metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
What's missing with the above is that both Netanyahu and Trump fed into this, so I see what Obama did as being pay-back time. It's a non-binding resolution that has 0 chance of getting enforced.
-
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!
Terror State Israel builts more illegal settlements
- Thread starter Servant_of_the_One1
- Start date
@Flankerl : I realize that you are being sarcastic in post #38, but it may not be too obvious for some people. The extremism has reached too great levels.
@Kirran, @rosends : I know they make the claim that Israel are the invaders, and that the conflict goes back to the 1920s and the British Mandate at the very least. But how do they justify such a claim? What did they tell themselves and the public opinion back in 1948 (not 1947, sorry) when they declared war to the just-inaugurated Israel without entirely obvious provocation?
That is an important question to answer, if for no other reason because the 1948 War and its consequences since are such perfect justification for Israeli beligerance in so many situations, while the heavy losses in lives and land that resulted pretty much assure that Arabs and/or Muslims that feel so inclined will find ample justification for their own hostility ever since.
What started the widespread perception among Arabs and/or Muslims that Israel (or the Jewish People in Palestine before that) are to be presumed dishonorable and worth of violence?
Why exactly did the Arabs did not collectively say something like "it is not worth starting a bloody war to reclaim some piece of territory, all the more now that it has considerable international recognition as a sovereign state"?
Because it sure seems to me that they ought to have done just that. Even if they were not to ultimately lose that conflict so decisively as to call it and arguably related events "Al Nakba", The Great Disaster.
What made such a declaration of war seem appealling at all? It seems to me that even by an unashamedly and chauvinistic Arabian perspective it was, at the very best, an expectation of conquering territory by military means. Not much territory at that, albeit one that is valued by tradition and that had (and still has) a considerable Arab/Palestinian population.
It is difficult to put aside the feeling that the Arabs of the time should have reigned in their religious and nationalistic pride far better than they did. Lots of people will tell me that Israel is a dangerous militaristic power and they may well be right. But none of them managed to explain the 1948 declaration of war to me beyond claiming that "Israel is an invader", as if it were a demonstrated, self-evident fact that justifies military action. Which is clearly not the case, since the Jewish People had been growing its presence there openly and for such a long time (albeit with a lot of tensions).
Is there any clear reason - or even any reason at all - to blame Zionism instead or even together with Arab Nationalism? Any indication that Israel would not keep to its own 1947 borders if not attacked? Any clear reason why we should accept that the Arab League was justified in pursuing military as opposed to diplomatic action?
@Debater Slayer : How clear, if at all, it is that the issue is one of clash of religious beliefs as opposed to the at first glance more convincing explanation of unchecked pride and nationalism? Although I am not sure on how clear the distinction is from the Arab side.
@Revoltingest: There is an enormous amount of circunstantial evidence - even here in these forums - that it may be literally impossible for Israel to convince its neighbors of its right to exist as its own state. Far too many of its enemies do not even bother to attempt to justify their extremism. It seems that they take the need for destroying Israel and/or the Jewish People as a sacred article of faith - quite possibly literaly at that.
That is an important point to clarify, because if it is indeed denied the chance for peace, Israel can end up having no choice but to wage war.
@Kirran, @rosends : I know they make the claim that Israel are the invaders, and that the conflict goes back to the 1920s and the British Mandate at the very least. But how do they justify such a claim? What did they tell themselves and the public opinion back in 1948 (not 1947, sorry) when they declared war to the just-inaugurated Israel without entirely obvious provocation?
That is an important question to answer, if for no other reason because the 1948 War and its consequences since are such perfect justification for Israeli beligerance in so many situations, while the heavy losses in lives and land that resulted pretty much assure that Arabs and/or Muslims that feel so inclined will find ample justification for their own hostility ever since.
What started the widespread perception among Arabs and/or Muslims that Israel (or the Jewish People in Palestine before that) are to be presumed dishonorable and worth of violence?
Why exactly did the Arabs did not collectively say something like "it is not worth starting a bloody war to reclaim some piece of territory, all the more now that it has considerable international recognition as a sovereign state"?
Because it sure seems to me that they ought to have done just that. Even if they were not to ultimately lose that conflict so decisively as to call it and arguably related events "Al Nakba", The Great Disaster.
What made such a declaration of war seem appealling at all? It seems to me that even by an unashamedly and chauvinistic Arabian perspective it was, at the very best, an expectation of conquering territory by military means. Not much territory at that, albeit one that is valued by tradition and that had (and still has) a considerable Arab/Palestinian population.
It is difficult to put aside the feeling that the Arabs of the time should have reigned in their religious and nationalistic pride far better than they did. Lots of people will tell me that Israel is a dangerous militaristic power and they may well be right. But none of them managed to explain the 1948 declaration of war to me beyond claiming that "Israel is an invader", as if it were a demonstrated, self-evident fact that justifies military action. Which is clearly not the case, since the Jewish People had been growing its presence there openly and for such a long time (albeit with a lot of tensions).
Is there any clear reason - or even any reason at all - to blame Zionism instead or even together with Arab Nationalism? Any indication that Israel would not keep to its own 1947 borders if not attacked? Any clear reason why we should accept that the Arab League was justified in pursuing military as opposed to diplomatic action?
@Debater Slayer : How clear, if at all, it is that the issue is one of clash of religious beliefs as opposed to the at first glance more convincing explanation of unchecked pride and nationalism? Although I am not sure on how clear the distinction is from the Arab side.
@Revoltingest: There is an enormous amount of circunstantial evidence - even here in these forums - that it may be literally impossible for Israel to convince its neighbors of its right to exist as its own state. Far too many of its enemies do not even bother to attempt to justify their extremism. It seems that they take the need for destroying Israel and/or the Jewish People as a sacred article of faith - quite possibly literaly at that.
That is an important point to clarify, because if it is indeed denied the chance for peace, Israel can end up having no choice but to wage war.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, well that simplified the situation for me big time!
b b b but isn't "Zionist Scum" kind of an insult in some circles?
Kind of like calling a person of Arabia a "camel jock" "rag head" etc.
Like calling a white male American a "redneck" or a black male
American a "spook or yam" etc.?
Stopping the slur slinging might be a darned good start to peace.
American settlers referred to Native Americans a "savages"
until they nearly exterminated them.
The UN was ignored when Bush invaded the Middle East in the early 2000s.
For good or worse, it is simply not respected nor supported anywhere near enough to have the power to change Israeli policy with a non-binding resolution.
Anyone who is surprised by that is not paying attention.
For good or worse, it is simply not respected nor supported anywhere near enough to have the power to change Israeli policy with a non-binding resolution.
Anyone who is surprised by that is not paying attention.
That isn't evidence of anything.
But they needn't convince anyone of their right to exist.
They only need to live in peace.
That will mean changing some behavior.
Religious faith is a flexible thing.
If Israelis engender hatred, then religion will justify hatred.
If instead they pursue justice & peace, then Islam will allow reciprocation.
When people say "there is no choice" in some matter, what they really mean is they want to ignore other choices.
They have a choice, but they choose to brutalize others & ignore justice with an us-against-them mentality.
Last edited:
No God = No War.
I think revoltingest is on to something here!
Recall watching new films of WWI and WWII where various
"holy men" of different religions "blessed" the troops prior to sending
them to be blown all to hell?
ALL religions on ALL sides of the conflict did this.
Still the slaughter went on and the man munching machine was
never satisfied no matter how many victims it ate.
Still the Priests and Preachers kept blessing the soldiers and sending
them off to be eaten by the man munching machine.
By the MILLIONS.
Russia alone lost well over 20,000,000 in WWII but the real figure
will never be known.
Yet mankind is so willing to just keep feeding the monster.
Why? Because my god can whip your god?
I think revoltingest is on to something here!
Recall watching new films of WWI and WWII where various
"holy men" of different religions "blessed" the troops prior to sending
them to be blown all to hell?
ALL religions on ALL sides of the conflict did this.
Still the slaughter went on and the man munching machine was
never satisfied no matter how many victims it ate.
Still the Priests and Preachers kept blessing the soldiers and sending
them off to be eaten by the man munching machine.
By the MILLIONS.
Russia alone lost well over 20,000,000 in WWII but the real figure
will never be known.
Yet mankind is so willing to just keep feeding the monster.
Why? Because my god can whip your god?
Of course, we all know that religion won't be removed from the situation.
They must learn to interpret their faiths to foster peace instead of righteous war.
It looks like I can't manage to agree with you on anything anymore.
Oh, you can.
There's just no predicting when it will happen.
Besides, do you really want to be the kind of person who agrees with me often?
Let me think about that last statement.
thinking.....................................................................................................
ah ......................
NO!
I guess no. Not anymore.
@LuisDantas - because the migration of Jews to the British Mandate, followed by the establishment of the State of Israel, resulted in the suffering and dislocation of large numbers of Arabs.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Some interesting reading about that contention...
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFroots.html#5
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFindex.html#13
you can check the sources if you disagree.
Yes, the Arab population had increased rapidly during the late 19th and early 20th century. There also weren't anywhere near as many as today, and the Jewish population was very large in proportion. But there were still plenty of Arabs to be dislocated due to land purchases and violence, and plenty to suffer under the hands of outfits like the Irgun and Haganah and such like.
I would like to make clear, I am not saying this as a criticism of the founding of Israel, which I see as having been both inevitable and necessary.
Servant_of_the_One1
Well-Known Member
Will Zionist Terrorists accuse Obama's administration of antisemitism(hating all semites lol)?
Can you name some Zionist terrorist groups which are currently active, @Servant_of_the_One1? Kahanism has rather declined in strength in recent times.
Servant_of_the_One1
Well-Known Member
That's a cheapening of the word. Israel is a country with a questionable human rights record, as is typical of the region. Terrorist is just you using a dirty word.