Secret Chief
Very strong language
Indeed.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Israel Frozen Out
- Thread starter Secret Chief
- Start date
Sorry man, I just went through all of this with Justanatheist. I'll be sitting this one out.
rosends
Well-Known Member
It seems that only Britain meddled. Every conquest before that dating back to 70CE was not meddling.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Perhaps Turkey should be put back in charge of the area.
The Ottomans knew how to keep control.
The Ottomans knew how to keep control.
So are you for reinstating the Ottoman empire?
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
Another View.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry called Ben & Jerry’s decision to act according to international law — that is, not to treat the territories occupied by a foreign state as territories that belong to that state — a “discriminatory and immoral decision” that “harms Israelis and Palestinians alike.” The ministry’s commitment to equality when it comes to the right to eat ice cream is inspiring.
The Foreign Ministry further claimed that Ben & Jerry’s decision “does not promote peace and conflict resolution, but rather strengthens opponents of reconciliation between the two peoples.” I have no idea how much influence an ice cream corporation can have on promoting peace, but what I do know is that for there to be peace and some kind of “solution to the conflict,” we, as Israelis, must deal with the occupation.
Yes, take away our ice cream
The Israeli Foreign Ministry called Ben & Jerry’s decision to act according to international law — that is, not to treat the territories occupied by a foreign state as territories that belong to that state — a “discriminatory and immoral decision” that “harms Israelis and Palestinians alike.” The ministry’s commitment to equality when it comes to the right to eat ice cream is inspiring.
The Foreign Ministry further claimed that Ben & Jerry’s decision “does not promote peace and conflict resolution, but rather strengthens opponents of reconciliation between the two peoples.” I have no idea how much influence an ice cream corporation can have on promoting peace, but what I do know is that for there to be peace and some kind of “solution to the conflict,” we, as Israelis, must deal with the occupation.
Yes, take away our ice cream
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
I certainly do not, but the Israeli who wrote the article would. And yes I know you were being sarcastic but you gave me the opportunity to point out it was not a meddling brit who wrote it!I don't think you appreciate just how hot it is in Israel right now.
You know, I respect you for being proud of your Britishness. I don't think there's enough of nationalistic pride nowadays in the West.I certainly do not, but the Israeli who wrote the article would. And yes I know you were being sarcastic but you gave me the opportunity to point out it was not a meddling brit who wrote it!
Secret Chief
Very strong language
Not the Palestinians then?
rosends
Well-Known Member
He said "back in charge" and as there was never a Palestinian government (or sovereign entity) that was in charge, he couldn't be referring to them.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
He also said "should be" - a suggestion regarding the future.
rosends
Well-Known Member
ah, so grammatically, it would make sense to you to say "the Boombadingians should be put back in charge of the United States"?
There never were any Boombadingians and they were never in charge, but it is talking about the future...so in the future, they who don't exist should be put "back" in charge?
OK, got it.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
Yes, well done, that's exactly the point I was making.
Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
True I was referring to the Ottoman Turks.
Though it is also true that they were the leaders of most of the Muslim world. Which also included large parts of eastern Europe.
The Jewish people were a small minority in the Palestine Trans Jordan region and were treated much like the other inhabitants of the area with a firm hand.
Israel had never been a sovereign Jewish state since well before Babylonian times.
Throughout history it's tenure of the land has been transitory at best.
This situation is likely to continue into the future. The past 70 or so years may well prove as transitory as their past. There seem to be no guarantees about the permanence of national sovereignty anywhere. The smaller and the more contentious the country the greater the risk.
The Hasmonean kingdom doesn't count?
rosends
Well-Known Member
also, even one is (mathematically speaking) infinitely more than any Palestinian sovereign anything.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Some scholars would say that it would count as an independent state, however it was perhaps more of a Vacuum filler than a independent state. And was soon (in less than 170 years) reabsorbed as a vassal state of the Roman Empire and later totally destroyed by them. However Hasmonean boundaries at their maximum seem to be those that Israel is attempting to obtain for itself today.
However the entire area had been a melting pot of competing major powers for hundreds of years, which continue to this day.
What we call the Palestinians, today, are simply the long time Inhabitants of that area who did not happen to be Jews. and from whom the Jewish state continues to take land.
The Kings of England held large parts of what is now France, mainly by inheritance, for far longer than that. yet today has no ambition to reacquire its original Norman homelands.