Israel and it's existence. (Disturbing Essay Episode #4)

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Rosha
 

Dear Rosha,

Thank you very much for adding some historical information to the thread. I'm glad you did it and that's important.

It seems that those objections support the idea that the Jews, as we know them today, have less of right to a country there than they claim. (If I understood you) I'm not sure that is a full answer to the question posed in the essay. That particular point was one of three that the author made to show that the Jews have even more right to Israel than Americans do to their country.


. . . its occupation of the Semitic tribal lands ( by force and according to the Torah, against the will of God)
My first thought, and you can correct me here, is that a lot of the land came from international agreement and purchases.

Not to mention..he ignores that ALL life was created by God and so has a right to exist in peace under God and the rest is political egotistical bullsh*t that has cost millions of lives and is essentially a case of "he who runs the shell game best" wins.....
Don't you think Israel (sorry for the insult, but that's what the world calls them and I don't have another name for it) would be delighted to have an iron-clad guarantee that they have a right to exist in peace?

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





My fear is based on that changed perception. I suspect that those countries may believe that dictatorial actions within their countries, and increased "attacks" on Israel, will become lest costly in their opinions.


Frankly, I'm not sure we can expect any drastic changes in the Arab-Israeli relationship. While Obama has cozied up to the Arab world, and even come to accept Islamist leadership as a political reality, the Arabs are still smart enough to make a calculation: America still supports Israel militarily; America still shares information with Israeli intelligence outfits; American corporations are still heavily invested in Israel.

Fact is, the Israeli/American relationship is very intertwined. America has interests in Israels well being more than they have interests in improving relations with Arab countries. The change in rhetoric is obviously designed to improve relations with the Arab world. In a sense, you could say they're trying to eat their cake and have it too.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Rosha
 


You have misread the political dialogue - or, haven't really been paying attention to begin with.

Not once will you hear an Israeli politician defend Israel's existence on the basis of a purported genealogical connection with the "tribe of Judah". Not only will people not care, but it's also completely irrelevant. Who cares which tribe they're from? Or were going to admit biblical evidence, the Muslims could just as well quote their Quran and Hadith to defend their claims to the land.

A normal political rhetoric is a humanistic one. This is such a basic formulation for any international political dialogue. Here is the calculus (in rough): the international political arena pits political interests of one nation against another; if were to come to any cooperative relationship with one another, we have to agree on some basics: this is the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. People can have religion, but a nation state (a conglomerate of people) if it knows what is good for it will insist on the value of the human being above the myopic claims of any one religion. If Israel started talking about the aims of Judaism, or an Islamic country started preaching fundamentalist rhetoric, both countries would end up internationally isolated: who wants to relate with someone who denies your to exist on this planet on religious grounds?

Now, Israelis are CLEARLY more secularized than they are religious. Even the right - led by people like Benjamin Natanyahu, are only moderately religious, in the sense of Edmund Burke. Conversely, Arab countries, especially with their current leadership, are far deeper in the realm of religious ideation than the Israelis are.

To reiterate: nobody cares about the twelve tribes. The sad (and somewhat funny) truth is, those religious folks who talk about this as if it matters will never have an appreciable voice in the actual political dialogue - and, I might add - thank God for that.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 


Just because they have hired people to pretend this is just a country for some people who needed a homeland does not make it so.

Talk to any true supporters, and the millions of Christians who make sure nothing bad can be said about the chosen nation, the chosen rulers of the God of Israel, the God of the Jews, and the ones the Christians think they worship.

Clearly more is going on here than political ideology...

The entire thing is based upon things that really are not helpful to anyone, and certainly the common Jew is as powerless as is the common arab, the big difference is, it is what the Powers that BE BELIEVE it is for, not what YOU DO.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ParasuvO
 





Just because they have hired people to pretend this is just a country for some people who needed a homeland does not make it so.


Learn something about the history before you start spouting nonsense.

And who are these "hired" people?




Talk to any true supporters, and the millions of Christians who make sure nothing bad can be said about the chosen nation,


Here's a reality: Israel has DIVERSE supporters. Definition of diverse: Markedly different from one another.

Israel has liberal supporters like Berkley intellectuals, and they have fundamentalist Christian supporters who, trapped in their make-believe world where Christ will descend from heaven to "restore" Israel (as in the biblical Israel i.e. "todays Jews") to the true faith. Truth be told, Israel entertains these people for political reasons. Its good to have more supporters than less, even if a large number of them are painfully naive and ignorant.




Clearly more is going on here than political ideology...


What does it matter what Christian Zionists think? You talk as if because Christian Zionists believe "this", than that makes Zionism "this" as well.

Here's a factoid that I'm exasperatingly tired of repeating: the Jewish people are a unique ethnic group. They share the same languages (Hebrew - canonical, Yiddish, Ladino, etc) religion (various streams of Judaism) cultures (Ashkenazi and Sephardic) and overall, they identify themselves as a single people. For as long as we can remember, they have been mistreated by Hellenists, Romans, Early Christians, Muslims, Medieval Christians, Humanists, Cossaks, Nazis, Communists etc. Theodore Herzl wrote his "Jewish State" in response to the persecution of Jews in the pale of settlement (eastern Russian territories like Belarus, Ukraine, Romania). After the holocaust, what was before treated by governments as a not so persuasive argument, became a clarion call. The Jews had suffered enough as a minority living amidst majorities. They wanted - and deserved - to settle in the land they have called their own.

Being Jews, they generally acted honorably: instead of stealing lands, they paid hefty sums to Arab effendis living hundreds of miles away in Damascus (the then capital of the Ottoman province of Syria). And, unless you pester me further with your mindless skepticism, I'll bring forth more of this story. But hopefully you get the point.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
An apostrophe has no right to exist in the possessive form of its. 卐



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FromMyColdDeadBrain
 

Dear FromMyColdDeadBrain,

Thanks, you're right. I appreciate the reminder. You've spotted one of my innumerable failings. I don't watch football (either kind) either. And it's been months since I've had bacon. But the apostrophe mistake is one I do feel bad about. ("bad" shouldn't be an adverb there, should it?)

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


The issue at the heart of Israel-Palestine dispute is not the land purchases, it is creation of a new State.

For an analogy, if a lot of Chinese start buying lands in California, and one day declare California as a new State ruled by Chinese. When the Chinese were buying lands, they did not buy with an express intention to create a new State. If they did, such land sales would have been blocked by the authorities.

Creation of a new State is the first problem. The second and greater problem is exclusion of previous inhabitants from the new State and herding out of such people into controlled enclaves. A mere sale of land by somebody does not make the seller a slave - does it?

If the new State was created with Jews and Muslims living side by side and peacefully, it would have meaning and acceptance.

Jews have lived in Muslim society for a long time and rather peacefully. So it is illogical to think that Palestine sellers would have understood the implications of land sales to Jews fully.

The issue of nationalism etc. is illogical as well. It was a predominant Arab society in that area. National boundaries keep on changing with time; specially is a heavily contested crossroads such as Palestine.

My view is that Israel has destroyed historical inter-relationships between Muslims and Jews which will be destructive for both societies.

Jews are traders, bankers, educationists etc., roles that cannot be performed well in isolation from majority of society. Even Israel should think deeply about its future role in middle-east.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 





For an analogy, if a lot of Chinese start buying lands in California, and one day declare California as a new State ruled by Chinese. When the Chinese were buying lands, they did not buy with an express intention to create a new State. If they did, such land sales would have been blocked by the authorities.


You should probably learn something about the history before you try to give an explanation.

Land purchases began in the late 1800's. By 1897 - the 1st Zionist congress took place, and the Jewish people declared their intention to establish a state in Palestine. This is 1897 - 50 years before the establishment of the state of Israel. THEN, the Jewish Agency (the official body) was set up and monies flowed towards buying up land. Did the effendis who knew all this decide against selling the land? No, they didn't. They saw a bunch of rich Jews coming willing to buy up malaria infested swamp lands (which is why the areas the initial zionists settled: the Tel-Aviv/petach tikva area, were so sparsely populated); what do you think rich effendi (Arabic, meaning Nobles) were going to do? They hiked the prices up and so sold acres of land for prices 3-4 times what they were sometimes worth. It was greed that caused them to sell land.

Chaim Weizmann and other Zionist leaders said they would have been happy with a "table napkin" sized state. Hyperbole, obviously, but their intentions were modest. They wanted a safe haven from the historical persecutions Jews had been accustomed to.

Also, your example between Chinese buying up land in California and Jews buying up land in the "holy land" could not have been more ill devised. The Jews have a constant ongoing history with Palestine. It was not some random land they just got the idea: hey, lets take this land from this group of Arabs! As if they weren't cognizant of the looming dangers ahead. They knew, they forecasted correctly what would probably happen. David Ben Gurion noted that the Jews would likely have to fight a war against not just the Palestinians, but other Arab states - Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, in particular.




The second and greater problem is exclusion of previous inhabitants from the new State and herding out of such people into controlled enclaves. A


I take you're just improvising as you go along with your "expert" history lesson? First, the refugee camps were set up by UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Work Agency - a specialized agency created just for the Palestinians). As for the history. Some were told to leave by the incoming invading Arab armies, others were deceived to leave their homes by the Zionists. As a strategy, you can't quite blame the Zionists for doing this. In fact, Benny Morris (who wrote the most cited history for the 1948 war) even went so far as to say that the Jewish enterprise has foundered (on a political level)because of the failure of the Zionists to kick out the remaining Arabs from Israel and Judea/Samaria (westbank).

Of course, it's not quite meant out of meanness. If their was a probable prospect that Jews and Arabs could live together peaceably, the Jews would have no doubt helped establish a Palestinian state - which is why they agreed in the first place to the 1947 partition plan. But, knowing their history and the nature of their enemy - individuals like the notorious Haj Amin Al Husseini (who spent the war years in Berlin helping the Nazis) - they knew it wouldn't be easy.

The Zionist enterprise is no doubt a bold and brazen endeavor. But I wouldn't call it immoral. It was a long time coming. Jews had been longing for generations to return to Eretz Yisrael. When the powers that be finally loosened up (particularly with their religious rhetoric), the Jews got excited about their chances to finally establish a Jewish state.

Things would have been all fine and dandy, the middle east might be a far different place (beyond the lone technologically advanced and culturally modernized Israel) if the Arabs had approached this subject differently, from an empathetic position, for example.

Look, for instance, at what leaders can do when they come together. Muslims living in Northern India and Hindus living in Pakistan were encouraged to get up and move to a different land. They were given incentives (money) to leave their lands and settle elsewhere. These same incentives were offered by the Jewish agency, and continue to be offered till this day.




Jews have lived in Muslim society for a long time and rather peacefully


Again, check up on your history. "Peaceably" is a long shot. Here's how Jews lived in Muslim lands. True, the frequency of massacre was not as great as it was in Christian lands (but they did occur, dozens of times), but it was no more peaceable than a southern blacks existence in 1840 Louisiana was peaceable. It was degrading. Jews were forced to pay higher taxes, were disallowed from participating in many different professions, in some places, they were mandated by law to pass Muslims on their left side (the side of Satan) and sundry other deprecating laws were established to make Jews understand their place in society.

It's simple arithmetic. Islam is a manifest destiny religion - it is NOT democratic. To refuse Islam is to put yourself in a sub category. You have lesser rights in court, lesser rights as a citizen.
edit on 23-6-2013 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I apologize for my lack of study of history. You have presented your case very well.

Muslims of course never realized the future course of this tiny state of Israel. It is shortsightedness on their part.

However things get complicated when the only claim to a land is that your ancestors lived there.

My forefathers lived in area which is now in Pakistan. And there are about 100 million people in India who are like me.

And people who are now called "Hindus" lived in what you call Afghanistan; and if you go back further - the Vedic people lived in Tibet and central Asia as well.

If every race starts claiming the land of ancestors, this world will be full of bloodshed.

I have never doubted the desire of Jews for a homeland. And they deserve a State as they have acquired the characteristics of nationhood. However this State could have been in the Americas where they could have created a much bigger State with far more natural resources and much better natural defensive boundaries.

Israel as it exists today is an artificial State which cannot last long.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 





I apologize for my lack of study of history. You have presented your case very well.


Thank you. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate maturity in conversation. People who resist learning - and the basis of learning is a respectful appreciation of truth - and argue despite the facts they've just learned make human relations very somber sometimes. But this, what you did, I don't mean to get too sentimental, but this is an important emotional attribute. When you can accept being incorrect, especially when the correcter does it was a bit of sass (sorry about that, it's a habit I have), you encourage me and other's to be like that aswell.

I am not trying to condescend or patronize you. I'm very sincere when I say that I am greatful - nay, relieved - to see other people act in ways that I myself want to act. I don't always act those ways, but I know it is the best way to be. it makes things easier for all of us.

Moving on...




Muslims of course never realized the future course of this tiny state of Israel. It is shortsightedness on their part.


It's a symptom of some organized religions, really. There was a time period where Jews had to come to terms with their eschatological forecasts. Even today, there are Jews (the orthodox) who haven't given up on the medieval and Talmudic predictions of their Rabbis.

I think there is tremendous beauty in the Kabbalah and theologies of Judaism, as well as the Sufism of Islam, spiritual traditions of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. There's a certain externality, however, that has to be discarded if people are going to reconcile the intellectual discoveries of the past 200 years with the fabric of their religions. There's no essential conflict - but there is a relative conflict between certain marginalistic and divisive tenets and a goal for a peaceful and harmonious human future.

Jews have done that. Christians too - many, but not all, unfortunately - have as well. It is Islam that is lagging behind. The fact that a fundamentalist government has risen in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and still elsewhere in the Arab world, is disconcerting. The Salafism upon which it is based is unrealistic in the modern world. It puts up a wall between Muslims and the rest of mankind - in a frighteningly real way.




However things get complicated when the only claim to a land is that your ancestors lived there.


It's a little deeper than that. Take this for an example

As said, I have a soft spot for India and Hinduism. Like Jews, they have had to suffer the wrath of an expansionist minded Islam. Imagine tomorrow all lands around the Ganges river were taken over by Islam. Imagine how traditional Hindus would feel about that. A geographical centerpiece of their religion has been taken away from them. It's not just geographical - in that their ancestors lived there. For a real Hindu, it is spiritual. There is some deep and essential connection between the south east Asian area and Hinduism. The traditions, the flavors of the food - taken from local plants - it forms an important package.

This is how Jews feel. Even the unreligious have the sense of a mythical past with this area - a personal feeling that the history of my people, of my kind, roamed this ancient land, established a famous kingdom, spread a religion that became fabulously influential upon later human history. For the religious, the connection is as or more meaningful than the Ganges is to Hindus. For Jews, the Holy Land symbolizes a basic division between life lived profanely, and life lived in service of God and his creation. Being involved with the historical place where God made this division (according to the theology) adds tremendous meaning to their faith.

Regardless of what you feel, this is an ancient tradition that many people today follow and cherish. I would expect the same respect for Islam and the lands of the Middle East and North Africa (particularly the Arabian peninsula), Hinduism and the lands of south east asia, Confucian, Taoism and Buddhist in the lands of the East and Tibet.

I think it is a magnanimous gesture from a unified humanity to restore a part of ourselves - the Jewish people - to the land which they most identify with. To support them in their endeavor. But as well to limit them with how much they are to have. Given the Palestinians have drawn a line in the sand, it's only right that the line be respected. But the Israelis can't be expected to make this happen before they have good reason to trust their intentions. They don't - and they have no good reason to.




Israel as it exists today is an artificial State which cannot last long.


No more artificial than the state you just suggested they create in the Americas.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I deeply appreciate your points.

Personally I have no issue with Israel or where it is.

The two defining characteristics of nationhood are:

a. Race
b. Religion

The nation of "Aryavrata" and subsequent nation of "Bharat" were created on foundation of Vedic religion.

The nation of Egypt was created on its own brand of religion; and so were many other nations.

China is created from a single Mongoloid race where purity of the race is the defining characteristic.

My study says that the most enduring nations are based on theology or religion.

It makes sense for Israel to base its nationhood on its religion - Judaism.

However no nation can have a fixed boundary for ever. A nation's borders are always artificial - often a result of political and other factors. This is the problem of associating a nation with a specific place.

My ancestors started from Tibet as per my religion. The Vedic civilization started in Tibet. I want to visit Tibet and feel the souls of my ancestors but I have not been able to go there due to political problems with China.

I have no intention of claiming Tibet for the reason my ancestors lived there. It does not matter to me, as my religion says that entire earth is a holy land created by God specifically as a residence for humans.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
There are more Muslims in India today than in Pakistan.

India is officially a "secular" State. Its laws are NOT based on a specific religion.

I think Pakistan is programmed to fail, despite what its citizens think.

Pakistani envision it as a Sunni Utopia. I think it is a dream. Reality rarely mirrors a dream.

There were Jewish kingdoms in Palestine and Arabia but it was before Islam arrived.

Islam became a predominant religion in the area. The reason was that Islam unified disparate tribes in the area. The militaristic people who were fighting among themselves became united due to this new religion and started fighting outside their domain and winning wars. This led to a tremendous increase in the influence of this new religion and its adherents.

The Judaism as a religion has lost due to its exclusionary approach (compared to inclusive approach of Christianity and Islam).

Judaism is similar to the ancient Egyptian religion where Priests commanded tremendous power over the State. Its practices are primarily a continuation of ancient Atlantis traditions.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astrocyte
So long as chauvinistic notions like "we are jews!" and "We are zionists!" supersedes "We are humans", the jewish world will continue to make the world an unstable place.


The quote needed a wee bit of editing, now do you see how bigoted you were.

It works both ways.

_______________________



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ToneDeaf
 

Dear ToneDeaf,

I don't think changing the religion or nationality leaves us with an equivalency. My impression is that a completely commited Muslim sees himself as a superior being to the non-believing world and it is perfectly fine to kill non-believers if it advances Islam. I don't see that as the Jewish mentality.

I still believe that if an ironclad non-aggression agreement could be drawn up tomorrow between all the Jews and their allies, and all the Muslims and their allies, the Jews would sign and the Muslims would not.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952

I still believe that if an ironclad non-aggression agreement could be drawn up tomorrow between all the Jews and their allies, and all the Muslims and their allies, the Jews would sign and the Muslims would not.

Gee Chuck, just where would such a "non-aggression" agreement be drawn up?

The UN perhaps?

Because we all know Israel's track record on Following UN Resolutions.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 



I think Pakistan is programmed to fail, despite what its citizens think.


No one can deny that Pakistan has very serious problems. And that they have access to nukes - despite ruling over a obstreperous population, makes many statesman and scientists uncomfortable.



There were Jewish kingdoms in Palestine and Arabia but it was before Islam arrived.


And Islam, like Christianity, failed to extirpate the Jewish religion. Jews still existed in Arab lands. Like Muslims, they faced their holiest site during prayer: unlike Muslims, the Jews faced Palestine, while Muslims face Mecca.

There's a latter of importance. When your religion is built around one particular place - Mecca for Muslims, Jerusalem for Jews - all other places take on an inferior quality. Muslims of course revere Jerusalem, but even than, it seem to be more apocryphal in origin - the place where Mohommad ascended had to be interpreted as the holy mount in Jerusalem (where Abd Al Malik built the dome of the rock). It's place is ambiguous. Conversely, the entire Hebrew Bible is built around Jerusalem. The stories of the Torah (5 books of Moses) find their denouement in the books of Samuel. The city of David - Jerusalem - is far more significant to Jews than it is or can be to Muslims - so long as the Hajj is to Mecca, and so long as their no religious requirement - as there is for a Hajj - to see the Dome of the Rock (although the most faithful Muslims try to do that as well).

Besides. What is the point here? Jerusalem in a two state solution would like be divided between both countries. Although, I find that a bit distasteful given the lack of true connection with that city, still, it seems to be a big one for Palestinians.

But, if Jerusalem were not a part of the package deal - Ramallah becoming Palestines capital - the Waqf would not lose control of the Dome of the Rock. Muslim rights would be preserved, as would Christian rights, or the rights of Bahai to worship at their shrines in Acre and Haifa.

A true democratic country acts this way, and Israel has a very good track record respecting and defending the rights of it's religious minorities.



The Judaism as a religion has lost due to its exclusionary approach


In case you haven't noticed, I know a lot about Judaism (and quite a bit about Islam/Christianity as well). Judaism is not simply exclusive, although, a laymen might come away with that impression. But on closer analysis, it actually turns out to be both. Both universal AND exclusive. The first chapter of the Book of Genesis talks about the Creator God Elohim creating the earth in 6 days and resting on the 7th. The entire story begins from the ontological category "universal", and progresses from then on towards a more exclusive direction.

This is the philosophy and theology of Judaism. It mimics life, you could say. With the creation of the universe, one big homogenous blob (the big bang) spurted out and differentiation emerged. As the arrow of time progresses, more and greater complexity and subtly emerges, this despite the paradoxical presence of entropy (which would seem to contradict the law of diversification). Entropy - death - is the great homogenizer.

The true value of Judaism, and I am a big student, deeply interested in it's metaphysics, is the coexistence of contradictory factors: two names for God (Elohim and YHVH), the universal and the particular, the 1st born and the 2nd born - these are leitmotifs appearing again and again, encapsulating an interesting philosophical outlook on life. You could say the division of the brain into two separate hemispheres, one sourcing language, abstraction, and reason (left), the other sourcing emotion, and spirituality, also reflects this basic dualism about life. Were born into a world of contradiction. With a personality and ego and feelings, and reason, and facts, and science. The fact that our geographical planet has been divided along similar lines - linear thinking western world and non-linear, holistic thinking eastern world, is also interesting food for thought.Perhaps a fundamental metaphysical pattern?

To the point: Judaism is not what you say it is: the idea of "I am a Jew", does not devalue you as a Hindu, Christian or Atheist. On the other hand, a Muslim or Christian has to face the fact that Muslims are not Christians, and Christians are not Muslims. You may both be "universal", but you both deny each other entry into universal salvation so long as you deny the truth of the other. In short, a Jewish religion is not inherently xenophobic just because it emphasizes and values difference.



Its practices are primarily a continuation of ancient Atlantis traditions.


uh huh. I didn't realize I was making all this effort while talking to someone who believes in Atlantis



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 


I have certain capabilities that normal people do not have.

So please take my advice seriously. If you live in Israel, think of moving out.

The safest places for next 7 years are South Africa and South America. Most unsafe places are middle-east and Europe.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 

Dear Tw0Sides,

I keep trying, and failing apparently, to write clearly. I wasn't able to express my point to you, sorry for that.

I wasn't talking about a resolution to which Israel objected, and couldn't be enforced anyway. I was talking about a solid treaty, enforced in any way you care to imgaine, between all parties in the area.

My point was that my belief is that Israel would sign it, but the Islamic countries and allied groups are dedicated to the elimination of Israel, and would refuse to sign it.

With respect,
Charles1952





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join