israel "The Holy Land" >> religion or politics?

[TashaN]

Well I guess if the Ashkansim had stayed in Europe, Sephardim in N.Africa and Spain (maybe southern France) and the Arabic/Oriental Jews in the Levant and the Hijaz, without the Zionist Regime there wouldn't be a problem, maybe they could have used their summer breaks to visit Herod's Temple. After all according to...

:clap

 

[TashaN]

I missed this quote The Truth, I have a nice little quote for you. I will give you some context to accompany it as that seems to be the favourite word at the moment, punctuated by the phrase 'anti-semitism', even tho' you wished for this thread to be a political debate it seems it had been steered toward religious arguments.

It occured when a Journalist went through an IDF checkpoint with a Palestinian whereupon the IDF soldier ordered the lawyer to follow commands, then whilst laughing dropped his papers and ordered him to recover them from the floor, explaining;


‘These people will do whatever you tell them to do, if I tell him to jump, he will jump. Run, he will run. Take your clothes off, he will take them off. If I tell him to kiss the wall, he will kiss it. If I tell him to crawl on the road, won’t he crawl?…Everything. Tell him to curse his mother and he will curse her too…Really, not humans.’ (Chomsky, N, 1999, Fateful Triangle, p.490, citing Segez, T.)


So here we have a clear report of the value given to other peoples, one might even say Untermensch to borrow a philosophical term. If I was to expand the model I think it would be fair to consider the State of Israel as gaining Lebensraum much in the vein of the annexe of Sudetenland when it comes to occupied territories. I would ask how far they are prepared to follow the model, but I think I know the answer.

Thanks brother Nehustan for pointing that out.

 

[TashaN]

Good work ("The Truth" and "greatcalgarian")

The conflect between the zionists state and the arabs in the mideast has many faces, regarding every side:
1- zionists
zionism is a blend of national and political ideas strived hard to search on
some religious and hestorical myths to support and reason its actions, which involves
migrating to palestine and then transfering the local inhabitants(muslims and chrestinas) either peacefully or by force.

2- non-zionists jews
some of them really belived in these myths about returning to the holly land,
and others had to migrate for many reasons byond the above mentioned myths;
economical, do anybody remember the propaganda that says "land without people and people without land" ?
racism, as happned in europe before, during, and after the WWII.
some other jews oppose the establishment of israel because it will increase the sufferance of jews and also thier cousins "the arabs"
lots of jew prefer no to mograte to palestine at all and they gone to the south america and usa.
about half of the jews said they will not leave thier homes and stayed in thier countries.


3- arabs people
they found themselves going from biritish to jewish colonialism,
they never accepted the twisted claims of zionism, you know why? simply
because no nation on earth could have such tolerance to accept being quicked off from thier lands
for arabs the truth is very clear and straightforward:
jews never have the right to migrate from thier countries in eruope to occupy and kill thousands based on some myths found in thier old books.
arabs says: no more phelosiphy, it's our lands, one day it will return to us.

4- arab rulers
since most of them are dectators and corrupted regimes, they welcomed the external dispute with israel to fully control
thier people by claiming "no voice raises above the voice of war".
after a series clashs, they realized they can't win with weak countries, especially when usa choose to become a face of a coin and israel the other face.
and instead of building a modern strong states, they hurry to usa and israel to stop the state of warfare,
and also to seek usa support to strenthen thier regimes (especially after USSR collapsing).

5- westren people
either have no idea about what's going on thier, or affected by the zionists tremendous propropaganda machine.

6- westren rulers
There are an old principle in the westren politics, mentioning it will help why israel exists now;
west should prevent -by any means- establishing a superpower in the mideast region.
this "-by any means-" involves, besides many other means, geopolitical separation by planting a forieg hostile colonial state in palestine.
and so, the zionists play it good when they make benefits from the westren powers interests in the region.

So, what's the solution (i mean the fair one not what zionists want to impose on the victims)?
i don't know, maybe it's time for israel leave out these myths and accept palestinians as an equal citizens on a non-jewish state.

I can't say more that you did so far.

well said ..

 

[TashaN]

personally i find 'the truth's statements woefully anti semitic the whole idea of targeting innocent civilians under the palestinian monsters understandable even worse, you are an example of the type of people he warned us about

I don't understand actually .. what are you talking about?

Did you forgot that an arab can claim that others are anti semtic too?

Did you frogot thier father is one "Abraham", the father of Ismael (and arabs) and the father of isaac (and jewish).


Sem·it·ic
a.


Of or pertaining to Shem or his descendants; belonging to that division of the Caucasian race which includes the Arabs, Jews, and related races. [Written also Shemitic.]

Semitic language, a name used to designate a group of Asiatic and African languages, some living and some dead, namely: Hebrew and Phœnician, Aramaic, Assyrian, Arabic, Ethiopic (Geez and Ampharic). Encyc. Brit.


believe me, i know well that you do not know what you are talking about, you and the others who used to repeat anti-semitic ........ bla bla. the arabs are just like them on the same boat in term of being a semitic nation.

 

[Nehustan]

I don't understand actually .. what are you talking about?

Did you forgot that an arab can claim that others are anti semtic too?

Did you frogot thier father is one "Abraham", the father of Ishmael (and arabs) and the father of isaac (and jewish).

Not wanting to correct you brother, and its a small point but not all arabs (or people called Arabs today) are descended from Ishmael. For instance the people's from the southern part of the peninsula (i.e South KSA, and Yemen) were before the coming of Islam 'Bani Israel' tribally descended from Isaac, and when it comes to Bilad As Shams, well what a mixed ethnicity the people of those lands are. Of course if we are not talking tribally but linguistically (i.e. Hebrews and Arabs) then many of the people who consider themself Israeli 'Jews' today (Yemeni, Saudi, Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq, Algeria, Morroco) would have spoken Arabic as their first language with Hebrew (Biblical) being a language of religion, with what is considered Modern Hebrew being a recent language historically. I will leave out the dynamic between Islam and 'Judaism' here so as not to further complicate a complex issue.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Perhaps we're running into a language barrier here?

"Anti-Semitic", at least in most Western countries, is to be against Judaism. It's the same as people holding anger against an entire race of people, or all people of a certain religion. For example, if a person were attacking Islam or Islamic peoples, they would be called "Anti- Muslim". If a person were attacking people who practiced Paganism, they would be called "Anti-Pagan.".

Perhaps that will help our understanding of one another?

 

[Nehustan]

Maybe that this is as a result of the diaspora the majority of semites known to westerner historically were 'Hebrews' or at least their descendants in part. With the knowledge of the world being opened up my communications, travel etc., it is now incorrect usage (verging on ignorant), and maybe we should use the term 'anti-jewish' in its place, unless we are directly speaking about the collective peoples of the Levant, wider Orient, or even east Africa.

 

[Deut 13:1]

I will however maintain the right to quote rabbinical commentary, even though it will be cited as 'out of context' or as 'misrepresentative' or using text as 'anti-semetic'. Just because many people are apologists for things that have been plainly be a theme for many years does not negate that they were (and I'd argue are) commonplace. If your oral tradition had remained just that no one would be any wiser, it would all be guesses. The reason I was unwilling to quote the sources on the net initially (if you remember I said I didn't want to read them!!!!) was because they are obviously biased, and selected. I may well select the very same parts, but the difference is I will have selected them.

Do you know how retarded your appraoch is? I can do the same as this person and pull random quotatoins from the Qu'ran and insist that they are not being taken "out of context" or being "Misrepresentited".

 

[Nehustan]

Do you know how retarded your appraoch is? I can do the same as this person and pull random quotatoins from the Qu'ran and insist that they are not being taken "out of context" or being "Misrepresentited".

Actually very interesting that you quote this thread, I read it last night, and my wife and I sat around discussing it as we had an argument at the weekend. I decided not to comment as that would make me an apologist, which I am not. However the thread and the posters points gave me and my wife something to mull over for about 10 minutes, then share a kiss and carry on with our lives. We both agreed that for a man to even consider using this ayat (verse) to justify violence he would have to be a seriously pious brother, with a seriously wayward wife....but we digress...this can be discussed by people in the other thread.

 

[Nehustan]

Oh and by the way Deut I managed to get some Talmudic books today. I have had a brief look through, but as I also laid my hands on an oustanding translation of the Zohar, I am concentrating on that at the moment.

 

[DTrent]

I'm going to say something that might get my head bitten off but here it goes -
Salvation originates with the Jews but if they realized what a glorious future they could have had by being obedient to God even after Malachi was written, they would not have the title "Jews" anymore. They would all be Christians.
No, not false Christians who support war and involve themselves in politics but the Christians who do not, the ones who love their brothers and let the world and its rulers do as they will while they busy themselves in the Lord's work preaching and teaching the good news of God's kingdom govt.

Fighting over land is futile. Why not share it all? It doesn't BELONG to anyone anyway except to God. The same with "Americans" and Native Americans. (All "Americans" are immigrants anyway except the Native Americans.) It should have been shared, not TAKEN. Land should be for everybody. That's what it's here for. Politically, there's always another reason someone wants land and it's usually OIL!!!!!!!!! It is such a waste of human life...

 

[greatcalgarian]

Perhaps we're running into a language barrier here?

"Anti-Semitic", at least in most Western countries, is to be against Judaism. It's the same as people holding anger against an entire race of people, or all people of a certain religion. For example, if a person were attacking Islam or Islamic peoples, they would be called "Anti- Muslim". If a person were attacking people who practiced Paganism, they would be called "Anti-Pagan.".

Perhaps that will help our understanding of one another?

Frubals:clap

How come we seldom see the western media talking about anti-Islam or anti-Muslim? What we see and hear is that anti-Muslim is virtue, and anti-Muslim is equivalent to anti-Terrorism

 

[Deut 13:1]

I'm going to say something that might get my head bitten off but here it goes -
Salvation originates with the Jews but if they realized what a glorious future they could have had by being obedient to God even after Malachi was written, they would not have the title "Jews" anymore. They would all be Christians.

What a idiotic comment. Either attempt to back that up or don't post such nonsense.

 

[TashaN]

Perhaps we're running into a language barrier here?

"Anti-Semitic", at least in most Western countries, is to be against Judaism. It's the same as people holding anger against an entire race of people, or all people of a certain religion. For example, if a person were attacking Islam or Islamic peoples, they would be called "Anti- Muslim". If a person were attacking people who practiced Paganism, they would be called "Anti-Pagan.".

Perhaps that will help our understanding of one another?

I know well that in the western countries they THINK that anti-semtic means anti-jewish as my brother Nehustan said before but it's not accurate and they should say instead anti-jewish because to be anti-semtic means to be (anti-arabs, anti-jewish and many other races reletaed to it).


Peace ..

 

[Deut 13:1]

Actually very interesting that you quote this thread, I read it last night, and my wife and I sat around discussing it as we had an argument at the weekend. I decided not to comment as that would make me an apologist, which I am not. However the thread and the posters points gave me and my wife something to mull over for about 10 minutes, then share a kiss and carry on with our lives. We both agreed that for a man to even consider using this ayat (verse) to justify violence he would have to be a seriously pious brother, with a seriously wayward wife....but we digress...this can be discussed by people in the other thread.

Okay, so you agree that it isn't being taken out of context?

*mockingly*
I will however maintain the right to quote the quran, even though it will be cited as 'out of context' or as 'misrepresentative' or using text as 'anti-muslim'. Just because many people are apologists for things that have been plainly be a theme for many years does not negate that they were (and I'd argue are) commonplace.
*end mockingly*

Notice that? I could care less what you and your wife argued about. Fact remains using your logic (Because it's written), it's irrelevant that you and yer wife feel he would be a pious brother, fact is, it's written. So by your logic, your entire religion is one of wife beating, unless... You want to say that's being taken out of context.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I know well that in the western countries they THINK that anti-semtic means anti-jewish as my brother Nehustan said before but it's not accurate and they should say instead anti-jewish because to be anti-semtic means to be (anti-arabs, anti-jewish and many other races reletaed to it).

The meaning of a term is determined by history and practice, not etymology ...

What's in a Hyphen?
by Shmuel Almog​

A seemingly minor point crops up from time to time but grows in importance the more you reflect upon it. Should one write 'anti-Semitism' with a hypen or 'antisemitism' as one word?

What is the importance of such a technical question and why should anyone, apart from type-setters and proof-readers, worry about it?....

Let me start at the beginning: When did the word 'antisemitism' make its first appearance? It is generally attributed to Wilhelm Marr, who was called by the Israeli historian Moshe Zimmermann "The Patriarch of Antisemitism." Marr coined the term in the 1870s to distinguish betwee old-time Jew-hatred and modern, political, ethnic, or racial opposition to the Jews. This term made great advances and soon became common usage in many languages. So much so, that it applied not just to the modern brand of Jew-hatred but--against all logic--was attached to all kinds of enmity toward Jews, past and present. Thus we now say 'antisemitism', even when we talk about remote periods in the past, when one had no inkling of this modern usage. Purists no longer cry out in dismay against such anachronistic practice; it is currently established procedure to use 'antisemitism' for all types of Jew-hatred.

Let's go back to the hyphen then. What's the difference? If you use the hyphenated form, you consider the words 'Semitism', 'Semite', 'Semitic' as meaningful. They supposedly convey an image of a real substance, of a real group of people--the Semites, who are said to be a race. This is a misnomer: firstly, because 'semitic' or 'aryan' were originally language groups, not people; but mainly because in antisemitic parlance, 'Semites' really stands for Jews, just that.

And mind you, Jews are not a race at all. They do not all have inherent characteristics in common that may distinguish them from other people. What unites them is a tradition, culture, history , destiny maybe, but not genetics. If you do assume for a moment that Semites are a special race, consider also the implication that this so-called race comprises both Jews and Arabs. One often talks of the kinship between these two, who are now at loggerheads with each other. Be that as it may, antisemites talking against 'Semites' do not generally refer to Arabs; they mean Jews. So did the Nazis who killed the Jews and invited cooperation from the Arabs.

It is obvious then that 'anti-Semitism' is a non-term, because it is not directed against so-called 'Semitism'. If there is any substance to the term, it is only to denote a specifically anti-Jewish movement. Antisemitism is a generic term which signifies a singular attitude to a particular group of people. As the late philosopher Zvi Diesendruck pointed out, "There has never been coined a standing term for the merely negative attitude" to any other people in history. Only antisemitism; only against Jews.

So the hyphen, or rather its omission, conveys a message; if you hyphenate your 'anti-Semitism', you attach some credence to the very foundation on which the whole thing rests. Strike out the hyphen and you will treat antisemitism for what it really is--a generic name for modern Jew-hatred which now embraces this phenomenon as a whole, past, present and--I am afraid--future as well.

- source

 

[BUDDY]

What a idiotic comment. Either attempt to back that up or don't post such nonsense.

When taken from the christian perspective, the comment is true. I think that it was put in a tactful and kind manner and was stated as opinion. Your knee jerk reaction to the comment leaves much to be desired, however. From the christian perspective, and study of the new testament, particularly the book of Hebrews adn the first two chapters of Romans, God's desire was for the christian message to the jewish community first. It was, according to those books, His desire that His chosen people accept a new message and changed their religious title to christian. I believe this is what DTrent is trying to say.

 

[Nehustan]

Okay, so you agree that it isn't being taken out of context?

*mockingly*
I will however maintain the right to quote the quran, even though it will be cited as 'out of context' or as 'misrepresentative' or using text as 'anti-muslim'. Just because many people are apologists for things that have been plainly be a theme for many years does not negate that they were (and I'd argue are) commonplace.
*end mockingly*

Notice that? I could care less what you and your wife argued about. Fact remains using your logic (Because it's written), it's irrelevant that you and yer wife feel he would be a pious brother, fact is, it's written. So by your logic, your entire religion is one of wife beating, unless... You want to say that's being taken out of context.

Actually I'd say that you have made a valid point which would certainly be an interpretation of the text. I don't have to justify it, anymore than I have to follow it, life is about choices. If it turns out that I should have followed the instruction and have erred in not, then I hope that Allah is merciful to me. It is however kufr to say that this ayat is invalid for Muslims, or to apologise for it.

As to the 'mocking', if I were a lesser man I would maybe reply in kind, but as you appear to do yourself the most damage I'll just let you carry on. Please don't take the occasional amusement as mocking, it really just is amusement.

...but we digress...this can be discussed by people in the other thread.

 

[Nehustan]

Has anyone else noted that this thread has been hijacked and opened up to debates on anything other than the topic issue....funny that....smoke and mirrors.

 

[Deut 13:1]

It was hi-jacked long before I came in

I'll respond to yer post later on after shabbas.