You gotta give Huckabee a little bit of kudos: for inviting Dershowitz onto the program instead of dumping on him in his absence, which is what Beck or O'Reilly would have done.
It is amazing that neither of them addressed the issue. Separation of Church and State and why the 10 Commandments do not belong in government. The quote from Dershowitz book is about why the government can't endorse the commandments. As example, they clearly can't be used as a guide for law because not only would that violate the first amendment, the first four commandments would put most of the population in jail, so they don't reflect our modern law or contemporary morality.
Since when did "commandments" become just suggestions? The first problem with this approach to ethics is that they are arbitray rules with no answer to "why" except that we're supposed to obey God because what's right is what God says is right. This ejects reason and reality completely, and, without a fact based context, the commandments are unintelligible.
Really, the "craven" images commandment seems pretty clear. I wonder if this is where the Taliban got their hatred of representational art.
Exodus 20:4"<span>Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image</span>, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
Well, if shit like this every gets into the Constituition, I don't expect the nutters to remove the 1st amendment; they'll go with Orwellian doublethink instead.
IMO, all the nutters have to do to create a theocracy in principle is to amend the Constitution to include a statement that the Bible is the foundational document for the Constitution and the law. Once this is done, Constitutional questions, in principle, become reducible to theology questions. They wouldn't need to get heavy handed at first, thus scaring people. Many people wouldn't become alarmed because of some pious prattle about the Bible being stuck in the Constitution. The fanatics could let the Xn legislatures do the job over time and as the country is made ready for Xn law by the drivelmeisters. There would be no need, right away, for creepy talk about protecting our "salvation."
while he makes small change of gomer huckabee , Dershowitz is a zionist and defends israel's persecution of the palestinians as well as the theft of their land all in the name of religion.
Freethinker, you are hardly a freethinker. Either you are stupid or dissengenuous at best. Israel was not formed in the name of religion purely. The head of the Zionist Herzl was agnostic. Israel was a place where Jews could escape persecution that was growing in Europe. As for stealing land. Hogwash. You can't steal what isn't owned. Israel was mostly barren land, and was not a sovereign land either. Arabs chose war, lost, boo hoo. Hypocritical Muslims (most of them are hypocritical when it comes to Israel) and Paliphiles like you have no problem with the fact that there are millions of people of Arab descent in Brazil right now, or that Dearborn is now an Arab Muslim majority city...but have a problem with Jews migrating to an non sovereign land, creating a majority (not through war btw) and then having a Jewish majority where a government was formed.
baconeater are you serious? the israelis bought some of the land yes- but stole the majority of it. forced palestinian farmers out like dogs and killed tens of thousands- wtf have you been smoking!
at the time israel was "founded" the Nazis persecution was over. our own southwest and Midwestern plains were in fact barren when we stole it from the "heathens" that occupied for centuries just like the palestinians did in israel, there is nothing that could ever make either actions right. the treatment of the native Americans and palistinians is unconscionable, tell yourself whatever you need to to make it right in your mind, but the fact is , there is nothing about it that is right. the major difference is nobody held our feet to the fire for what we did to the natives, but the price of backing with the zionists is still being felt and will be til its made "right". the depth of your bigotry and one sided thinking is laughable, have the Brazilians and folks in dearborn been made to show the muslims "work papers" to be in certain areas? or reduced either natives to servant jobs like house cleaners, nannies or shoeshine boys? i do however recall a country that did do that to its jews, seams now the jews have learned from their oppressors... sadly the zionists feel entitled.
Lies and rhetoric. How come you aren't all over every US politician and person who is OK with the formation of the USA.....or any other country on this planet for that matter. You aint too bright. Done with you.
Wow. What a bunch of idiocy, lies, and ridiculous comparisons. You are a major hypocrite. If Israel were not on the defensive, the Muslims there would be like the Muslims in the USA. Tell your buddies to stop attacking the Jews....
It is "you are an idiot." And it was written by me, harldy a religous fanatic, moron. But it does show many of your lies. Are you that uninformed, or do you know you are lying?
Baconeater, sorry but it is you who sound bigoted and ignorant.
I have to object when you write "<span>Freethinker, you are hardly a freethinker."</span> <span></span> <span>
<span>To say a freethinker thinks like this on an issue, or they are not a free thinker, is the opposite of free thought.</span> </span> <span></span> <span></span> <span>Sorry, but who give you the authority to define what the limits of free thought are? Someone disagreeing with you on a divisive political issue does not mean they are not a free thinker - in fact it surely proves they are.</span> <span></span> <span>Taking the minority stand on an issue is the essence of what free thought is about. If you had said his "argument is faulty," that would be a 'fair' comment to make; though I would strongly disagree with you and doubt you could actually back up your claim.</span>
Are you saying Hitchins is not a free thinker? Do you think Hitchins defends Israel's treatment of the Palestinians?
Not that I am making an argument from authority - even if Hitchins agreed with your view I would still disagree.
Whose land do you think Israeli settlers are occupying? Why do you think most Israeli settlers are Orthodox Jews? And far from having nowhere else to live, many of them hold duel citizenship - many Jews in the occupied territories also have citizenship in America and else where.
How about telling Israel to recognise international law and to get back behind the Green line?
When you have the Israeli defence minister talking about putting "Palestinians on a diet?" when the international community is denouncing the way sanctions on gaza are being imposed - do not delude yourself that the minister cares for the Palestinians?
When you have the Israeli chief Rabbi saying things like "The fingernail of one Jew is worth more then the life of 10 Palestinians" do not pretend the hardcore zionists in Israel are not racist!
Let Israel stop building settlements then we will have the beginnings of a real chance for peace.
One wit said of the Israeli and Palestinian negotiations. "It is like Israel asking the Palestinians to equally divide a pizza, while busily eating the pizza."
Why do think Obama put so much effort into trying to convince the Israelis to stop building more settlements? - an effort that only left the American administration with egg on its face as for all intents and purposes the Israeli goverernment blew a raspberry at America (something they have done on many occasions) and continued with their expansionist efforts. <span></span> <span>Israel continues to steal more land by building settlements, and then cries victim when the people whose land they are stealing object. That is a very religious attitude, to oppose other people's rights and then cry 'persecution' when those opposed object.</span> <span></span> <span>There will never be a resolution to the Middle East crisis until we apply the Geneva convention (one cannot claim as ones own land that is gained in warfare - regardless of whether the war was one of aggression or defence).</span> <span></span> <span>One may object to some of the methods the Palestinians have used to resist, but when the objection comes from people who refuse to condemn the military might that Israel has used against the Palestinians for the last 60 years, such objections sound pity shallow.</span>
Sorry but you sound like an imbecile on this issue. Israel gets a bad press from 'far left morons and hypocritical muslims???' While that may be true, you are not seriously claiming no other group opposes Israel.
I suppose you think Jimmy Carter is 'far left?' Bishop Tutu?, For laughing out loud. Say something sensible or say nothing would be my advice.
Hm, where does that leave Christopher Hitchins? Sorry, but there are many people who oppose Israel's occupation and to say they are all far left is nonsence? Of course, I fear to think what your definition of hard left is. Let me guess, in your definition it is anyone opposing Israeli occupation?
You too are totally ignorant of the situation and history, so get off your soap box, your opinion of me or how I call it matters not. Get educated, unless of course, you are lying on purpose. It is one or the other.
Israel is not perfect. The settlements were a mistake, but Freethinker and his ilk would not accept Israel if it were to go back to the Green Line....another thing that you are completely out to lunch about by the way.
You really need to educate yourself, because you really shouldn't be commenting on the Israel situation in a public forum just like I wouldn't comment in an auto mechanics forum.
Indeed he was a non-religious Jew, what he wanted was a safe land for a Jewish state, where tha land was he did not particularly care. Herzl had the sixth zionist congress (1903) vote on establishng a homeland in Uganda. The motion was carried though but the Russian contingent walked out. Then the infighting began, and by the next congress (Herzl died in 1904,) the Russian Jewish contingent (made up of mainly Hisidic Orthodox Jews) had gained control. It was only then that zionism meant setting up a state in Palestine. Until that point the movement was looking for land anywhere with which to establish a state (even land in Argentina was considered).
Baconeater "Hogwash. You can't steal what isn't owned. Israel was mostly barren land."
responce. Not this nonsense of "A land without a people for a people without a land," even Israeli historians no longer push this lie. Read the works of Israeli historians such as <span>Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, Hillel Cohen.</span> <span></span> <span>British historian Martin Gilbert, in his 1998 tomb "Israel" quotes from a report that was commissioned by members of the Zionist congress, and which was presented at the 2nd Zionist congress in 1898. They visited Palestine and reported back to congress that Palestine (the name they call it in the report) had a population of 650,000 Arabs living on the land.</span> <span></span> <span>Another similar lie, is that the Palestinians had neglected the land and it was mostky barren. There are hundreds and hundreds of olive groves that are 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 years old, and older. </span>Who do you think cultivated these olive groves? Invisible elves?
Palestinians were a people with a land, and they heavily cultivated the land as testified by the age of the thousands of olive groves.
Actually Alan, it is you who is the imbecile here. Either willingly ignorant or just ignorant of the situation. You are either a bigoted liar or very naive.
Which is why I wrote I am not a fan of Dershowitz , his book "In Defence of Israel" is an appalling piece of revisionist writing, and a terrible 'so-called' defence of human rights.
However, Dershowitz is a secular zionist, not a religious one. An important distinction. However, he ends up supporting religious fanatics, in his 'defence' of Israel.
Dershowitz, should know better, he is often good on human rights issues, but as soon as Israel is put under the same scrutiny he applies to other countries and causes, he turns into an hypocrit.
Yes, there were 650,000 people in Israel when the Zionist movement began. Only 1/4 of the land was being used. There are now 8 million people on that same land, so there was plenty of room for growth, expansion, and migration. And I hate to break it to you but demographics change everywhere. See Dearborn for an example. The most important thing though is that the land was NOT sovereign.
Wow baconeater, such decisive arguments. With all the evidence you present to defend your position I don't know where to begin.
Oh wait, I donlt need to begin - you have presented none.
You do not know what Freethinkers position is on a two stste solution. So stop making caims which you do not know are true.
I personally do not recognise Israel, so long as Israel insists it is a Jewish state. Such a state of affairs makes it a racist state. I will no sooner recognise a jewish state, then I would a white state, black state etc.,
Israel now exists, that is a fact with which we have to live. However, it does not mean we have to accept Israel as a racist state, or as a country that occupies land that does not belong to it. Israel needs to respect the borders of the countries that surround it, and not occupy land that is not Israel's.
stick to putting bacon in your mouth instead of words in mine. i for 1 feel that our small planet would be far better of if there were zero nations built on religious mysticism. sadly you favor one brand of mystic over another... i think they are all harmful.
"Right to Exist" is a nonsense term. Legally it has no basis at all.
It's a propaganda term to silence criticism of Zionism, ie. the alternative to existance being non-existance, eradication, annihilation etc. As if one is REALLY saying they want mass extermination of Jews when questioning the morality of Zionism.
Baconeater, there's baron land in many places.
There is no logical pathway in your arguments, That is to easy, you cannot complete this sentence acceptably:
"The land was baron, therefore Palestinians don't have rights over the land, Jews can move there in millions"
"There were only 650,000 Arabs, therefore Palestinians don't have rights over the land, Jews can move there in millions"
"INSERT X ARGUMENT, therefore Palestinians don't have rights over the land, Jews can move there in millions"
I think as well as going back to school, he should be presented with things he has previously stated on the topics that he has just learned and asked to publicly review and reflect on all the nonesense he has spouted over the years.
There were not 650,000 people in Israel at the time of the second zionist congress took place. Isael did not exist. There were 650,000 arabs living in Palestine.
There was not a sovereign state, true, but totally irrelevent. Most of the Middle East did not have sovereign states - does that mean people from Europe were free to take their land also???
There were people who had lived in Palestine for hundreds of years, they own deeds to land that were passed on from one generation to another.
Hmm, 8 million people now live there, how many jews were living there in 1902? If you know so much and I am so ignorant may be you would care to give the figure - then we will see how much you do actually know.
Only a quarter of the land?? Where do you get that figure from? Also, please tell us how much land is currently occupied and used within Israel?
There were about 50,000 Jews living there at the turn of the Century. Irrelevant how many Arabs were living there anyway. What percentage of Arabs lived in Dearborn in 1880? Living in a place for hundreds of years means nothing too as land everywhere on this planet has been conquered until it was sovereign. If you have a problem with Israel, you should have a problem with every country. Why point the finger at Israel over every other nation on this planet? You are probably to willfully ignorant to honestly answer that question. Oh, and in 1948 another state was created by the UN. Do you know what it was? Hint: It is a Muslim country for Muslims.
Again, you miss my point about 8 million people Again, demographics change everywhere. It matters not who made up the population in 1902. What matters is the land that was available for more people and expansion on lands that were not being lived on or used at the time.
You are pretty stunned Alan. Bordering on one of the stupidest people I've come across on the internet.
You should take your own advice and keep quiet, simpleton. My argument doesn't just have to do with Israel and the USA, but every country. Every country formed was through war and/or negotiation. Almost every land out there was conquered. Yes, the land of Israel was formed through war and negotiation. So what? Why focus on Israel? I know, and you know.....but that is about all you know.
Palestinians had rights to stay, until they declared war and lost. Sorry, but your I dismiss you as another imbecile. Oh, and it is barren land, not baron land. You are probably all for migration of Arabs to Dearborn, but Jews to the Middle East is a no go, right?
Again, debating Paliphiles is like debating Young Earthers. Both are the stupidest people on this planet. Paliphiles are very hypocritical...they are worse.
Israel was not built on religious mysticism only. It was a bunch of ethnic Jews who wanted to better themselves in a place where Jews would be treated as equals, where anti-semitism wouldn't get in the way. Just like may Arabs go to "Western Lands" to better themselves, many escaping their surroundings in the Arab lands they were born. But it is OK for them to do it, but not OK for Joooos? Again, there was a lot of land that was non governed, and when the Partition was worked on, Jews had a majority where the Jewish state was to be carved out. War broke out though, and the rest is history.
Those who support the Palestinians really need a good psychiatrist.
Baconeater. If you want me to condemn Hamas, no problem. Hezbollah, no problem.
Stop with your silly ad-hominems and claiming to know what people think - are you claiming to be psychic?
I am not a coward. I have stated in my posts my thoughts on Israel quite openly.
Israel should never have been founded is my view. However, it has now existed for 60 years, it has people born their of the third, and even fourth generation. The idea of Israel simply ceasing to exist is stupid and wrong. Now my position should be clear even to you!
However, as I have said, I oppose the state of Israel because it insists on being a Jewish state. That makes it racist in my opinion. I oppose a Jewish state, just as I would oppose a white state, black state etc.,
I opposed South Africa's apartheid, that did not mean I was calling for the destruction of South Africa. South Africa still exists, but aprthied is gone. I oppose the current State of Israel because I oppose racism - that does not mean I want Israel to disappear .
I am interested to know why you think the Bible is a reliable history book? The Israeli state has spent 10's of millions of shekel's digging up its land looking for proof that the Israel of the Bible existed in Palestine? What has it found - a big fat zero.
When Ben Gurion (Who did not believe in the OT as a history book) told the British "The Bible is our Mandate" he was expression one of the fundamental bedrocks of zionist ideology - that there was an ancient state of Israel in existence from about 1000BC known as the United Monarchy (David/Solomon).
Many zionists still believe in Eritz Israel - and they will not settle even or Gaza and the West Bank, - which Israel insists on calling Samaria and Judea.
Stop with the lies that the Jews are returning to their ancestral home by going back to Israel - that is a zionist myth. (Even if it was true - which it is not - it was over 2000 years ago, any property rights had long since expired.
All we know is that there was a city called Jerusalem at least 2000 years ago, we now know it's political/identy was no bigger then the ancient walls of Jerusalem and its neighbouring settlements. Not ot one scrap of archaelogical evidence has been found in all the years Israel has been searching for it, as been found.
Zionism is more of a religious movement - then a secular one. freethinker1 got it right when he asked you why do you favour one brand of religious nonsence over another?"
I support neither, but I do support the rights of Palestinians to live in peace on their historic homeland - Israel needs to recognise Palestine. It could begin by changing its official maps used in schools throughout Israel, which refer to West Bank and Gaza as Judea and Samaria.
Here is a picture of Tel Aviv 1909, before the Joooos built a city there. For those who don't understand what that means or want to spin it, you are lost. Most intelligent human beings get it though.
Baconeater, have you heard of this thing called international law?
Hmm, I do not think it existed a few hundred years ago. Now, surprisingly Israel came into existence based on International law, asking that it abides by International law seems only fair.
I love your might is right argument, how very rational and ethical - such lovely values you choose to defend. Tell me do you apply the same immoral logic to Tibet and China also?
The Palestinians are still a people dispossessed of a land and denied statehood. Israel is primarily responsible for that situation. Israel is still illegally occupaying land, Israel is still oppression the Palestinians. We are not talking history - but about living people. What do you not comprehend about that?
8 million live in Israel?!?!?!?! So what. I could just as easily write no one lives on the moon - both statements on their own say anything about the rights and wrongs of the Isael/Palestinian conflict. You really should try to elaborate and present a cogent argument.
You are right, about 50,000 Jews were living there at the turn of the last century. Now, let us see how willing you are to continue to present facts and figures. How many were living there is 1850? t sounds as if you know your stuff, so you should know it was far far less. Most of those 50,000 had only been living there for a few years.
So, please tell usm how many Jews lived there in 1850, or there abouts?
You started with the ad-hominens. Go look back. Israel needs to be a Jewish majority right now for its survival. The majority of Jews in Israel today are either atheist or agnostic, but it can't afford to have a Muslim majority. On my blog, I am first to refer to the Bible Unearth. There is no evidence Jews existed prior to 500 or 600 BC. But so what? It doesn't take away from the fact that Jews were and still are persecuted (in certain areas) just for being an ethnic Jew. I am not pushing biblical property rights. But that being said, it was a strong reason for the land selected for migration. And many land borders we see today were formed because of religious conflict. You put quite a few words in my mouth in your post. Are you embarrassed yet? And we do know more than there was a Jerusalem. Again, I am not choosing one brand of religious nonsense over another. I support Israel because it is a final place of refuge if anti-semitism rears its ugly head anywhere on this planet going forward. Take the 3000 French Jews who migrated to Israel a few years back. They got sick of the increased acts of anti-semitism for the most part, and left for a place where it wouldn't be tolerated. And I don't know why you support the idiotic idea of Palestinian homeland, when you would readily dismiss the idea of a Jewish homeland. This is where you are a huge hypocrite. And brush up on your archaeological history. Yes, Jews invented Moses, but they were definitely there from 450 BC and beyond as Jews.
<span>Baconeater. writes</span> <span></span> <span>"</span><span>Actually Alan, it is you who is the imbecile here. Either willingly ignorant or just ignorant of the situation. You are either a bigoted liar or very naive. "</span> <span></span> <span>Wow, once againI am blowing away by your sound rational arguments!!!!</span> <span></span> <span>Since you say nothing here, there is nothing to reply to.</span> <span></span> <span>The more an idiot speaks the more he is shown to be an idiot- oh when, oh when will you learn.</span> <span></span> <span>BTW, I say that not because of your stance on Israel (which I disagree with) but because of your name calling and dismissal of arguments. It is that which makes you sound like an idiot. Only an idiot ignores arguments and turns into a troll</span>
Anyway, your still argueing might is right. Never mind, hope one ay the ethics you base international relations on on the 20 and 21st century improves.
Good job Hitler lost, after all according to you right is might!
you changearguments and but words into people's mouths and then say you have presented a cogent argument. Sorry you have not.
"You started with the ad-hominens"
I have called you stupid and have said why - that is not an ad-hominem. However, one of your posts in reply to my points merely said - and I quote in full!
"<span>Actually Alan, it is you who is the imbecile here. Either willingly ignorant or just ignorant of the situation. You are either a bigoted liar or very naive. "</span>
I shall say no more on that subject.
Next point
You write "You put quite a few words in my mouth in your post."
Please tell me where I have done this? Is this a lie or simply your unwillingness to read a post correctly.
You write "And brush up on your archaeological history. Yes, Jews invented Moses, but they were definitely there from 450 BC and beyond as Jews."
Please tell me where I denied this. I denied there was such a state as Israel in existence over 2000 years ago - if you know evidence of the Davvid/Solomon united Monarchy (as it is referred to) please provide some - Israel has found none. I believe anyone reading my posts wil see that is what I clearly said.
You really must try to keep up.
finaly you write
"And I don't know why you support the idiotic idea of Palestinian homeland, when you would readily dismiss the idea of a Jewish homeland."
I no more favour a state that is for Palestinians only, then I do a state which is for Jews only. Why can you not follow a simple argument. If my arguments are false, then show why? But please stick to the argument I make and not make things up.
Anti-semitism is not resolved by occupying land in Gaza and the west Bank etc? Why would you think it is?
If the world is so anti-semite why does New York have a bigger Jewish population then any population centre within Israel?
You are a hypocritical simpleton. I'm done debating you. In fact, I feel sorry for you. What is funny is you think you are smart. It is hysterical to me.
You are a cherry picking imbecile. Really, you are. Again I'm not sure if you are being disengenuous or you are really that stupid.
It matters not how many Jews lived there in 1850, 1500, 2000 BC, etc. MORON! As for your legal arguments, I've seen where they are non existent. Same with International laws. They held more legitimacy when Jordan held rights over the West Bank, but don't anymore. The West Bank and Gaza are up for negotiations....LEGALLY.
Again, you need an education on this topic that is so important to you. I'm sure you spend this much time discussing Darfur. LOLOLOL
Might is right and negotiations is what has defined almost every border on this planet. Like it or not. It is the way things are. Again, Jews migrated to Israel and formed a majority in a land that was not sovereign, and mostly barren. They built cities on deserts, I notice you didn't comment on the Tel Aviv picture, cherry picker.
The Palestinians oppressed today are oppressed because they elected HAMAS who wish to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Jews left Gaza, and the Palis lobbed bombs into Israel, instead of look at it as an opportunity to build a state. What is Israel supposed to do, give the Palis a state that they won't accept? They are on record that they willl not accept a state to the Green Line. And why wasn't that good enough before 1967 anyway?
Again, you are nothing but a rhetorical assmonkey who cherry picks. Things like if anti-semitism was so bad in the world why are there so many Jews in New York. First I didn't say it was bad in the world. I said it is bad in some places, and could get bad in some places in the future. Israel's existence allows Jews anywhere on this planet to go there if things get crappy. But you made the New York comment like an idiot. Like an idiot, because you are a raving imbecile.
muslims and jews are not needed or wanted by most american People .If america was an ALL white nation do you realize what a great country this would be? Taxes would be low Low crime rate (no Afro Americans) no Jews (no censorship of anglo Saxon celtic european values.Instead of subsidizing immigrants why not help families more kids with that same money.Oh one more thing Deport liberal jackasses as well.
I thought only countries could declare war, I guess this nation of Palestine you speak was wiped off the map?
You are somewhat confused as to the nature of immigration, I'm not American, but is it the case (could someone verify) that a foreign occupier of Michigan is directing Arab immigration into Dearborn against the wishes of its' residents? That native peoples of Dearborn are in refugee camps, have no sovereignty and freedom to live as citizens of their own state?
If so, then I am completely against Arab immigration into Dearborn.
American people strictly, are native Americans, Everyone else is an immigrant or their descendants. Unless of course you're a white supremacist. In which there is no need for a discussion.
<span>American people strictly, are native Americans, Everyone else is an immigrant or their descendants. Unless of course you're a white supremacist. In which case there is no need for a discussion.</span>
Most countries were indeed formed through wars, or a result of them, very few have been untouched.
Why "pick on" Israel?
Because out of all of them, I don't see one still expanding its' borders, and imprisoning 1.5 million people after safely evacuating their own settlers.
Building settlements, continuously, whether there is Hamas in power, or whether a PLO that signed a deal to recognize Israel after returning to the 1967 borders. In each situation, you can guarantee one thing, and one thing only: Israeli Expansion.
Doesn't your limited neuron count even see the irony here?
Israel is the most dangerous place for Jews in the world.
That Irans' Jews are actually safer there than in Israel.
Anti-Semitism is over. It's last century. Europe is among the safest places for Jews in the world now, I mean it's ILLEGAL in most countries here to simply deny the holocaust.
Nobody has an issue with Jews wanting security or autonomy, we only have a major problem when Zionists say "but..you see, it has to be in Palestine...what? People there? I don't see any lalalalalala *head in sand*"
The asshole with that view should be dealt with like other assholes, no amount of fictional revisioning of history can change that reality.
I am forced into a reluctant position of choosing reality over morality in this case, in supporting the Jewish cause.
Never mind, the Jews could have set up a homeland somewhere else to escape anti-Semitism (and it still does continue in Europe, but in a much more muted form), the fact is, we need to examine reality, rather than what we deem moral now days.
And the reality is, if you look at most conflicts, it is the Islamic population which behaves most badly - look at the Arabic descent Muslims in Somalia for evidence. Rape as a terrorist weapon, ethnic cleansing of non Arabic Somalis, and religious bigotry as state policy. But this picture can be found in many places across the world where Islam conflicts with other religions - see Nigeria for example or the Kashmir.
So is the Jewish state racist? It certainly has racist elements. Is the Jewish state religiously intolerant. Well, yes to a small degree - but given the amount of secular Jews, and the recent protests against Hasidic Jews getting a monthly stipend just to study the Torah, even that is changing.
Compare that to Islam.
And their is your answer. It may not be perfectly good to support Israel, but the alternative is to support an much worse regime.
After all, why can their not be a one state solution, with jews and muslims sharing a single democratic government? Because the religious law always trumps secular law for Muslims (please look into statistics of british muslims who support sharia law for britian). How many secular islamic democracies are there - which do not repress the islamic parties of god?
The fact of the mater, we have to support the jewish population (not even state, as anti-Semitic feelings to jews from muslims crosses borders), based wholly on their religion. After all, see the history of the turkish SS, in world war two. (darn it may have broken the law). And at that time, their was no land to quarrel about.
The truth is, since 1928*, and the brotherhood of islam interpreting the quran and hadith conservatively, and gained power in the rise of arab nationalism in the 1930's, Islam has become a destructive force against modernity.
* just my pet theory - but this may have been led by the riots of 1920 and 1921 in Palestine (at the time), against the jewish population, prompted by the Balfour declaration. This meaty have supplied the imputes to form a cogent philosophy within Islam to support such actions.
And if the Islamic forces had won the wars launched against Israel - realistically, what do you think the outcome would have been? See the massacres of 1929 and the Arabic revolts of 1936-39 in Palestine for some details.
Sometimes, as atheists, we have to decide on comparing religions, and discussing which religions have relative merit. In this case, with the large secular population of Jews in Israel, compared with the religious fervour and teachings of Islam, we can only really choose one side in the conflict.
For me, it must be based on a realistic understanding of the present situation, rather than hypothetical morality of what should be, but what is.
This is why in my opinion, we must support the Jews.
Yes, and It most likely be socialist as well - look at the whitest countries - and see the correlaction between "racial purity" and socialism/secularism. One of the downfalls of socailism/secularism, is the ideea, we can treat people (and by extension - religions) as the same - which then encourages emmigration from other places!
Religion makes a mockary of society - after all, Since the USA is overwhelmingly christian (and black people are even more religious (christian) than white poeple - check out the statisics), why is their crime at all?
Simple - poverty causes religiousity, but also crime. The most religious -ie Muslims, are the most poor. But also the criminals mostly come from poor backgrounds...Ask yourself why.
The answers are not so simple, when you start thinking - rather than looking at selective statistics. Get to know the whole picture.
oops missed to make a point (apart from the spelling errors)
10% of Palestinians are christian - if the christians made a separate deal with Israel - how long before the Palestinian christians would be a target by Hamas? Why would the Israel's not target such a significant proportion of the population to resolve an issue. Perhaps because the Christians would be too afraid to accept such a deal? After all, all the "Christian" countries would applaud such a deal, as a start to resolving the conflict.
Hopefully, this points to the issue, not being one over land, but religion, since it would be an easier conflict to resolve by giving buffer zones to a third party, unless they would suffer greatly from the proposal. AS Palestinian Christians would, if they accepted a deal.
The reason there are no refugee camps going on is because the West is civilized, and didn't declare war on the Arabs who usurped Dearborn. I'm positive the nativer Dearborn residents didn't want the Arabs to become a majority there, but they did.
Lots of rhetoric, Bozo. Lots of lies too. Anti-semitism does exist. And Israel is a fairly safe place for Jews. And its existence makes it safer for Jews throughout the world, but I don't expect you to understand that. You are very limited.
The more you speak, the more you show to be an idiot. This is very true of you, not me. I put up quite a few facts here between calling you an obvious cherry picking imbecile, but you chose to either cherry pick facts or totally ignore them.
It is you who is a troll. No facts, only lies and rhetoric. And cherry picking is really bad for these type of forums because there are many intelligent people here who can see right through you.
It was mostly the surrounding Arab nations that declared war on Israel in 1948. The majority of Palestinians would most likely have tolerated the Partition. The war was due to Arab intolerance. Expanding on the Dearborn analogy. If Michigan residents were pissed enough to start a war against the Arabs for usurping Dearborn, initially most would wind up in jail (again, because the USA is a tolerant land, and hurting a person or a group of people for immigrating there would not be allowed). However, if a movement by the USA developed, and an army was created with the specific purpose of getting rid of the Arab population of Dearborn, then it becomes a question of might is right. It boils down to whoever wins the war. Of course the idea that Americans would do this is laughable....but the fact that Arabs did this is reality.
its just this type of "know it all , arrogant, entitled and rude " attitude that has turned the majority of the world against israel. good job keep fostering the hatred... it also brings to light how religions can not and will not get along each other and why none are close to being the "peaceful, loving " institutions they claim to be. all religions are a scourge upon our planet and nations built upon religion top that list.
baconeater, its just this type of "know it all , arrogant, entitled and rude " attitude that has turned the majority of the world against israel. good job keep fostering the hatred... it also brings to light how religions can not and will not get along each other and why none are close to being the "peaceful, loving and caring " institutions they claim to be. all religions are a scourge upon our planet and nations built upon religion top that list.
baconeater, Anti-semitism is a made up political/ religous word used to discribe anyone or anything that has an opposing view or goal then that of any given Jew . There is no counter word for one that opposes Christian views, Hindu views or Buddhist views... As an atheist I am, as are those like me.. Anti-religion of any kind, for exactly this reason.... It divides people, often to the point of fighting... Fighting over imaginary beings in the sky is just as stupid as founding a nation based on the same.
Anti-semitism is a made up political/ religous word used to discribe anyone or anything that has an opposing view or goal then that of any given Jew . There is no counter word for one that opposes Christian views, Hindu views or Buddhist views... As an atheist I am, as are those like me.. Anti-religion of any kind, for exactly this reason.... It divides people, often to the point of fighting... Fighting over imaginary beings in the sky is just as stupid as founding a nation based on the same.
Anti-semitism is a made up political/ religous word used to discribe anyone or anything that has an opposing view or goal then that of any given Jew . There is no counter word for one that opposes Christian views, Hindu views or Buddhist views... As an atheist I am, as are those like me.. Anti-religion of any kind, for exactly this reason.... It divides people, often to the point of fighting... Fighting over imaginary beings in the sky is just as stupid as founding a nation based on the same.
Agreed, but do you not see the degree of "evil" (sorry, used to debating theists), as indicative to morality. Do you see atheism as pure morality, or a degree of morality? The problem you face, which you do not seem to recognize, is their are anti-Christians (see fox for their proof) anti-Hindus and anti-Buddhists. Being anti-theistic does not absolve us of being moral, but does not give us the ability to resolve moral questions in an absolute form - simply put, because morality is not absolute.
It is simplistic to believe morality is simplistic, with the two contending views of altruism (as a mechanism of selfishness) verses a pure mechanistic (supported by religion) view is selfishness -I.E. evil.
Truth is, simplistic explanations are false...And when you relate that to reality...it becomes more complex...Remember, you are talking to atheists on this blog, lets not try to reduce problems to the most simple components - but simplicity recognises all the simple components engendering a more complex picture,
Who deserves more criticism...The Jewish people in Palestine or the acts of Arabic Muslims in Somalia? How many rape gangs are their in Jerusalem? How many gangs which "ethnically cleanse" Palestine? How many kill opposing religions (not Jewish, but Christian and even secularists) in Somalia. And Kashmir, and .....well you choose.
Question - you have never been called islamophobic? - Anti-christian (or Satanist)? If you have not, I question your Atheism. As far as I am concerned, just like anti-semetic- these titles are a badge of honour. But for the right reasons - not hatred of people, but hatred of philosophy.
my aim in life is to live and let live, i have no desire to instill any morality or beliefs upon anyone nor do i expect them to try to do so to me or others. all too often, many do in fact try to push their morality and or religion on others. i find this to be in fact immoral and extremely rude. I've not seen one "religion based " nation adhere to "live and let live" in fact its quite the opposite and thus immoral.
See other posts - but islamophibic ring a bell? Anti-Hinduism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hinduism). Anti Christian has always been called Satanism. Do you agree?
Stop being simplistic - bacon eater is most likely a simplistic Christian, but as the saying goes, a stopped clock means he is right twice a day.
Simply put, most atheists do not recognize the power of faith, since they overcome their faith with rationality.
But most people (even exposed to the facts) do not. See America for an example. Certainty is more attractive than doubt, the thing (doubt) we atheists cherish beyond anything. Because without doubt, we cannot evolve and gain greater understanding. And that gives us a level of certainty.
Atheism is hard, since it involves uncertainty. something most people would happily reject for certainty, even over truth. Now think critically... Which is easier - fighting for a god, or rejecting a god.
Or - you have no responsibility for you actions, or you you do have responsibility for you actions.
Commandments absolve your responsibilities...and atheists has no commandments.
See the difference? Now apply to the real world....
Aren't you special painting Jooos with one stroke. Your idiocy and prejudice is coming out. It doesn't take much when dealing with a hypocritical moron.
"<span>Aren't you special painting Jooos with one stroke. Your idiocy and prejudice is coming out. It doesn't take much when dealing with a hypocritical moron."</span>
Yet more name calling and ad-hominems - when will you learn that ad-hominems are not an arguments and will win you few favours on a freethinking forum/blog.
Let us say I am wong on Israel, and you are right (Though I strongly deny it), people will respect different points of view, even ones they disagree with - if argued for. However, from your very first post and throughout your so called 'contributions' you have constantly been rude and abusive, and offered few arguments - with many posts nothing more than an attack on the poster.
This is acting like a troll - please resist the urge, and instead try to communicate your ideas, not your venom.
Now let us look at what you wrote
Freethinker1 wrote in responce to your name calling "<span>its just this type of "know it all , arrogant, entitled and rude " attitude that has turned the majority of the world against israel."</span> <span></span> <span>To which you, baconeater, responded,</span> <span></span> <span>"<span>Aren't you special painting Jooos with one stroke. Your idiocy and prejudice is coming out. It doesn't take much when dealing with a hypocritical moron."</span></span> <span><span></span></span> <span><span>First of all it is 'Jews,' stop using 'Joos' - it is insulting to Jewish people.</span></span> <span><span></span></span> <span><span>Secondly, why do you have trouble reading. You are so antagonistic to the idea of anyone opposing the state of Israel for ethical reasons, that you seem blind to what is written in front of you and insist on 'interpreting it' through your tinted glasses.</span></span> <span><span></span></span> <span><span>Since when does talking about Israel, meaning the Israeli administration and those in Israel who support it (There are many Israeli's who oppose the current policies of Israel), mean one is referring to all Israeli's, let alone all Jews?</span></span> <span><span></span></span><span><span></span></span> <span><span>To claim that Israel reprsents all Jews is bigotry. Are you really saying all Jews support Israel - because they are Jews?</span></span> <span><span></span></span> <span><span>Sorry, but it is you who are lumping all Jews together. That is like saying all Black people believe in witch children, because a large majority of the population in a few African nations do.</span></span> <span><span></span></span> <span><span>Please allow Jews to be individuals - and stop lumping them all as Israeli or Israeli supporters. There are many Jews who strongly oppose the present policies of Israel - and even more who, while not actively opposing Israel, are embarressed by [...]
Sorry, but only someone who does not know that many Palestinian Christians are in Israeli jail because of their opposition to Israeli occupation could write what you have.
Also, the Christian Church's active in the West Bank and Gaza are Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican. They oppose Israeli policies and often speak out on behalf of justice for Palestinians.
However, I believe it is wrong to imagine Israel and Palestine is some gordian knot of difficult moral discernment.
Palestinians have no passports, they have no citizenship, 100,000's live in refugee camps after being driven from their homes by Israel after the 1948 and 1967 wars, though they have no weapons (and most Palestinians have never fired upon an Israeli, let alone fired home made rockets) et they are ofen threatened by the biggest military force in the Middle East - Israel. They live under constant survalience, there are over 500 checkpoints (in an area of land smaller than England) where they have to queue while Israeli soldiers decide if they will allow them travel within the West Bank itself - with the soldiers arbitarily letting them one day, but not the next. Olive groves have been destroyed, farmland and wells deliberatey poisoned, schools and hospitals occupied by the IDF usually resulting in expensive equipment provided by the EU, America and other countries vandalised.
That people should be forced to live like this, in what was once their homeland is a disgrace. Israel can resolve this issue, and the res of thw world should be nsisting that they do so.
If you want to know what Israeli politics is like then do some internet reserch on right wing zionist groups in Israel, and read the Israeli paper Haretz on line over te a couple of months. The violence and contempt with which Palestinians are treated is shocking. Do not think this is a recent thing - it has been like this ever since Israel was founded.
Are you saying you cannot condemn rape, while murder is taking place?
Cannot condemn murder, while genocide is taking place?
Can't outlaw and punish shop lifters, while violent mugging is taking place. We would not accept such a principle for National law, so on what justification do you apply it to international law.
Israel is a state that is oppression a people, note a 'State - that we can oppose because one can confront states directly in ways you cannot deal so easily with non-state groups.
Take the Militia in America - trying to monitor them is difficult, however monitoring the American government is not so difficult.
The ability to make states accountable for their actions matter.
Btw: If your like me I bet you are iritated by the conservative mind set that when it reads 'poverty causes crime' accuses th person who made it of saying 'Poverty excuses crime.'
However, I am not so sure your claim that religion causes poverty is a universal truth (in some cases certainly)
Just because many poor people are religious (though certainly not all - by a long shot) does not prove religion is the cause.
That would be like arguing that some women become pregnent in the back seat of cars, therefore the sitting in the backseat of cars is the cause of pregmency in many women.
You need to demonstrate a connection between your claims not just assert it.
Would be interested in reading up on your claim if you know of any good sources.
PS just a little rejoinder - in which conflict has the most people died.
Somalia or Israel.
Or put it more in your terms - support a murderer or a genocidal religion. Neither choice is ideal, but volume does count.
. . . . . Oh, and the genocide in Somalia is fully supported by the government.
PS - you are not debating a Christian - knock off the either/or choices, since I do not recognize an authoritative morality. This is comparing evils, and choosing the side to minimize suffering. I.E. real world stuff.
PPS who said international law is fair. OR even right most of the time. See Bush's war in Iraq. Would you have supported Bush, if he said he was doing this to topple an evil regime? Since that is against international law, would it have made it immoral? - Not that the whole debacle was mismanaged from the start, and poorly prosecuted.
I was not offering you a either/or situation, as if there is only two choices. However, now you bring it up, if you know of a third choice between not prosecuting rapists because we should prosecute murderers first, then please provide the third alternative?
Rather I was pointing out that we would not accept such a principle in domestic law, so why in international law?
Taking your point on board about international law not being fair - if that is an accurate observation that would be an argument for improving international law, not letting the lssser criminal continue to commit the lesser crime.
If we were talking about police having limited resources, then yes you could argue in an area with an high muder rate, that using those limited resources to lower the rate of muder is more important then to lower the rate of violent mugging.
However, when it comes to international politics we are not talking about such a situation.
Also, I do not understand the view that we should support the lesser criminal, because there are more serious criminals. Yes, one could argue we will have to ignore the lesser crimes for the time being, while we stop the major ones - but that is not to support the lesser crimes.
So going by your analogy, if I understand you correctly, Israel commits the lesser crime (I disagree with the direct comparision you make between Somalia and Israel - but that is another issue) therefore we should support Israel?
The Palestinians are victimes who deserve a just settlement - it can be delivered if the international community decides to enforce international law upon Israel.
Sadly Israel has strong backers, especially in America - imo Christian Zionism as far too strong an influence upon members of congress.
'Oh, and the genocide in Somalia is fully supported by the government.'
That is ony partially true.
First of all supported by, is not the same as committed by.
Secondly, civil war broke out in Somalia in 1991 when the government collapsed. There has not been a fully functional national government since that date, recent governments have at best had only provisional control over areas of the country.
It's present provisional govenment needs all the support the international community can give it, to aid it in its attempts to govern the whole country. It also needs international support to help it hold the first national election for many years.
Once we have a government that can be held to account we will at last be able to meaningfully work at resolving the problems in Somalia.
<span>Baconeater writes, and I quote all the post in full.</span> <span></span> <span>"Wow, you like to make stuff up. What a maroon."</span> <span></span> <span>What another fine piece of outstanding rhectoric by Baconeater!</span> <span></span> <span>Give it up mate!</span>
It is amazing how defensive Huckabee is.
ReplyDelete<span>amended - Referring to a version that has been modified from a previous form
amend - rectify: set straight or right; "remedy these deficiencies"; "rectify the inequities in salaries"; "repair an oversight"</span>
Wow.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a big fan of Dershowitz, but here he was excellent. Each of his responses.
You can see the video at http://video.foxnews.com/v/4448225/huckabee-responds-to-alan-dershowitzs-challenge/
ReplyDeleteNot a big fan of Dershowitz, but all power to his elbow for making Huckabee look like an ignoramus - though that is surely no herculean task.
You gotta give Huckabee a little bit of kudos: for inviting Dershowitz onto the program instead of dumping on him in his absence, which is what Beck or O'Reilly would have done.
ReplyDeleteDown for me.
ReplyDeleteTrue; Huckabee is ever the gentleman, and forever the fool!
ReplyDeletehauhauha Ignorant Huck!
ReplyDeleteHe appears to have already had his fill of sugary salted snacks of high caloric and low nutritional content already. I don't think he needs any more.
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing that neither of them addressed the issue. Separation of Church and State and why the 10 Commandments do not belong in government. The quote from Dershowitz book is about why the government can't endorse the commandments. As example, they clearly can't be used as a guide for law because not only would that violate the first amendment, the first four commandments would put most of the population in jail, so they don't reflect our modern law or contemporary morality.
ReplyDeleteSince when did "commandments" become just suggestions? The first problem with this approach to ethics is that they are arbitray rules with no answer to "why" except that we're supposed to obey God because what's right is what God says is right. This ejects reason and reality completely, and, without a fact based context, the commandments are unintelligible.
ReplyDeleteReally, the "craven" images commandment seems pretty clear. I wonder if this is where the Taliban got their hatred of representational art.
Exodus 20:4 "<span>Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image</span>, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
Well, if shit like this every gets into the Constituition, I don't expect the nutters to remove the 1st amendment; they'll go with Orwellian doublethink instead.
IMO, all the nutters have to do to create a theocracy in principle is to amend the Constitution to include a statement that the Bible is the foundational document for the Constitution and the law. Once this is done, Constitutional questions, in principle, become reducible to theology questions. They wouldn't need to get heavy handed at first, thus scaring people. Many people wouldn't become alarmed because of some pious prattle about the Bible being stuck in the Constitution. The fanatics could let the Xn legislatures do the job over time and as the country is made ready for Xn law by the drivelmeisters. There would be no need, right away, for creepy talk about protecting our "salvation."
ReplyDeletewhile he makes small change of gomer huckabee , Dershowitz is a zionist and defends israel's persecution of the palestinians as well as the theft of their land all in the name of religion.
ReplyDeleteFreethinker, you are hardly a freethinker. Either you are stupid or dissengenuous at best. Israel was not formed in the name of religion purely. The head of the Zionist Herzl was agnostic. Israel was a place where Jews could escape persecution that was growing in Europe.
ReplyDeleteAs for stealing land. Hogwash. You can't steal what isn't owned. Israel was mostly barren land, and was not a sovereign land either. Arabs chose war, lost, boo hoo.
Hypocritical Muslims (most of them are hypocritical when it comes to Israel) and Paliphiles like you have no problem with the fact that there are millions of people of Arab descent in Brazil right now, or that Dearborn is now an Arab Muslim majority city...but have a problem with Jews migrating to an non sovereign land, creating a majority (not through war btw) and then having a Jewish majority where a government was formed.
baconeater are you serious? the israelis bought some of the land yes- but stole the majority of it. forced palestinian farmers out like dogs and killed tens of thousands- wtf have you been smoking!
ReplyDeleteat the time israel was "founded" the Nazis persecution was over. our own southwest and Midwestern plains were in fact barren when we stole it from the "heathens" that occupied for centuries just like the palestinians did in israel, there is nothing that could ever make either actions right. the treatment of the native Americans and palistinians is unconscionable, tell yourself whatever you need to to make it right in your mind, but the fact is , there is nothing about it that is right. the major difference is nobody held our feet to the fire for what we did to the natives, but the price of backing with the zionists is still being felt and will be til its made "right". the depth of your bigotry and one sided thinking is laughable, have the Brazilians and folks in dearborn been made to show the muslims "work papers" to be in certain areas? or reduced either natives to servant jobs like house cleaners, nannies or shoeshine boys? i do however recall a country that did do that to its jews, seams now the jews have learned from their oppressors... sadly the zionists feel entitled.
ReplyDelete.
There's a reason there are Christian groups like "The Seventh Day Adventists"...
ReplyDeleteLies and rhetoric. How come you aren't all over every US politician and person who is OK with the formation of the USA.....or any other country on this planet for that matter. You aint too bright. Done with you.
ReplyDeleteWow. What a bunch of idiocy, lies, and ridiculous comparisons. You are a major hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteIf Israel were not on the defensive, the Muslims there would be like the Muslims in the USA. Tell your buddies to stop attacking the Jews....
Israel gets a bad rap by far left morons, and hypocritical Muslims. Check this out.
ReplyDeletemore gibberish from religious fanatics... exactly what the world needs far less of... your an idiot
ReplyDeletethey reap what they have sown... the mirror is as far as they need go to see where the blame belongs
ReplyDeleteIt is "you are an idiot." And it was written by me, harldy a religous fanatic, moron.
ReplyDeleteBut it does show many of your lies. Are you that uninformed, or do you know you are lying?
Baconeater, sorry but it is you who sound bigoted and ignorant.
ReplyDeleteI have to object when you write
"<span>Freethinker, you are hardly a freethinker."</span>
<span></span>
<span>
<span>To say a freethinker thinks like this on an issue, or they are not a free thinker, is the opposite of free thought.</span>
</span>
<span></span>
<span></span>
<span>Sorry, but who give you the authority to define what the limits of free thought are? Someone disagreeing with you on a divisive political issue does not mean they are not a free thinker - in fact it surely proves they are.</span>
<span></span>
<span>Taking the minority stand on an issue is the essence of what free thought is about. If you had said his "argument is faulty," that would be a 'fair' comment to make; though I would strongly disagree with you and doubt you could actually back up your claim.</span>
Are you saying Hitchins is not a free thinker? Do you think Hitchins defends Israel's treatment of the Palestinians?
Not that I am making an argument from authority - even if Hitchins agreed with your view I would still disagree.
Whose land do you think Israeli settlers are occupying? Why do you think most Israeli settlers are Orthodox Jews? And far from having nowhere else to live, many of them hold duel citizenship - many Jews in the occupied territories also have citizenship in America and else where.
How about telling Israel to recognise international law and to get back behind the Green line?
When you have the Israeli defence minister talking about putting "Palestinians on a diet?" when the international community is denouncing the way sanctions on gaza are being imposed - do not delude yourself that the minister cares for the Palestinians?
When you have the Israeli chief Rabbi saying things like "The fingernail of one Jew is worth more then the life of 10 Palestinians" do not pretend the hardcore zionists in Israel are not racist!
Let Israel stop building settlements then we will have the beginnings of a real chance for peace.
One wit said of the Israeli and Palestinian negotiations. "It is like Israel asking the Palestinians to equally divide a pizza, while busily eating the pizza."
Why do think Obama put so much effort into trying to convince the Israelis to stop building more settlements? - an effort that only left the American administration with egg on its face as for all intents and purposes the Israeli goverernment blew a raspberry at America (something they have done on many occasions) and continued with their expansionist efforts.
<span></span>
<span>Israel continues to steal more land by building settlements, and then cries victim when the people whose land they are stealing object. That is a very religious attitude, to oppose other people's rights and then cry 'persecution' when those opposed object.</span>
<span></span>
<span>There will never be a resolution to the Middle East crisis until we apply the Geneva convention (one cannot claim as ones own land that is gained in warfare - regardless of whether the war was one of aggression or defence).</span>
<span></span>
<span>One may object to some of the methods the Palestinians have used to resist, but when the objection comes from people who refuse to condemn the military might that Israel has used against the Palestinians for the last 60 years, such objections sound pity shallow.</span>
Baconeater,
ReplyDeleteSorry but you sound like an imbecile on this issue. Israel gets a bad press from 'far left morons and hypocritical muslims???' While that may be true, you are not seriously claiming no other group opposes Israel.
I suppose you think Jimmy Carter is 'far left?' Bishop Tutu?, For laughing out loud. Say something sensible or say nothing would be my advice.
Hm, where does that leave Christopher Hitchins? Sorry, but there are many people who oppose Israel's occupation and to say they are all far left is nonsence? Of course, I fear to think what your definition of hard left is. Let me guess, in your definition it is anyone opposing Israeli occupation?
You too are totally ignorant of the situation and history, so get off your soap box, your opinion of me or how I call it matters not.
ReplyDeleteGet educated, unless of course, you are lying on purpose. It is one or the other.
Israel is not perfect. The settlements were a mistake, but Freethinker and his ilk would not accept Israel if it were to go back to the Green Line....another thing that you are completely out to lunch about by the way.
You really need to educate yourself, because you really shouldn't be commenting on the Israel situation in a public forum just like I wouldn't comment in an auto mechanics forum.
baconeater
ReplyDelete"The head of the Zionist Herzl was agnostic."
Indeed he was a non-religious Jew, what he wanted was a safe land for a Jewish state, where tha land was he did not particularly care. Herzl had the sixth zionist congress (1903) vote on establishng a homeland in Uganda. The motion was carried though but the Russian contingent walked out. Then the infighting began, and by the next congress (Herzl died in 1904,) the Russian Jewish contingent (made up of mainly Hisidic Orthodox Jews) had gained control. It was only then that zionism meant setting up a state in Palestine. Until that point the movement was looking for land anywhere with which to establish a state (even land in Argentina was considered).
Baconeater
"Hogwash. You can't steal what isn't owned. Israel was mostly barren land."
responce.
Not this nonsense of "A land without a people for a people without a land," even Israeli historians no longer push this lie. Read the works of Israeli historians such as <span>Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, Hillel Cohen.</span>
<span></span>
<span>British historian Martin Gilbert, in his 1998 tomb "Israel" quotes from a report that was commissioned by members of the Zionist congress, and which was presented at the 2nd Zionist congress in 1898. They visited Palestine and reported back to congress that Palestine (the name they call it in the report) had a population of 650,000 Arabs living on the land.</span>
<span></span>
<span>Another similar lie, is that the Palestinians had neglected the land and it was mostky barren. There are hundreds and hundreds of olive groves that are 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 years old, and older. </span>Who do you think cultivated these olive groves? Invisible elves?
Palestinians were a people with a land, and they heavily cultivated the land as testified by the age of the thousands of olive groves.
Actually Alan, it is you who is the imbecile here. Either willingly ignorant or just ignorant of the situation. You are either a bigoted liar or very naive.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why I wrote I am not a fan of Dershowitz , his book "In Defence of Israel" is an appalling piece of revisionist writing, and a terrible 'so-called' defence of human rights.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Dershowitz is a secular zionist, not a religious one. An important distinction. However, he ends up supporting religious fanatics, in his 'defence' of Israel.
Dershowitz, should know better, he is often good on human rights issues, but as soon as Israel is put under the same scrutiny he applies to other countries and causes, he turns into an hypocrit.
Yes, there were 650,000 people in Israel when the Zionist movement began. Only 1/4 of the land was being used. There are now 8 million people on that same land, so there was plenty of room for growth, expansion, and migration. And I hate to break it to you but demographics change everywhere. See Dearborn for an example.
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing though is that the land was NOT sovereign.
Wow baconeater, such decisive arguments. With all the evidence you present to defend your position I don't know where to begin.
ReplyDeleteOh wait, I donlt need to begin - you have presented none.
You do not know what Freethinkers position is on a two stste solution. So stop making caims which you do not know are true.
I personally do not recognise Israel, so long as Israel insists it is a Jewish state. Such a state of affairs makes it a racist state. I will no sooner recognise a jewish state, then I would a white state, black state etc.,
Israel now exists, that is a fact with which we have to live. However, it does not mean we have to accept Israel as a racist state, or as a country that occupies land that does not belong to it. Israel needs to respect the borders of the countries that surround it, and not occupy land that is not Israel's.
stick to putting bacon in your mouth instead of words in mine. i for 1 feel that our small planet would be far better of if there were zero nations built on religious mysticism. sadly you favor one brand of mystic over another... i think they are all harmful.
ReplyDeleteBaconeater,
ReplyDeleteyour argument is simply one of America got away with it two centuries ago, so Israel should be allowed to get away with it now?!?!? Are you for real!
Wow, the sophistication and morality of your argument just blows me away.
I said it before and I will say it again, if you have nothing sensible to say, then best say nothing.
"Right to Exist" is a nonsense term. Legally it has no basis at all.
ReplyDeleteIt's a propaganda term to silence criticism of Zionism, ie. the alternative to existance being non-existance, eradication, annihilation etc. As if one is REALLY saying they want mass extermination of Jews when questioning the morality of Zionism.
Baconeater, there's baron land in many places.
There is no logical pathway in your arguments, That is to easy, you cannot complete this sentence acceptably:
"The land was baron, therefore Palestinians don't have rights over the land, Jews can move there in millions"
"There were only 650,000 Arabs, therefore Palestinians don't have rights over the land, Jews can move there in millions"
"INSERT X ARGUMENT, therefore Palestinians don't have rights over the land, Jews can move there in millions"
Nothing works, I'm afraid.
I think as well as going back to school, he should be presented with things he has previously stated on the topics that he has just learned and asked to publicly review and reflect on all the nonesense he has spouted over the years.
ReplyDeleteThere were not 650,000 people in Israel at the time of the second zionist congress took place. Isael did not exist. There were 650,000 arabs living in Palestine.
ReplyDeleteThere was not a sovereign state, true, but totally irrelevent. Most of the Middle East did not have sovereign states - does that mean people from Europe were free to take their land also???
There were people who had lived in Palestine for hundreds of years, they own deeds to land that were passed on from one generation to another.
Hmm, 8 million people now live there, how many jews were living there in 1902? If you know so much and I am so ignorant may be you would care to give the figure - then we will see how much you do actually know.
Only a quarter of the land?? Where do you get that figure from? Also, please tell us how much land is currently occupied and used within Israel?
There were about 50,000 Jews living there at the turn of the Century. Irrelevant how many Arabs were living there anyway. What percentage of Arabs lived in Dearborn in 1880?
ReplyDeleteLiving in a place for hundreds of years means nothing too as land everywhere on this planet has been conquered until it was sovereign. If you have a problem with Israel, you should have a problem with every country. Why point the finger at Israel over every other nation on this planet? You are probably to willfully ignorant to honestly answer that question.
Oh, and in 1948 another state was created by the UN. Do you know what it was? Hint: It is a Muslim country for Muslims.
Again, you miss my point about 8 million people Again, demographics change everywhere. It matters not who made up the population in 1902. What matters is the land that was available for more people and expansion on lands that were not being lived on or used at the time.
You are pretty stunned Alan. Bordering on one of the stupidest people I've come across on the internet.
You should take your own advice and keep quiet, simpleton.
ReplyDeleteMy argument doesn't just have to do with Israel and the USA, but every country. Every country formed was through war and/or negotiation. Almost every land out there was conquered.
Yes, the land of Israel was formed through war and negotiation. So what? Why focus on Israel? I know, and you know.....but that is about all you know.
Palestinians had rights to stay, until they declared war and lost. Sorry, but your I dismiss you as another imbecile. Oh, and it is barren land, not baron land.
ReplyDeleteYou are probably all for migration of Arabs to Dearborn, but Jews to the Middle East is a no go, right?
Again, debating Paliphiles is like debating Young Earthers. Both are the stupidest people on this planet. Paliphiles are very hypocritical...they are worse.
Israel was not built on religious mysticism only. It was a bunch of ethnic Jews who wanted to better themselves in a place where Jews would be treated as equals, where anti-semitism wouldn't get in the way.
ReplyDeleteJust like may Arabs go to "Western Lands" to better themselves, many escaping their surroundings in the Arab lands they were born. But it is OK for them to do it, but not OK for Joooos?
Again, there was a lot of land that was non governed, and when the Partition was worked on, Jews had a majority where the Jewish state was to be carved out. War broke out though, and the rest is history.
Those who support the Palestinians really need a good psychiatrist.
Baconeater. If you want me to condemn Hamas, no problem. Hezbollah, no problem.
ReplyDeleteStop with your silly ad-hominems and claiming to know what people think - are you claiming to be psychic?
I am not a coward. I have stated in my posts my thoughts on Israel quite openly.
Israel should never have been founded is my view. However, it has now existed for 60 years, it has people born their of the third, and even fourth generation. The idea of Israel simply ceasing to exist is stupid and wrong.
Now my position should be clear even to you!
However, as I have said, I oppose the state of Israel because it insists on being a Jewish state. That makes it racist in my opinion. I oppose a Jewish state, just as I would oppose a white state, black state etc.,
I opposed South Africa's apartheid, that did not mean I was calling for the destruction of South Africa. South Africa still exists, but aprthied is gone. I oppose the current State of Israel because I oppose racism - that does not mean I want Israel to disappear .
I am interested to know why you think the Bible is a reliable history book? The Israeli state has spent 10's of millions of shekel's digging up its land looking for proof that the Israel of the Bible existed in Palestine? What has it found - a big fat zero.
When Ben Gurion (Who did not believe in the OT as a history book) told the British "The Bible is our Mandate" he was expression one of the fundamental bedrocks of zionist ideology - that there was an ancient state of Israel in existence from about 1000BC known as the United Monarchy (David/Solomon).
Many zionists still believe in Eritz Israel - and they will not settle even or Gaza and the West Bank, - which Israel insists on calling Samaria and Judea.
Stop with the lies that the Jews are returning to their ancestral home by going back to Israel - that is a zionist myth. (Even if it was true - which it is not - it was over 2000 years ago, any property rights had long since expired.
All we know is that there was a city called Jerusalem at least 2000 years ago, we now know it's political/identy was no bigger then the ancient walls of Jerusalem and its neighbouring settlements. Not ot one scrap of archaelogical evidence has been found in all the years Israel has been searching for it, as been found.
Zionism is more of a religious movement - then a secular one. freethinker1 got it right when he asked you why do you favour one brand of religious nonsence over another?"
I support neither, but I do support the rights of Palestinians to live in peace on their historic homeland - Israel needs to recognise Palestine. It could begin by changing its official maps used in schools throughout Israel, which refer to West Bank and Gaza as Judea and Samaria.
Here is a picture of Tel Aviv 1909, before the Joooos built a city there. For those who don't understand what that means or want to spin it, you are lost. Most intelligent human beings get it though.
ReplyDeleteLots of pics of what is now Israel from back in the 1800's and early 1900's.
There were even German colonies back then.
The Jews built it up to a point that Arabs migrated there in the 20th Century to seek out a better life too.
But you won't get that from the yo yo's I've been responding to here.
Baconeater, have you heard of this thing called international law?
ReplyDeleteHmm, I do not think it existed a few hundred years ago. Now, surprisingly Israel came into existence based on International law, asking that it abides by International law seems only fair.
I love your might is right argument, how very rational and ethical - such lovely values you choose to defend. Tell me do you apply the same immoral logic to Tibet and China also?
The Palestinians are still a people dispossessed of a land and denied statehood. Israel is primarily responsible for that situation. Israel is still illegally occupaying land, Israel is still oppression the Palestinians. We are not talking history - but about living people. What do you not comprehend about that?
8 million live in Israel?!?!?!?! So what. I could just as easily write no one lives on the moon - both statements on their own say anything about the rights and wrongs of the Isael/Palestinian conflict. You really should try to elaborate and present a cogent argument.
You are right, about 50,000 Jews were living there at the turn of the last century. Now, let us see how willing you are to continue to present facts and figures. How many were living there is 1850? t sounds as if you know your stuff, so you should know it was far far less. Most of those 50,000 had only been living there for a few years.
So, please tell usm how many Jews lived there in 1850, or there abouts?
Will you answer? Let us see.
Stop the name calling, stop asserting facts, and please present some rational arguments. Are you capable of that?
ReplyDeleteYou started with the ad-hominens. Go look back. Israel needs to be a Jewish majority right now for its survival. The majority of Jews in Israel today are either atheist or agnostic, but it can't afford to have a Muslim majority.
ReplyDeleteOn my blog, I am first to refer to the Bible Unearth. There is no evidence Jews existed prior to 500 or 600 BC. But so what? It doesn't take away from the fact that Jews were and still are persecuted (in certain areas) just for being an ethnic Jew.
I am not pushing biblical property rights. But that being said, it was a strong reason for the land selected for migration. And many land borders we see today were formed because of religious conflict.
You put quite a few words in my mouth in your post. Are you embarrassed yet?
And we do know more than there was a Jerusalem.
Again, I am not choosing one brand of religious nonsense over another. I support Israel because it is a final place of refuge if anti-semitism rears its ugly head anywhere on this planet going forward.
Take the 3000 French Jews who migrated to Israel a few years back. They got sick of the increased acts of anti-semitism for the most part, and left for a place where it wouldn't be tolerated.
And I don't know why you support the idiotic idea of Palestinian homeland, when you would readily dismiss the idea of a Jewish homeland. This is where you are a huge hypocrite.
And brush up on your archaeological history. Yes, Jews invented Moses, but they were definitely there from 450 BC and beyond as Jews.
<span>Baconeater. writes</span>
ReplyDelete<span></span>
<span>"</span><span>Actually Alan, it is you who is the imbecile here. Either willingly ignorant or just ignorant of the situation. You are either a bigoted liar or very naive. "</span>
<span></span>
<span>Wow, once againI am blowing away by your sound rational arguments!!!!</span>
<span></span>
<span>Since you say nothing here, there is nothing to reply to.</span>
<span></span>
<span>The more an idiot speaks the more he is shown to be an idiot- oh when, oh when will you learn.</span>
<span></span>
<span>BTW, I say that not because of your stance on Israel (which I disagree with) but because of your name calling and dismissal of arguments. It is that which makes you sound like an idiot. Only an idiot ignores arguments and turns into a troll</span>
I thougt you were done with me!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, your still argueing might is right. Never mind, hope one ay the ethics you base international relations on on the 20 and 21st century improves.
Good job Hitler lost, after all according to you right is might!
<span>I thougt you were done with me!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, your still argueing might is right. Never mind, hope one ay the ethics you base international politics on in the 20 and 21st century improves.
Good job Hitler lost, after all according to you right is might!</span>
Oh, bacon eater, baconeater,
ReplyDeleteyou changearguments and but words into people's mouths and then say you have presented a cogent argument. Sorry you have not.
"You started with the ad-hominens"
I have called you stupid and have said why - that is not an ad-hominem.
However, one of your posts in reply to my points merely said - and I quote in full!
"<span>Actually Alan, it is you who is the imbecile here. Either willingly ignorant or just ignorant of the situation. You are either a bigoted liar or very naive. "</span>
I shall say no more on that subject.
Next point
You write
"You put quite a few words in my mouth in your post."
Please tell me where I have done this? Is this a lie or simply your unwillingness to read a post correctly.
You write "And brush up on your archaeological history. Yes, Jews invented Moses, but they were definitely there from 450 BC and beyond as Jews."
Please tell me where I denied this. I denied there was such a state as Israel in existence over 2000 years ago - if you know evidence of the Davvid/Solomon united Monarchy (as it is referred to) please provide some - Israel has found none. I believe anyone reading my posts wil see that is what I clearly said.
You really must try to keep up.
finaly you write
"And I don't know why you support the idiotic idea of Palestinian homeland, when you would readily dismiss the idea of a Jewish homeland."
I no more favour a state that is for Palestinians only, then I do a state which is for Jews only. Why can you not follow a simple argument. If my arguments are false, then show why? But please stick to the argument I make and not make things up.
Anti-semitism is not resolved by occupying land in Gaza and the west Bank etc? Why would you think it is?
If the world is so anti-semite why does New York have a bigger Jewish population then any population centre within Israel?
You know what. You are a moron. Plain and simple. Proof is in your posts. I don't need to say more.
ReplyDeleteYou are a hypocritical simpleton. I'm done debating you. In fact, I feel sorry for you. What is funny is you think you are smart. It is hysterical to me.
ReplyDeleteYou are a cherry picking imbecile. Really, you are. Again I'm not sure if you are being disengenuous or you are really that stupid.
ReplyDeleteIt matters not how many Jews lived there in 1850, 1500, 2000 BC, etc. MORON!
As for your legal arguments, I've seen where they are non existent. Same with International laws. They held more legitimacy when Jordan held rights over the West Bank, but don't anymore. The West Bank and Gaza are up for negotiations....LEGALLY.
Again, you need an education on this topic that is so important to you. I'm sure you spend this much time discussing Darfur. LOLOLOL
Might is right and negotiations is what has defined almost every border on this planet. Like it or not. It is the way things are. Again, Jews migrated to Israel and formed a majority in a land that was not sovereign, and mostly barren. They built cities on deserts, I notice you didn't comment on the Tel Aviv picture, cherry picker.
The Palestinians oppressed today are oppressed because they elected HAMAS who wish to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Jews left Gaza, and the Palis lobbed bombs into Israel, instead of look at it as an opportunity to build a state. What is Israel supposed to do, give the Palis a state that they won't accept? They are on record that they willl not accept a state to the Green Line. And why wasn't that good enough before 1967 anyway?
Again, you are nothing but a rhetorical assmonkey who cherry picks. Things like if anti-semitism was so bad in the world why are there so many Jews in New York. First I didn't say it was bad in the world. I said it is bad in some places, and could get bad in some places in the future. Israel's existence allows Jews anywhere on this planet to go there if things get crappy. But you made the New York comment like an idiot. Like an idiot, because you are a raving imbecile.
muslims and jews are not needed or wanted by most american People .If america was an ALL white nation do you realize what a great country this would be?
ReplyDeleteTaxes would be low Low crime rate (no Afro Americans) no Jews (no censorship of
anglo Saxon celtic european values.Instead of subsidizing immigrants why not help families more kids with that same money.Oh one more thing Deport liberal jackasses as well.
Palestinians declared war?
ReplyDeleteI thought only countries could declare war, I guess this nation of Palestine you speak was wiped off the map?
You are somewhat confused as to the nature of immigration, I'm not American, but is it the case (could someone verify) that a foreign occupier of Michigan is directing Arab immigration into Dearborn against the wishes of its' residents? That native peoples of Dearborn are in refugee camps, have no sovereignty and freedom to live as citizens of their own state?
If so, then I am completely against Arab immigration into Dearborn.
Nobody denies Zionists do very well building things, they sure can fund some impressive projects.
ReplyDeleteThey have no more right to it than an interior designer does over a poorly decorated house.
You fail again.
American people strictly, are native Americans, Everyone else is an immigrant or their descendants. Unless of course you're a white supremacist. In which there is no need for a discussion.
ReplyDelete<span>American people strictly, are native Americans, Everyone else is an immigrant or their descendants. Unless of course you're a white supremacist. In which case there is no need for a discussion.</span>
ReplyDeleteMost countries were indeed formed through wars, or a result of them, very few have been untouched.
ReplyDeleteWhy "pick on" Israel?
Because out of all of them, I don't see one still expanding its' borders, and imprisoning 1.5 million people after safely evacuating their own settlers.
Building settlements, continuously, whether there is Hamas in power, or whether a PLO that signed a deal to recognize Israel after returning to the 1967 borders. In each situation, you can guarantee one thing, and one thing only: Israeli Expansion.
Doesn't your limited neuron count even see the irony here?
ReplyDeleteIsrael is the most dangerous place for Jews in the world.
That Irans' Jews are actually safer there than in Israel.
Anti-Semitism is over. It's last century. Europe is among the safest places for Jews in the world now, I mean it's ILLEGAL in most countries here to simply deny the holocaust.
Nobody has an issue with Jews wanting security or autonomy, we only have a major problem when Zionists say "but..you see, it has to be in Palestine...what? People there? I don't see any lalalalalala *head in sand*"
The asshole with that view should be dealt with like other assholes, no amount of fictional revisioning of history can change that reality.
I am forced into a reluctant position of choosing reality over morality in this case, in supporting the Jewish cause.
ReplyDeleteNever mind, the Jews could have set up a homeland somewhere else to escape anti-Semitism (and it still does continue in Europe, but in a much more muted form), the fact is, we need to examine reality, rather than what we deem moral now days.
And the reality is, if you look at most conflicts, it is the Islamic population which behaves most badly - look at the Arabic descent Muslims in Somalia for evidence. Rape as a terrorist weapon, ethnic cleansing of non Arabic Somalis, and religious bigotry as state policy. But this picture can be found in many places across the world where Islam conflicts with other religions - see Nigeria for example or the Kashmir.
So is the Jewish state racist? It certainly has racist elements. Is the Jewish state religiously intolerant. Well, yes to a small degree - but given the amount of secular Jews, and the recent protests against Hasidic Jews getting a monthly stipend just to study the Torah, even that is changing.
Compare that to Islam.
And their is your answer. It may not be perfectly good to support Israel, but the alternative is to support an much worse regime.
After all, why can their not be a one state solution, with jews and muslims sharing a single democratic government? Because the religious law always trumps secular law for Muslims (please look into statistics of british muslims who support sharia law for britian).
How many secular islamic democracies are there - which do not repress the islamic parties of god?
The fact of the mater, we have to support the jewish population (not even state, as anti-Semitic feelings to jews from muslims crosses borders), based wholly on their religion. After all, see the history of the turkish SS, in world war two. (darn it may have broken the law). And at that time, their was no land to quarrel about.
The truth is, since 1928*, and the brotherhood of islam interpreting the quran and hadith conservatively, and gained power in the rise of arab nationalism in the 1930's, Islam has become a destructive force against modernity.
* just my pet theory - but this may have been led by the riots of 1920 and 1921 in Palestine (at the time), against the jewish population, prompted by the Balfour declaration. This meaty have supplied the imputes to form a cogent philosophy within Islam to support such actions.
And if the Islamic forces had won the wars launched against Israel - realistically, what do you think the outcome would have been? See the massacres of 1929 and the Arabic revolts of 1936-39 in Palestine for some details.
Sometimes, as atheists, we have to decide on comparing religions, and discussing which religions have relative merit. In this case, with the large secular population of Jews in Israel, compared with the religious fervour and teachings of Islam, we can only really choose one side in the conflict.
For me, it must be based on a realistic understanding of the present situation, rather than hypothetical morality of what should be, but what is.
This is why in my opinion, we must support the Jews.
Yes, and It most likely be socialist as well - look at the whitest countries - and see the correlaction between "racial purity" and socialism/secularism. One of the downfalls of socailism/secularism, is the ideea, we can treat people (and by extension - religions) as the same - which then encourages emmigration from other places!
ReplyDeleteReligion makes a mockary of society - after all, Since the USA is overwhelmingly christian (and black people are even more religious (christian) than white poeple - check out the statisics), why is their crime at all?
Simple - poverty causes religiousity, but also crime. The most religious -ie Muslims, are the most poor. But also the criminals mostly come from poor backgrounds...Ask yourself why.
The answers are not so simple, when you start thinking - rather than looking at selective statistics. Get to know the whole picture.
PS you are a F*&^$%^ idiot.
oops missed to make a point (apart from the spelling errors)
ReplyDelete10% of Palestinians are christian - if the christians made a separate deal with Israel - how long before the Palestinian christians would be a target by Hamas? Why would the Israel's not target such a significant proportion of the population to resolve an issue. Perhaps because the Christians would be too afraid to accept such a deal? After all, all the "Christian" countries would applaud such a deal, as a start to resolving the conflict.
Hopefully, this points to the issue, not being one over land, but religion, since it would be an easier conflict to resolve by giving buffer zones to a third party, unless they would suffer greatly from the proposal. AS Palestinian Christians would, if they accepted a deal.
The reason there are no refugee camps going on is because the West is civilized, and didn't declare war on the Arabs who usurped Dearborn. I'm positive the nativer Dearborn residents didn't want the Arabs to become a majority there, but they did.
ReplyDeleteLots of rhetoric, Bozo. Lots of lies too. Anti-semitism does exist. And Israel is a fairly safe place for Jews. And its existence makes it safer for Jews throughout the world, but I don't expect you to understand that. You are very limited.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Jews left Gaza, were they expanding their borders? Imprisoning 1.5 milion people? Are you for real?
ReplyDeletePLO signed a peace deal? LOL
The more you speak, the more you show to be an idiot. This is very true of you, not me.
ReplyDeleteI put up quite a few facts here between calling you an obvious cherry picking imbecile, but you chose to either cherry pick facts or totally ignore them.
It is you who is a troll. No facts, only lies and rhetoric. And cherry picking is really bad for these type of forums because there are many intelligent people here who can see right through you.
Again, you are for immigration as long as it isn't Jooooos. Pathetic clown.
ReplyDeleteIt was mostly the surrounding Arab nations that declared war on Israel in 1948. The majority of Palestinians would most likely have tolerated the Partition. The war was due to Arab intolerance.
ReplyDeleteExpanding on the Dearborn analogy. If Michigan residents were pissed enough to start a war against the Arabs for usurping Dearborn, initially most would wind up in jail (again, because the USA is a tolerant land, and hurting a person or a group of people for immigrating there would not be allowed). However, if a movement by the USA developed, and an army was created with the specific purpose of getting rid of the Arab population of Dearborn, then it becomes a question of might is right. It boils down to whoever wins the war.
Of course the idea that Americans would do this is laughable....but the fact that Arabs did this is reality.
its just this type of "know it all , arrogant, entitled and rude " attitude that has turned the majority of the world against israel. good job keep fostering the hatred... it also brings to light how religions can not and will not get along each other and why none are close to being the "peaceful, loving " institutions they claim to be. all religions are a scourge upon our planet and nations built upon religion top that list.
ReplyDeletebaconeater,
ReplyDeleteits just this type of "know it all , arrogant, entitled and rude " attitude that has turned the majority of the world against israel. good job keep fostering the hatred... it also brings to light how religions can not and will not get along each other and why none are close to being the "peaceful, loving and caring " institutions they claim to be. all religions are a scourge upon our planet and nations built upon religion top that list.
baconeater, Anti-semitism is a made up political/ religous word used to discribe anyone or anything that has an opposing view or goal then that of any given Jew . There is no counter word for one that opposes Christian views, Hindu views or Buddhist views... As an atheist I am, as are those like me.. Anti-religion of any kind, for exactly this reason.... It divides people, often to the point of fighting... Fighting over imaginary beings in the sky is just as stupid as founding a nation based on the same.
ReplyDeleteAnti-semitism is a made up political/ religous word used to discribe anyone or anything that has an opposing view or goal then that of any given Jew . There is no counter word for one that opposes Christian views, Hindu views or Buddhist views... As an atheist I am, as are those like me.. Anti-religion of any kind, for exactly this reason.... It divides people, often to the point of fighting... Fighting over imaginary beings in the sky is just as stupid as founding a nation based on the same.
ReplyDeleteAnti-semitism is a made up political/ religous word used to discribe anyone or anything that has an opposing view or goal then that of any given Jew . There is no counter word for one that opposes Christian views, Hindu views or Buddhist views... As an atheist I am, as are those like me.. Anti-religion of any kind, for exactly this reason.... It divides people, often to the point of fighting... Fighting over imaginary beings in the sky is just as stupid as founding a nation based on the same.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, but do you not see the degree of "evil" (sorry, used to debating theists), as indicative to morality. Do you see atheism as pure morality, or a degree of morality? The problem you face, which you do not seem to recognize, is their are anti-Christians (see fox for their proof) anti-Hindus and anti-Buddhists. Being anti-theistic does not absolve us of being moral, but does not give us the ability to resolve moral questions in an absolute form - simply put, because morality is not absolute.
ReplyDeleteIt is simplistic to believe morality is simplistic, with the two contending views of altruism (as a mechanism of selfishness) verses a pure mechanistic (supported by religion) view is selfishness -I.E. evil.
Truth is, simplistic explanations are false...And when you relate that to reality...it becomes more complex...Remember, you are talking to atheists on this blog, lets not try to reduce problems to the most simple components - but simplicity recognises all the simple components engendering a more complex picture,
Who deserves more criticism...The Jewish people in Palestine or the acts of Arabic Muslims in Somalia? How many rape gangs are their in Jerusalem? How many gangs which "ethnically cleanse" Palestine? How many kill opposing religions (not Jewish, but Christian and even secularists) in Somalia. And Kashmir, and .....well you choose.
ReplyDeleteQuestion - you have never been called islamophobic? - Anti-christian (or Satanist)? If you have not, I question your Atheism. As far as I am concerned, just like anti-semetic- these titles are a badge of honour. But for the right reasons - not hatred of people, but hatred of philosophy.
my aim in life is to live and let live, i have no desire to instill any morality or beliefs upon anyone nor do i expect them to try to do so to me or others. all too often, many do in fact try to push their morality and or religion on others. i find this to be in fact immoral and extremely rude. I've not seen one "religion based " nation adhere to "live and let live" in fact its quite the opposite and thus immoral.
ReplyDeleteSee other posts - but islamophibic ring a bell? Anti-Hinduism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hinduism). Anti Christian has always been called Satanism. Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteStop being simplistic - bacon eater is most likely a simplistic Christian, but as the saying goes, a stopped clock means he is right twice a day.
Simply put, most atheists do not recognize the power of faith, since they overcome their faith with rationality.
But most people (even exposed to the facts) do not. See America for an example. Certainty is more attractive than doubt, the thing (doubt) we atheists cherish beyond anything. Because without doubt, we cannot evolve and gain greater understanding. And that gives us a level of certainty.
Atheism is hard, since it involves uncertainty. something most people would happily reject for certainty, even over truth. Now think critically... Which is easier - fighting for a god, or rejecting a god.
Or - you have no responsibility for you actions, or you you do have responsibility for you actions.
Commandments absolve your responsibilities...and atheists has no commandments.
See the difference? Now apply to the real world....
Aren't you special painting Jooos with one stroke. Your idiocy and prejudice is coming out. It doesn't take much when dealing with a hypocritical moron.
ReplyDeleteBaconeater, a simplisticf Christian. Check my blog out.
ReplyDeleteWow, you like to make stuff up. What a maroon.
ReplyDeletebaconeater writes
ReplyDelete"<span>Aren't you special painting Jooos with one stroke. Your idiocy and prejudice is coming out. It doesn't take much when dealing with a hypocritical moron."</span>
Yet more name calling and ad-hominems - when will you learn that ad-hominems are not an arguments and will win you few favours on a freethinking forum/blog.
Let us say I am wong on Israel, and you are right (Though I strongly deny it), people will respect different points of view, even ones they disagree with - if argued for. However, from your very first post and throughout your so called 'contributions' you have constantly been rude and abusive, and offered few arguments - with many posts nothing more than an attack on the poster.
This is acting like a troll - please resist the urge, and instead try to communicate your ideas, not your venom.
Now let us look at what you wrote
Freethinker1 wrote in responce to your name calling
"<span>its just this type of "know it all , arrogant, entitled and rude " attitude that has turned the majority of the world against israel."</span>
<span></span>
<span>To which you, baconeater, responded,</span>
<span></span>
<span>"<span>Aren't you special painting Jooos with one stroke. Your idiocy and prejudice is coming out. It doesn't take much when dealing with a hypocritical moron."</span></span>
<span><span></span></span>
<span><span>First of all it is 'Jews,' stop using 'Joos' - it is insulting to Jewish people.</span></span>
<span><span></span></span>
<span><span>Secondly, why do you have trouble reading. You are so antagonistic to the idea of anyone opposing the state of Israel for ethical reasons, that you seem blind to what is written in front of you and insist on 'interpreting it' through your tinted glasses.</span></span>
<span><span></span></span>
<span><span>Since when does talking about Israel, meaning the Israeli administration and those in Israel who support it (There are many Israeli's who oppose the current policies of Israel), mean one is referring to all Israeli's, let alone all Jews?</span></span>
<span><span></span></span><span><span></span></span>
<span><span>To claim that Israel reprsents all Jews is bigotry. Are you really saying all Jews support Israel - because they are Jews?</span></span>
<span><span></span></span>
<span><span>Sorry, but it is you who are lumping all Jews together. That is like saying all Black people believe in witch children, because a large majority of the population in a few African nations do.</span></span>
<span><span></span></span>
<span><span>Please allow Jews to be individuals - and stop lumping them all as Israeli or Israeli supporters. There are many Jews who strongly oppose the present policies of Israel - and even more who, while not actively opposing Israel, are embarressed by [...]
Silverspirit,
ReplyDeleteSorry, but only someone who does not know that many Palestinian Christians are in Israeli jail because of their opposition to Israeli occupation could write what you have.
Also, the Christian Church's active in the West Bank and Gaza are Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican. They oppose Israeli policies and often speak out on behalf of justice for Palestinians.
SIlvrspirit,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that morality is not absolute.
However, I believe it is wrong to imagine Israel and Palestine is some gordian knot of difficult moral discernment.
Palestinians have no passports, they have no citizenship, 100,000's live in refugee camps after being driven from their homes by Israel after the 1948 and 1967 wars, though they have no weapons (and most Palestinians have never fired upon an Israeli, let alone fired home made rockets) et they are ofen threatened by the biggest military force in the Middle East - Israel. They live under constant survalience, there are over 500 checkpoints (in an area of land smaller than England) where they have to queue while Israeli soldiers decide if they will allow them travel within the West Bank itself - with the soldiers arbitarily letting them one day, but not the next. Olive groves have been destroyed, farmland and wells deliberatey poisoned, schools and hospitals occupied by the IDF usually resulting in expensive equipment provided by the EU, America and other countries vandalised.
That people should be forced to live like this, in what was once their homeland is a disgrace. Israel can resolve this issue, and the res of thw world should be nsisting that they do so.
If you want to know what Israeli politics is like then do some internet reserch on right wing zionist groups in Israel, and read the Israeli paper Haretz on line over te a couple of months. The violence and contempt with which Palestinians are treated is shocking. Do not think this is a recent thing - it has been like this ever since Israel was founded.
Are you saying you cannot condemn rape, while murder is taking place?
ReplyDeleteCannot condemn murder, while genocide is taking place?
Can't outlaw and punish shop lifters, while violent mugging is taking place. We would not accept such a principle for National law, so on what justification do you apply it to international law.
Israel is a state that is oppression a people, note a 'State - that we can oppose because one can confront states directly in ways you cannot deal so easily with non-state groups.
Take the Militia in America - trying to monitor them is difficult, however monitoring the American government is not so difficult.
The ability to make states accountable for their actions matter.
Rufus, I hope this is a bad attempt at hyberbole, if not it is deeply offensive.
ReplyDeleteI hate racism - it is the height of ignorance and parochial thinking in my opinion.
Agree that poverty causes crime.
ReplyDeleteBtw: If your like me I bet you are iritated by the conservative mind set that when it reads 'poverty causes crime' accuses th person who made it of saying 'Poverty excuses crime.'
However, I am not so sure your claim that religion causes poverty is a universal truth (in some cases certainly)
Just because many poor people are religious (though certainly not all - by a long shot) does not prove religion is the cause.
That would be like arguing that some women become pregnent in the back seat of cars, therefore the sitting in the backseat of cars is the cause of pregmency in many women.
You need to demonstrate a connection between your claims not just assert it.
Would be interested in reading up on your claim if you know of any good sources.
Did you read - who deserves MORE criticism?
ReplyDeletePS just a little rejoinder - in which conflict has the most people died.
Somalia or Israel.
Or put it more in your terms - support a murderer or a genocidal religion. Neither choice is ideal, but volume does count.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh, and the genocide in Somalia is fully supported by the government.
PS - you are not debating a Christian - knock off the either/or choices, since I do not recognize an authoritative morality. This is comparing evils, and choosing the side to minimize suffering. I.E. real world stuff.
PPS who said international law is fair. OR even right most of the time. See Bush's war in Iraq. Would you have supported Bush, if he said he was doing this to topple an evil regime? Since that is against international law, would it have made it immoral? - Not that the whole debacle was mismanaged from the start, and poorly prosecuted.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
ReplyDeleteI was not offering you a either/or situation, as if there is only two choices. However, now you bring it up, if you know of a third choice between not prosecuting rapists because we should prosecute murderers first, then please provide the third alternative?
Rather I was pointing out that we would not accept such a principle in domestic law, so why in international law?
Taking your point on board about international law not being fair - if that is an accurate observation that would be an argument for improving international law, not letting the lssser criminal continue to commit the lesser crime.
If we were talking about police having limited resources, then yes you could argue in an area with an high muder rate, that using those limited resources to lower the rate of muder is more important then to lower the rate of violent mugging.
However, when it comes to international politics we are not talking about such a situation.
Also, I do not understand the view that we should support the lesser criminal, because there are more serious criminals. Yes, one could argue we will have to ignore the lesser crimes for the time being, while we stop the major ones - but that is not to support the lesser crimes.
So going by your analogy, if I understand you correctly, Israel commits the lesser crime (I disagree with the direct comparision you make between Somalia and Israel - but that is another issue) therefore we should support Israel?
The Palestinians are victimes who deserve a just settlement - it can be delivered if the international community decides to enforce international law upon Israel.
Sadly Israel has strong backers, especially in America - imo Christian Zionism as far too strong an influence upon members of congress.
'Oh, and the genocide in Somalia is fully supported by the government.'
ReplyDeleteThat is ony partially true.
First of all supported by, is not the same as committed by.
Secondly, civil war broke out in Somalia in 1991 when the government collapsed. There has not been a fully functional national government since that date, recent governments have at best had only provisional control over areas of the country.
It's present provisional govenment needs all the support the international community can give it, to aid it in its attempts to govern the whole country. It also needs international support to help it hold the first national election for many years.
Once we have a government that can be held to account we will at last be able to meaningfully work at resolving the problems in Somalia.
<span>Baconeater writes, and I quote all the post in full.</span>
ReplyDelete<span></span>
<span>"Wow, you like to make stuff up. What a maroon."</span>
<span></span>
<span>What another fine piece of outstanding rhectoric by Baconeater!</span>
<span></span>
<span>Give it up mate!</span>