MK Moshe Feiglin, Potential PM?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
So Moshe Feiglin apparently said something that has caused a stir amongst the growing Orthodox population of Israel: If he's elected PM - which, as a member of Likud, he will be vying for - he will, amazingly, embark on something that many people feel would start a war: he will remove the 1300 year old mosque(s) from the Temple Mount, and proceed to build the long prophesied 3rd Jewish temple.........And his name is Moses
; so it appears this man of the Likud has audacious ambitions if he does manage to get elected.

If Israel did do such a thing, what would you think about that? Are they entitled to remove a mosque that was arguably unjustifiably built atop the remains of two Jewish temples? Or does 1300 years of another temple built by another religion on that same spot (despite this religion demoting the importance of that site to 3rd, behind the Arabian cities of Mecca and Medina) all of a sudden nullify and desiccate the close to 2000 year old Jewish national hope of rebuilding their destroyed temple, in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy? Does the hope - which exists as an abstract potential - and preserved in the most popular book of all time, not serve as a valid claim against the existent, concrete mosques that sit atop the site?

In my opinion, I believe the Jews, since their history predates the building of the two mosques, having had two temples already on that site, and, having essentially made the site famous and renown amongst non-Jews, ALREADY owned the site; the mosque that was built atop it was a violation of that intellectual right. Furthermore, it being relegated to a mere '3rd' importance, substantially weakens Islams claim to the site.




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Now that Mofaz is leader of Kadima, the largest political party in Israel, you can be sure he may become the next Israeli PM. I can only hope!



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 





So Moshe Feiglin apparently said something that has caused a stir amongst the growing Orthodox population of Israel: If he's elected PM - which, as a member of Likud, he will be vying for - he will, amazingly, embark on something that many people feel would start a war: he will remove the 1300 year old mosque(s) from the Temple Mount, and proceed to build the long prophesied 3rd Jewish temple.........And his name is Moses ; so it appears this man of the Likud has audacious ambitions if he does manage to get elected.


LOL at the bold highlighted section. Yeah right, if that isn't propaganda it should be because it's rich enough to make a double fudge chocolate cake seem bland by comparison.

Anytime a jew so much as goes up to Mt Moriah and whispers a prayer the muslim riot, just like what happened on 2-25-12 and the Al-Aqsa Foundation spreads those rumors and calls for the muslim to repel the infidel.

Even though the Dome of the Rock isn't really sacred to them (they point their asses at it when they prostrate to the Kaa'ba at Mecca), they aren't going to let that plot of ground go short of it being destroyed by God himself.

This guy is making promises he can't possibly keep.

Israel isn't going to do something so brash as to threaten to blow up the Kaa'ba if the muslim do not relinquish the Temple Mount, that would be suicide.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 





This guy is making promises he can't possibly keep.


Depends what his priorities are. Do you know Meir Kahane? That man was pure religious Orthodox; real politics took a far back seat to halacha.

Now....Where does Feiglin lie along the religious 'fanatic' spectrum? Is he a believing Jew? Does the sight of the Muslim Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa peeve him enough to make true on his promises? I really do think so. Unlike Kahane, Feiglin is blessed with a political acumen to be able to do things, but do them without attracting an unseemly attention before he's in a situation to actually carry it out.
edit on 28-3-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Even if Feiglin has the political clout to make an attempt, he would be swamped with so many angry muslim he'd think he was being attacked by a building full of wasps.

This would put Israel in the position where hey might actually have to use those 600 nukes because this would for sure start another arab war.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


I agree. The Nuke option might be the only deterrent.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Why are you giving Feiglin any time? He is NOT Israel's next PM nor will he ever reach that goal any time in the future.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I think if you want to risk violence (extreme violence), increased tensions and burry or serverly impede the chances of reaching a peace-settlement (which is attainable, despite beliefs to the contrary), then you are an idiot, plain and simple.

Furthermore, I would support the position, that Israel has no right to transfer civilians to any territories occupied following the conclusion of the June 1967 war.

I also think that this idiocy exemplifies the violent, destructive, and backwards nature of religion. Depite many religous people claiming that religion (wether Islam, Judiasm or Christianity) is beneficial, history will show you the contrary. That religion has caused much evil, destruction and death. It has slowed progress and continues to do so, both in thinking, philosophy science and PEACE.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


So essentially, your advocating the position of "lets build a temple and then nuke those stupid Musos". It is shameful that you call yourself a religous person with that kind of "peaceful" (or lack thereof) attitude.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Feiglin is nothing close to popular, not by Likud members, not by the Knesset members, not even by the Israeli population.

If anything, a catastrophic PM will be Avigdor Lieberman.
By being the foreign minister he almost wiped Israeli political ties with tens of other countries. By being a PM he will probably wage war on the entire middle east + send troops to Georgia to try and piss the Russians off.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


What you think religion has down over the millenia, secularist humanism has OUTDONE in a matter of what, 100 years? Nazism, Communism, Fascism.....I think I'll stick with a transcendent source for morality, thank you very much.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


No... I'm saying, if Israel did attempt to destroy the mosque (which as argued above, they have a moral position for doing) then they could use the nuke option as a viable deterrent to an Arab reprisal.

If the Arabs respond, then they are just as 'God crazy' as the Israelis for removing it.

You are much too shallow minded/ignorant of religion/philosophy/metaphysics to understand why the consequences of such a clearly provocative action would be worth the risk.

As a person educated in western philosophy, Judaism/Kabbalah and Islam/Sufism, I understand this situation from three different angles; the former obviously beckons us not to do anything - to accept the status quo, which means, accept the fact that the Muslims control the most holy site in Judaism - a site they relegate to 3rd, AND, a site which possesses no real metaphysical import to the Islamic imagination.

For Judaism, the situation is much more difficult: why should Jews have to accept that they're most holy site, the metaphysical center of their ideology - tantamount to Islams Mecca/Ka'aba, has to be dominated by another religion, which accords to the site only marginal significance (Mohommad went up to heaven here, indicating, mind you, a metaphysic of Jewish origin: the God of being (YHVH) being localized to this spot, as opposed to Allah, which has no appropriate setting aside from a desert) ...............I can totally understand the frustration of the Jew.

And, from the perspective of Islam, I believe there should be concession on their part. Why must they insist on holding a place which isn't even central to their ideology? It seems to be for no other purpose then to spite the Jews - to deny them their share in either land or their own unique connection with God.

I have great respect for Islam's esoteric tradition. If it as good as I hope it is, I pray that a solution will be had that doesn't make recourse to blowing up the mosques; ideally, (though, probably very unlikely, since the dome of the Rock has such symbolical power - not central to islamic ideology, per se, but as a microcosmic 'transmitter' that attunes the energies of creation to foster a Islamic-Gnostic spirituality) they will accept relocation of the mosques to some place else.

I see it most clearly as this: Israel/Judaism has a moral obligation to remove the mosque; secularism doesn't want to accept the consequences, so it fulminates against any action that will cause a destabalization in regional affairs (a logical position, albeit, one which only takes into consideration feelings that only they harbor) and Islam, profiting from the dispassionate approach of the secularists, seeks to sustain the status quo with them.

From a larger perspective, one which takes all 3 into account, Islam, out of religious solidarity with fellow monotheists, Jews, should let them assume control of the site....But, again, since the building of the dome of the rock and Al Aqsa has such symbolical (and not ritual, or ideological, for the muslim, who pilgrimages to Mecca in confirmation of his faith, and not Jerusalem, which is more a cool place to visit) value to Islam, I really don't see that happening. So, I accept whatever. My heart wants the 3rd temple, my mind probably understands that it would be best to do just leave things as they are.......

generally, the heart wins out.
edit on 30-3-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Nazism, Facism and Communism are not products of athiesm nor are they justified by some sort of athiest doctrine (given that such does not exist). Therefore you cannot blame people such as Mao, who killed millions of political prisoners, because his actions were not justified by some sort of religious/anti-religous philosophy, but rather by a political philosophy, which is not connected to athiesm (read the Communist Manifesto to learn more).

On the other hand, Jihadists, Christian extremists and Jewish extremists all use their religions as justification for the atrocities they commit. They have done this both in the past and continue to do this. As for 'morality', if you really need a book to tell you that murder, rape and stealing is wrong, then I think you may be mentally disabled. Furthermore, I would never look to a book that permits slavery and stonings, for moral guidance.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 





Nazism, Facism and Communism are not products of athiesm nor are they justified by some sort of athiest doctrine (given that such does not exist).


You must know very little about these movements. Their innocuously termed "political philosophy" is of course based on a general philosophy; the political philosophy is an extension of an earlier principle: a general attitude towards life. Statism, i.e. the worship of the state is atheistic in nature; the state usurps God (which in a God centered society, or at least a society which recognizes a higher source of morality, is the highest ) and anything which interferes with the idolatrous worship of state, nationality or ideology (see how some ism always stands in front as a representation of mans interests? So your naive assumption that 'religion is the source of all problems' is bunk. Man always makes recourse to some 'higher principle' whether it be your particular idol - socialism - the 'war of the classes' - which btw, is pathetically myopic in it's analysis of human nature, or an Absolute principle) worshiped by the masses.

At least religion, despite the disastrous ills of certain excesses in Christendom and Islam, really for the purpose of extending their political power, has a transcendent source of morality designed to circumscribe human vice while maintaining mans unimpeachable nobility.

An unusual feature (pagan in character, since all 'secular' movements are generally motivated by some pagan impulse - check out Nietzsches 'the birth of tragedy' for an interesting conversation for how the Dionysiac-Appoline dichotomy typifies the modern ethos) of these atheistic movements is a very high regard for animal life (the nazis, for example, encouraged vegetarianism, outlawed experimentation on animals, yet permitted it on humans) yet ironically, absolutely no scruples about murdering and torturing human beings.




(read the Communist Manifesto to learn more)


Thankyou. I own the communist manifesto. What in it is supposed to teach me 'more'?

I think you in general need to read more philosophy: see Machiavelli - The Prince, Discourse on Livy, Hobbes - Leviathan, David Hume, Hegel - Philosophy of Right, Nietzsche - The Gay Science, Leo Strauss - The City and Man, F.A Hayek - The Road to Serfdom, all these books would help you understand the modern mentality.
edit on 2-4-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 





On the other hand, Jihadists, Christian extremists and Jewish extremists all use their religions as justification for the atrocities they commit. They have done this both in the past and continue to do this. As for 'morality', if you really need a book to tell you that murder, rape and stealing is wrong, then I think you may be mentally disabled. Furthermore, I would never look to a book that permits slavery and stonings, for moral guidance.


What are these "Jewish extremists"?


And as for slavery and stoning for moral advice. It's a little more complicated and abstract than that. In any case, when the bible says Eved (the word translated as 'slave') it of course means it in a more literal sense then were accustomed to interpret it. An employee at WalMart is enslaved to walmart; without walmart, how would he subsist? some place else? OK. Point being, he must offer his services (avodoth, from the root, Eved,) in order to survive. This society simply minces its words. Fact is, unless you control and operate your own business, you are 'employed' either as a slave, who is provided for with lodging, food, and other benefits, which in fact is more cost intensive than the slightly more liberal though callous remuneration for services rendered to an employee.

Both are 'enslaved' both can not break without becoming paupers. THIS - in the archetypal language of the Torah - is what is meant by 'slave'.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Feiglin is in Likud (which is the largest party in Israel) but he has 0 chance of becoming PM. He will probably never win even in Likud. In last elections there he got only 1/5 of votes, the rest going to Netanyahu.
Edit:
Oh, and as for the Al Aksa and/or Dome of the Rock mosques - somehow removing it will start a pointless bloody holy war. I fail to see anything justifying that. Trying to bring end of days allready misfired in Jewish history and actually was the reason for mosques there instead of Second Temple. Repeating the same mistake is inexcusable.
edit on 2-4-2012 by ZeroKnowledge because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


True...It does sound like a pipe dream..............But, politics is very fickle, and crazier things have happened.

The chief impediment of Feiglin getting elected is the media; as it stands, the media supports candidates who serve the interests of Israels intelligentsia. Feiglin, although an intellectual, is not supported by the intelligentsia.

Therefore, barring some revolution, or some atypical happening, I cannot foresee Feiglin ever becoming PM. This thread was just a "what do you think about this proposal" hypothetical. Still no one has given a proper reply.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Where does an ism, wether socialism, communism or nazism, turn to athiesm (which is a word I think shouldn't even exist), use their non-religion to justify their actions. The Nazi's used the condition of their state to justify the murder of 6,000,000+ Jews, Mao used the justification of anti-revolutionaries to justify the murder of political prisoners and Stalin did the same. Stalin, destroyed Orthodox churches and sent preists to their death, not because of the fact that he was an athiest, but because of his political philosophy and the fact he despised religion. No athiest turns around and says "I kill ye in the name of athiesm".

Furthermore, when it comes to religous morals, I say I do not want your morals. Any religion that justifies the stoning of women for adultrey, the removal of hands for stealing, the killing of kafir's and another multitude of crimes. Despite what you say, the mention of slavery is over both in the Bible and Quran and for years both Christians and Muslims used religion as a justification to keep slaves. All I see in your attempt to debunk the fact that slavery os openly condoned in the bible is desperation. Religous people tend to excuse 'god's word' when it comes to the more henious crimes your imagined diety promoted. You have read the Torah, Quran and the New Testemant. I don't have to tell you about the outlandish and genocidal phrases and you don't have to excuse them to me.

I prefer morals set by society. By inteligent design would could say. Intelligent people who themselves decided, murder is wrong, as is rape and that minorities have to be protected from majorities.

Furthermore, you cannot deny Jewish extremism. One must simply google Jewish extremism and a whole heap of examples appear.

Despite what you believe, Religion is not a beacon for rationality. Here you are, prepared to condone nuclear war, simply because an idealist (albeit a stupid one), wants to knock down a building -that as sovereigns or occupiers of the land have every right (or perhaps might would be a better word) too- which would only escalate tensions and enrage Israel neighbours. A man who condones nuclear war to fulfil some religous prophesy is no man in my eyes.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 





Where does an ism, wether socialism, communism or nazism, turn to athiesm (which is a word I think shouldn't even exist) Where does an ism, wether socialism, communism or nazism, turn to athiesm (which is a word I think shouldn't even exist), use their non-religion to justify their actions.


So because they speak of their religious beliefs in negative terms, it makes it 'non-religious'? Maybe you should recall what the word 'religio' - the source for the english religion, means: it means to hold something to be sacred. ANY AND ALL ideologies defended as a truth is religious - whether there is ritual or metaphysics doesn't change that fact.




The Nazi's used the condition of their state to justify the murder of 6,000,000+ Jews


What a vague description... What is the "condition" supposed to be? Does it have something to do with --------------------->

I prefer morals set by society.
Because that is essentially how Nazism managed to warp people's sense of right and wrong. Good job disproving your argument.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by dontreally
 


So essentially, your advocating the position of "lets build a temple and then nuke those stupid Musos". It is shameful that you call yourself a religous person with that kind of "peaceful" (or lack thereof) attitude.


Rebuild the temple yes, nuke muslims no. Want peace in the middle east? Let them rebuild the temple, otherwise your so called advocations for peace mean nothing, just empty air. You people built your dome of the rock where the last temple stood and you think that was going to be an act of peace? When muslim conquer an area they go in and stick a mosque smack ontop of those people's religious temples/sites were, that is not an act of peace that is a declaration of war. Muhammad knew it, and you know it and every other muslim knows it so stop pretending to be peaceful because we both know its a lie.
edit on 8-4-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join