hostile to them at the time.
That doesn't justify booting the Palestinians out, of course, but I can understand how Jews would have felt after the second world war.

Maybe I am not articulating my points.

I haven't advocated that the first inhabitants have all claims to respective lands.

What I am saying is that, we're on a property in Palestine in 1948 and suddenly a whole group of Jews arrive and move in to our property, that we occupy at that moment in time.

This is what happened.

The people on that property were forcibly removed from that property in 1948 to accomodate Jews.
To me, that is an injustice and it is illegal.

People can decide if they support or reject, what happened in 1948.

I am aware of what ****** and countless others, in many different regions, did to the Jews throughout history.
But none of what happened to the Jews, vindicates what happened in Palestine in 1948.

 

[Carrera]

The history of the Christian religion is kind of interesting. The most interesting point is it was written down way after the crucifixion took place. It's pretty certain that the doctrine had changed somewhat by the time it was written in down.
That doesn't mean to say the events never took place (which they did) but our account of what actually took place and what the Christians originally believed are issues of contention.
The interesting comparison is between 9/11 and the great fire of Rome. After 9/11 Bush began a kind of crusade against Moslems (maybe not 100 per cent intentionally). After the great fire of Rome, Nero blamed the Christians, had them rounded up, thrown to wild dogs, crucified and sawn in half in the amphitheatres. While Rome burned, it was believed Nero took to his lyre and sang the sack of Troy. He also needed a scapegoat to get himself off the hook just as Bush needed Iraq to shift blame from himself.
Despite the persecutions, Rome converted to Christianity and became a kind of theocracy. That would seem to prove you can't stamp out any religion by violence - you just cause it to spread.

From: The World of Christopher Marlowe. Marlowe was one of the best poets Britain (read-"the world") has ever produced. The poet (Marlowe) asserted that Moses was a "juggler" who could easily fool the gullible Jews, that Christ was a ******* and his mother dishonest. Also that he, Marlowe, could come up pronto with a much better religion than the filthily written New Testament. Further, that St. John the Evangelist was Christ's bedfellow, who used him as the sinners of Sodom,...Moreover, that he had as good a right to coin money as the queen. I post this to point out the absurdity of the past & present wars/bloodshed perpetrated in the name of who's religion is better. Bush has made "veiled" statements alluding to the fact that he is fighting a crusade of sorts. It would be comical if it weren't so costly in lives & bankrupting our country's economy & standing in the global arena

 

[Carrera]

Limerickman, did you hear about Constantine the Great? He was the first crusader Roman emperor. He was supposed to have had a dream that if he painted the sign of the cross on the shields of his troops, they would win the war. So, they won and Constantine converted the pagan Roman State to Christianity.
But war wasn't what the first disciples taught or ever justified.
I have a question for you. Have you ever seen an Irish film called "My Friend Joe"? Not the kind of film I'd normally watch but I really enjoyed it. It was partly financed by an American TV company and filmed in Ireland and the U.S. It was about a girl who was disguised as a boy since she (he) worked as a trapeze artist in a circus. There was alot of cycling in it as the kids in the film all had mountain bikes.
And have you ever read any Synge (did I spell it right)? He wrote Playboy Of The Western World.

Religion is used as the pretext to start war.

I feel extremely uncomfortable with Bush (or anyone else) invoking God.
Like your signature says - Politics and Religion ought to be separate.
But can they ever really be separate ?

I didn't see Bush's inaugural address but I understand he invoked God, 20 times during his speech.
OK - we all know that a substantial amount of Americans are churchgoing people and that perhaps he was talking to them in language that they understand.
But it worries me when I hear that type of language - used by a politician

Clergymen are entitled to invoke and speak about God.
I don't think any politician - for any political persuasion - is qualified either ethically or morally, to speak about God.
Especially a warmonger like Bush.

 

[limerickman]

Sure, then we agree on that point. I never expressed the idea that the Palestinians should have been booted out just like that. Neither does any country have the right to abuse foreign peoples or humiliate them, as has been the case with the Palestinians.
I was just watching the Hollocaust memorial and one Jewish surviver said something interesting. He expressed the idea that we all need to stop hating and not persecute minority groups or foreign peoples. Maybe he had Iraq in mind. I always thought that maybe the Iraqis have almost become the Jews of today, though on a much smaller scale.
What does need to be considered, though, is that millions of Jews were slaughtered in concentration camps, together with many Russians and slavs. The Jews had suffered horrific persecution throughout Europe and felt their only refuge was the promised land of old, hostile to them at the time.
That doesn't justify booting the Palestinians out, of course, but I can understand how Jews would have felt after the second world war.

I don't mean to rain on that Jew's persons statement today - but I wonder does that person apply that rule to the Palestinians ?
I never hear any Jewish person, stating that eviction of the Palestinians,
was unjust/unfair.

I can fully understand the international community wanting to create a homeland for the Jewish people.
Given the events of WW2 alone - it is perfectly reasonable for the Jewish people to want a homeland, for security, if nothing else.

But, was the solution arrived at in 1948, really a solution ?
Was the solution - and the subsequent ghettoisation of the Palestinian people, a just solution ?

Would any of those people who died in a gas chamber, condone what has been done to the Palestinians since 1948 ?
I think not.

I think that the Israeli/Jews need to reflect upon todays memorial and think long and hard.

I also think that the Palestinians need to reflect long and hard.

But it is the Jews/Israeli's who have benefitted initially from 1948.
If they are big enough - if they really want to engage - a gesture from them
first might get the ball rolling.