Israel and Islamist Inconsistency

[Debater Slayer]

Let's be sure to not demonize the Palestinians for hypocrisy of outsiders.
There's a common tendency to justify denying people rights by such ad hominem.

I explicitly stated my belief that Israel is infringing on Palestinian people's rights by expanding illegal settlements. Not sure where you're getting this "denying people rights" conclusion from.

 

[Debater Slayer]

@RocketJSquirell, I'm not interested in walls of text that only serve to elevate Israel to idolatrous levels. If you would like to stay on topic and respond to the OP without copying and pasting, that's fine. Copying and pasting huge text that has been posted elsewhere on the web is also not welcome in light of Rules 4 and 7.

 

[Revoltingest]

I explicitly stated my belief that Israel is infringing on Palestinian people's rights by expanding illegal settlements. Not sure where you're getting this "denying people rights" conclusion from.

It's just a general caution relating to your thread, not about you.
We sometimes see posters excuse injustices by attributing faults to victims.

 

[Augustus]

Taqiyya
Put simply, this is a Muslim propensity for falsehoods or deception in certain circumstances. This behavior is not only approved but sometimes mandated by Sharia (Islamic) law if it benefits Islam or protects Muslims.

This is one of the the most stupid arguments in modern religious/political discourse.

Even completely ignoring whether it is a misrepresentation or not (which it likely is), it is just idiotic.

All groups frequently lie when it benefits them, you don't need a fancy Arabic word and to claim that it is a unique "Muslim" problem. Even suggesting it is an issue makes it seem like everybody else are honest truth seekers except these 'devious Muslims' who are allowed to lie, whereas nobody else would ever do that as it's just so immoral.

Donald Trump isn't a Muslim, but he practices taqiyya almost every time he speaks.

 

[rosends]

This is one of the the most stupid arguments in modern religious/political discourse.

Even completely ignoring whether it is a misrepresentation or not (which it likely is), it is just idiotic.

All groups frequently lie when it benefits them, you don't need a fancy Arabic word and to claim that it is a unique "Muslim" problem. Even suggesting it is an issue makes it seem like everybody else are honest truth seekers except these 'devious Muslims' who are allowed to lie, whereas nobody else would ever do that as it's just so immoral.

Donald Trump isn't a Muslim, but he practices taqiyya almost every time he speaks.

While what you say is fine and true, if the argument is that there is a codified and theologically sound practice of misrepresentation, then that might serve (among others who ascribe to systems of belief/thought which ostensibly condemn misrepresentation) to change how a person receives messages from practitioners of that other system and how they establish a presumed truth value.

If I say, "politicians lie" and you accept that, then the next time a politician speaks (shades of Living Colour here) that leader can be judged as more likely to be lying. The fact that individuals in any context might be lying seems to me to be categorically different from saying that an adherent to a faith is allowed to lie.

 

[Augustus]

If I say, "politicians lie" and you accept that, then the next time a politician speaks (shades of Living Colour here) that leader can be judged as more likely to be lying. The fact that individuals in any context might be lying seems to me to be categorically different from saying that an adherent to a faith is allowed to lie.

Genuine question: What were the opinions of Jewish scholars regarding forced baptism? Could a Jew be outwardly baptised to safeguard their life, as long as they inwardly remained true to the teachings and beliefs of Judaism?

 

[rosends]

Genuine question: What were the opinions of Jewish scholars regarding forced baptism? Could a Jew be outwardly baptised to safeguard their life, as long as they inwardly remained true to the teachings and beliefs of Judaism?

I don't think "baptism" is the issue as it is simply a ritual imported from Judaism which, out of context, holds no particular value. But generalizing to forced conversions, this is a big (and good) question. As with most questions, there are many opinions, most of which contradict other opinions. There is an underlying concept that there are three "cardinal" sins which demand that one dies before committing (Maimonides discusses these in Chapter 5 of his Mishne Torah, the section about the underlying foundations of law). One of them is idol worship. The specifics, definitions of terms and conditions and such are extensively debated.

 

[RocketJSquirell]

Marcello - Israeli technology and innovation is mostly due to necessity. Israel is a very small country with few natural resources and a lot of challenges. The only natural resource which is abundant in Israel are its people. Israelis have had to develop quickly in order to absorb its ever increasing population and defend itself. It was a matter of sink or swim, so they put a lot of effort into swimming. The bet paid off.

 

[RocketJSquirell]

Genuine question: What were the opinions of Jewish scholars regarding forced baptism? Could a Jew be outwardly baptised to safeguard their life, as long as they inwardly remained true to the teachings and beliefs of Judaism?

This is not the proper forum for the question, but forced conversions / forced baptisms are not considered to be renunciations of ones Judaism. For that matter, even people who voluntarily convert to Christianity are allowed to repent and return to the community. Let me know if you need a more extensive answer.

 

[Augustus]

This is not the proper forum for the question, but forced conversions / forced baptisms are not considered to be renunciations of ones Judaism. For that matter, even people who voluntarily convert to Christianity are allowed to repent and return to the community. Let me know if you need a more extensive answer.

Why have many Jews preferred to die rather than accept forced conversion if it isn't a problem? Be that in the 7th C Roman Empire or 11th C France (or other times and places).

 

[Tumah]

Why have many Jews preferred to die rather than accept forced conversion if it isn't a problem? Be that in the 7th C Roman Empire or 11th C France (or other times and places).

Because although one doesn't transgress the negative commandment against idol worship when it is through coercion, there is still a positive commandment to sacrifice one's self for the sake of not performing this transgression (as well as the transgression against murder and illicit relations).

 

[Tumah]

I always wonder, does the progressiveness of Israel,its advanced technology depend on European/west origin of Jews?

Allow me to make you aware of the fact that Jews originate from many countries throughout the world (although ultimately, we originate from the ME) and those Jews that come from Europe represent maybe half of world (and Israeli) Jewry.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Territorial disputes tend to run down to "We owned it once, so it's ours forever because we owned it. You have to give it back to us. It's ours and you stole it." If you own 'their' land "Why should we give it back to you, it's our land. We own it. How can we steal our own land?"

Animated map showing Israel throughout history (It is not totally accurate, but you get the message)

In truth, the history of the Middle East is irrelevant.
Israel is a country the same way that every other country in the world is a country - including every "country" in the Middle East and North Africa - through the Right of Conquest and self governance. There is no "Palestine" because those Arabs have neither conquered nor, in the case of Gaza, are able to govern themselves. Much of the Arab Middle East and North Africa has faced this same problem since those particular "countries" conquered their respective territories in the 20th Century. Many of them have been unable to govern their territories and are losing them to rival clans; political factions; and sects of Islam. Throughout all of history, up to and including today, people have only been able to hold onto their countries by their ability to pacify the population through either conquest; self governance; or both.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Is there or is there not an international charter stating much of the modern Israeli land is an illegal occupation? It's a simple question. May be you or someone else can answer it on a second attempt.

Hint: use google.

Nope.
There are UN resolutions that claim to state such things.

As far as international charters go - the San Remo Conference granted what essentially was the British Mandate of Palestine as a Homeland for Jews. This same convention granted most of the rest of the Middle East as homelands for various Arabs.
These agreements by the San Remo Conference were upheld by an International Court of Law.
And, the UN Charter, Chapter 8; Article 80 states:

1. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.

Which, in essence, means that Great Britain violated the San Remo Conference by giving Transjordan to the Hashemites and by suggesting the remaining Mandate be divided between Arabs and Jews.
And, that ALL resolutions by the UN against the JEWISH State of Israel have been illegal.

Of course, these points are all moot anyway as the majority of Israel's neighbors in the Arab world, including the Arabs called Palestinians, do NOT even recognize the existence of the State of Israel and never recognized the so called 1967 borders in the first place.

 

[Augustus]

In truth, the history of the Middle East is irrelevant.
Israel is a country the same way that every other country in the world is a country - including every "country" in the Middle East and North Africa - through the Right of Conquest and self governance.

That was my point.