| Author |
Topic |
|
sweeny todd
Barsoom
United Kingdom
249 Posts |
Posted - 27/01/2009 : 18:49:21
|
| anubis! where in a christian book/bible whatever does it advocate killing of unbelievers ? i would like to know !! |
only borrow from a pessimist |
 |
|
|
Anubis
Calaspia
718 Posts |
 Posted - 27/01/2009 : 21:07:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by sweeny todd
anubis! where in a christian book/bible whatever does it advocate killing of unbelievers ? i would like to know !!
Sweeny, you set me a real problem as there are so many examples. Certainly, one of my favourite examples is is copied below; a little background knowledge helps you appreciate this disgusting instruction from the Almighty, ordering mass genocide, followed by the capture of 32,000 young girls as "booty" and the extermination of everything else on a scale that reminds of of the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union. If you are a Biblical scholar, you will know the Midianites had sheltered Moses for forty years when he had fled for his life from Egypt (Ex 11 15) -- Moses repays their hospitality in this horrible 'pious' way! The Midianites were the descendants of Midian, son of Abraham (Gen xxv 2) and were thus close relatives of the Israelites.
I can probably give you another dozen examples if you are really unable to find them for yourself! Remember, the New Testament sanctifies and upholds the innumerable atrocities of the Old Testament -- talking of the Mosaic Law, Jesus tells the reader, "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets (this is how they describe their holy scriptures); I am come not to destroy but to fulfil ......." Read it all for yourself in Matt v 17-19.
Anyway, back to the mass murder and rape from the book of Numbers (Ch xxxi):
|
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 27/01/2009 : 21:47:13
|
Actually, if you read the book of Numbers you will see that the 'Holy War' against Midian was not in return for their hospitality towards Moses but rather for the Midianites misleading the Israelites. Having said that, it is just me being a pedant. Moses was also forewarned that leading this war would be his last act
"The Lord said to Moses, (2)Punish the Midianites for what they did to the people of Israel. after you have done that you will die."
I never could see the sense in that. If the Midianites did indeed tempt the Israelites into idolatry and fornication then surely the fault is the Israelites for allowing themselves to be led? All it really shows is that this is an act of Man rather then any just and supreme power. It is just the sort of excuse I would expect to hear from a 5 year old. 'Yes mum, I took the biscuits but it was only because he made me!' |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Anubis
Calaspia
718 Posts |
Posted - 27/01/2009 : 22:09:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
Actually, if you read the book of Numbers you will see that the 'Holy War' against Midian was not in return for their hospitality towards Moses but rather for the Midianites misleading the Israelites. Having said that, it is just me being a pedant. Moses was also forewarned that leading this war would be his last act
"The Lord said to Moses, (2)Punish the Midianites for what they did to the people of Israel. after you have done that you will die."
I never could see the sense in that. If the Midianites did indeed tempt the Israelites into idolatry and fornication then surely the fault is the Israelites for allowing themselves to be led? All it really shows is that this is an act of Man rather then any just and supreme power. It is just the sort of excuse I would expect to hear from a 5 year old. 'Yes mum, I took the biscuits but it was only because he made me!'
Spot on, Mim.... in both your paras!
Yes, it's amazing how often, the Hebrew text says that God "hardened the sinner's heart", yet the sinner is then punished for doing what God has made him do. On other occasions, God deliberately gives false information to a prophet of his -- but then it's the prophet who has lied, because "God can never lie".
I'm sure you agree with me all discussions of this kind are 'just being pedantic' -- as I said, I was asked to provide an example, so I did -- but I certainly would not base serious discussion on this this kind of pedantry. |
|
|
|
camelot
Barsoom
USA
481 Posts |
Posted - 27/01/2009 : 23:21:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by BLONDIE
Why is it that I can find nothing - not even the briefest couple of words - re Rahm Emanuel's stint in the Israeli Army in 1991? Seems like the "whitewash brush" is still in force in the White House.
I am not sure that doing a stint in the Israeli army is necessarily a sign of support for everything the Israeli government decides to do. It certainly isn't for the American Armed forces. |
|
|
|
sweeny todd
Barsoom
United Kingdom
249 Posts |
Posted - 27/01/2009 : 23:54:43
|
| i knew that moses took shelter and recieved comfort in the land of midian and stayed for forty years with his midian wife,then supposedly heard the word of god on the holy mount sinaie, but i have no bible to check this reference you give anubis ,i prefer the nice story when moses wwent back to egypt and freed his people from the pharos grip that story was much easier for a child to digest, now youve gone and spoilt a fantasy i had as a child,BUT if one was to believe in the bible doesnt it say in there somwhere VENGANCE IS MINE SAYETH THE LORD therefor negating any action man takes on this earth or in other words forbidding it that is if you do believe in the word of god!! me i believe in science ,have read a bit of the book though some of it is a good read!!! |
only borrow from a pessimist |
|
|
|
sweeny todd
Barsoom
United Kingdom
249 Posts |
Posted - 28/01/2009 : 00:07:19
|
| i think his wifes name was sarah but dont hold me to it its been 45 years since i had a bible ! as you can tell i didnt turn into the good christian man my parents desired! sorry for straying from the thread, humble apolagies!! |
only borrow from a pessimist |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 28/01/2009 : 04:14:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by camelot
I am not sure that doing a stint in the Israeli army is necessarily a sign of support for everything the Israeli government decides to do. It certainly isn't for the American Armed forces.
Of course it isn't but some people will take to anything and worry it like a terrier does a bone. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Anubis
Calaspia
718 Posts |
Posted - 28/01/2009 : 09:06:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by sweeny todd
i think his wifes name was sarah but dont hold me to it its been 45 years since i had a bible ! as you can tell i didnt turn into the good christian man my parents desired! sorry for straying from the thread, humble apolagies!!
Hardly relevant, Sweeny, but Sarah (or Sarai) was half-sister AND wife of Abraham; the wife of Moses was Zipporah [Ex 2: 16-21] (the name means 'bird' or 'little bird' -- so LBJ was not alone in choosing to mate with aviary species!). Back in the 50s, "who was the wife of Moses?" was a popular question in pub quizzes ... |
|
|
|
FunnyBones
Barsoom
Australia
144 Posts |
Posted - 28/01/2009 : 13:50:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
quote:
Originally posted by camelot
I am not sure that doing a stint in the Israeli army is necessarily a sign of support for everything the Israeli government decides to do. It certainly isn't for the American Armed forces.
Of course it isn't but some people will take to anything and worry it like a terrier does a bone.
Spot on. How absolutely silly for anyone to read anything into it.
Not as if he had joined up to something murderous. |
NL
It never pays a prophet to be too specific.
L Sprague de Camp |
|
|
|
Anubis
Calaspia
718 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2009 : 13:40:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anubis
quote:
Originally posted by thedelboy
anubis crimes have been commited on both sides,I do wonder what kind of obsessive person can single out a person because they are Jewish and try to put the Blame of the Israeli government on that persons shoulders?Miriam has condemned the actions on both sides since before this latest round of hostilities:why do you seem to be so antagonistic?
It is a pity if these important issues are discussed in terms of the people chatting on this forum, Delboy. You ask, "what kind of obsessive person can single out a person because they are Jewish and try to put the blame of the Israeli government on that person's shoulders?" Answer, only a racist, Delboy -- and hopefully we have none of them on this forum.
The only demonstration about which I have some knowledge, was in London, where numerous Hamas and other Islamic posters were carried -- there was some shouting of Allahu akbar, but no anti-semitic slogans. Identifying Hamas with the resistance movement is understandable -- in Gaza they are the only people offering any kind of resistance to the Zionist invaders (although the casualty numbers for both sides is all the information necessary for any intelligent individual to be able to accurately estimate the miniscule strength of the resistance).
The Palestinians elected Hamas because of its military prowess and refusal to submit to a life under the Israeli jackboot. Having said that, my own opinion, for what it's worth, is that Hamas is a vile, anti-democratic, nationalistic and reactionary force that has no positive solution for the Palestinian or Israeli people. A very positive aspect of the London demonstration, I thought, was the popular chant being not "We are all Hamas", but rather, "We are all Palestinians" -- a slogan expressing solidarity, not with some reactionary grouping, but with an oppressed people.
Looking back on this post is interesting; by and large there is a general agreement among the many intelligent and informed posters. Indeed, if you wish to have the whole Gaza situation summarized in a minimum of space, try looking at the attached. I'm sure many of you hadn't realized you were in unison with anarchist opinion!:
|
Edited by - Anubis on 06/02/2009 15:34:40 |
|
|
|
sweeny todd
Barsoom
United Kingdom
249 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2009 : 14:14:28
|
| i do wish people would use opinions of there own in stead of refering to history on this subject !! history seems to have taught us nothing! |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2009 : 14:24:17
|
| I think you will find that Anubis is quoting an article though it isn't clear where the article is from and it is well nigh impossible to read unless you have magnifying glasses |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Anubis
Calaspia
718 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2009 : 15:38:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by sweeny todd
i do wish people would use opinions of there own in stead of refering to history on this subject !! history seems to have taught us nothing!
Sorry Sweeny -- I thought I'd included many of my own opinions (which, as I say, were generally shared on this post -- and hence the brief article, taken from the current edition of the anarchist journal, Freedom). |
|
|
|
sweeny todd
Barsoom
United Kingdom
249 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2009 : 15:50:00
|
| i wasnt having a go at anubis mim its just that i havent read anything truly constuctive on this forum ! would like to hear some original posts and maybe some ideas on solving the problems between israel ~ palestine situation, we cant solve the problems there but we could offer some tentative discourse ! what do you think ? (FREEDOM) being the operative word anubis ! |
only borrow from a pessimist |
|
|
|
FunnyBones
Barsoom
Australia
144 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 13:00:41
|
Assuming that the Sri Lankans will give the Tamils (in Sri Lanka) full freedom of movement to move around the nation, as the British have done to the Catholic Irish, I think that the idea of separating the Arabs will be doomed. Unless someone thinks the Sri Lankan and Irish solution are the wrong way to go, I can't see much hope. After all, the arabs do come, mainly, from within Israel's borders.
Why not? What would be better......more of the same? |
NL
It never pays a prophet to be too specific.
L Sprague de Camp |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 13:22:11
|
| Well, let us hope Tzipi get in ... if Benyamin Natanyahu gets in ... no hope there. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
FunnyBones
Barsoom
Australia
144 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 13:35:02
|
Let alone the Russian.
I can see no hope in the short, medium or long term for separation. I know the importance of demographics, but this is as bad as it gets. |
NL
It never pays a prophet to be too specific.
L Sprague de Camp |
|
|
|
camelot
Barsoom
USA
481 Posts |
|
|
Anubis
Calaspia
718 Posts |
Posted - 18/02/2009 : 12:09:05
|
So -- in 24 days (under the screen of the American elections) 1,312 Palestinians died (including 417 children) with more than 5,000 injured. On the other side, there were three civilian casualties from Qassam rocket fire and a dozen Israeli soldiers -- half of them from 'friendly fire'. Israeli media was entirely conscripted and patriotic; hardly any reports from inside Gaza published, anti-war demos abroad described as 'demonstrations against Israel' .... the implied message being that demonstrators wanted to see Israel destroyed and all Jews sent to gas chambers. Independent reporters were denied access into Gaza -- Israeli soldiers had their mobile phones confiscated; so the public was entirely shielded from seeing the devastation their army caused. 'Official' figures therefore claimed, no doubt correctly(!), therefore, that 78% of the Israeli public supported the actions of their government.
Those who were aware of what was being done in their name, did protest -- but of course they were a minority -- and their assemblies were NOT reported:
|
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 18/02/2009 : 14:22:50
|
| Herut? Isn't that the party was formed on 23 February 1999 when Benny Begin, Michael Kleiner and David Re'em broke away from Likud during the fourteenth Knesset |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
camelot
Barsoom
USA
481 Posts |
Posted - 18/02/2009 : 14:31:02
|
Ah but there is always time for settlements....
February 17, 2009
By Karin Laub
Associated Press
EFRAT, West Bank — Plans to expand a West Bank settlement by up to 2,500 homes drew Palestinian condemnation Monday and presented an early test for President Barack Obama, whose Mideast envoy is well known for opposing such construction.
Israel opened the way for possible expansion of the Efrat settlement by taking control of a nearby West Bank hill of 423 acres. The rocky plot was recently designated state land and is part of a master plan that envisions the settlement growing from 9,000 to 30,000 residents, Efrat Mayor Oded Revivi said.
A better link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8361354 |
Edited by - camelot on 18/02/2009 14:37:34 |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 18/02/2009 : 15:26:03
|
Will they never learn?
|
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Anubis
Calaspia
718 Posts |
Posted - 18/02/2009 : 16:11:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
Herut? Isn't that the party was formed on 23 February 1999 when Benny Begin, Michael Kleiner and David Re'em broke away from Likud during the fourteenth Knesset
Yes, indeed, Mim and I'm as surprised as you! I re-iterate what I've always emphasized, I am no expert on Israeil politics --- but apparently, in the north of the country and Jaffa, the opposition was largely organized by the conservative Islamic movement .... but also by the bi-national communist party, Hadash, and the Abna-el-Balad movement (democratic nationalists). Within the Jewish sector it was an amazing (!?) 'popular front' -- Hadash, the Coalition of Women for Peace and the anarchists! My gut expectation would have been that I would/might have expected to find the SWP in this 'broad coalition' ... but not the anarchists.
As mentioned in my earlier post, the powerful pro-war media presence and the nation-wide sense of 'fortress Israel" has left the pro-peace movement heavily outnumbered by hawks. My same gut feeling is that were I an Israeli, I think I'd have been very uncomfortable to have been part of this particular demonstration ..... but then it is quite absurd to enter into such "if I were a horse" speculation .... |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 18/02/2009 : 17:54:10
|
| I mentioned it just as I find it difficult to see Anarchists siding with a rather right-wing (nationalist) party. Particularly behind one of their banners. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
BLONDIE
Barsoom
491 Posts |
Posted - 19/02/2009 : 03:03:52
|
| Until the US Administration ceases to supply money, arms, nuclear technology et al to Israel, then I fear that the situation will continue. With the US providing blanket cover over Israel, the Israeli Government does just what it wants to do and to hell with everyone else. Personally I would like to see the 7th Fleet at the shores of Gaza with an ultimatum to the Israeli Government............................Happy thoughts, but it will never happen. |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 19/02/2009 : 08:40:30
|
| If only it was as simple as all that. Unfortunately, it is not and far from it. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 20/02/2009 : 21:14:29
|
A really well balanced piece from Mary Kaldor:
Izzeldin Abuelaish is a Palestinian gynaecologist who lives in Gaza and works in an Israeli hospital and runs a free clinic in Gaza on weekends. His specialty is infertility and he helps Israeli women who have difficulty conceiving. He was born and brought up in a Palestinian refugee camp and became a doctor after studying his own medical records when he was ill as a boy.
During the recent war in Gaza, he was frequently interviewed on Israeli television because he speaks fluent Hebrew. This is why Israelis actually witnessed his anguish when a tank shell hit his house, killing three of his daughters and a niece. The horror of Abuelaish's tragedy did briefly lead to calls for a ceasefire (even though there were also shocking scenes on television of Israeli women attacking him, even in the midst of his despair, for causing their sufferings). But within a couple of days, fabricated pictures were circulating on the internet showing Abuelaish's house packed with weapons. In the end, however, after the war was over, the Israeli Defence Forces have admitted that there were no weapons and that they are investigating what happened.
What "war"?
For Israel, the attacks on Gaza were a legitimate war aimed at the state security of Israel, keeping Israeli citizens safe. In a legitimate war, there is some attempt to minimise civilian casualties and the Israelis did try to minimise casualties by, for example, dropping warning leaflets, telling the inhabitants of places they were about to hit to get out of the way. Since the Israelis could not distinguish combatants from non-combatants and since Hamas, according to Israel, used civilians as a shield, and since there was nowhere for civilians to go, the attacks mostly killed civilians,. Such "collateral damage" as it is anodynely known, can be justified, it is argued, if it can be shown that this was militarily necessary.
For the rest of the world, the attacks on Gaza were a massive violation of human rights. What has changed above all since the wars of earlier centuries is our growing consciousness of what it means to be human. The rest of the world watched aghast as human beings (not enemies) were killed, maimed and displaced from their homes. It is partly that we are able to witness what is going on thanks to satellite TV, internet, or mobile phones. Moreover, many more people travel and migrate so we may actually know friends or relatives of those who are suffering or NGOs active in the area. But also in the aftermath of twentieth century wars, the norms against killing and against wars have been strengthened. The UN Charter prohibited war except in self-defence and human rights law has been greatly developed over the last sixty years. These formal constraints have been underpinned by the growth of peace and human rights thinking and activism.
But what does it mean for Israelis to say they are fighting a "war"? Clausewitz, the great military strategist, defined war as "an act of violence intended to compel an opponent to fulfill our will". For Clausewitz, such a war inherently tends to extreme as each side tries to destroy the other. The only reason that war is limited, according to Clausewitz is political calculation or what he called "friction" - the fog of war that slows down military operations.
Did the Israeli attacks correspond to this definition of war? Was Israel actually trying to compel Hamas to fulfill its will? Certainly, that was what they argued and probably believed - they were "punishing" Hamas. The talks in Cairo focused on preventing weapons smuggling and on guarantees for future ceasefires. Yet, at the end of the war, after over a thousand casualties and the wholesale destruction of homes, schools, hospitals, and huge tracts of agricultural land, Hamas rocket attacks have not stopped. The Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas, has not been released. Indeed, Hamas has used the cover of war to strengthen its position and kill many opponents.
The "new war"
The attacks on Gaza are much better explained as what I call a "new war". A new war can be defined as the use of political violence by organised groups for a range of purposes. For "new wars", what is important is the idea of war as a joint enterprise, which serves to mobilise people and to satisfy certain economic interests. As Daniele Archibugi has pointed out on these pages, for the Israelis, the war helped to shore up the position of Kadima in the run up to the elections. Contrary to predictions, Tzipi Livni's Kadima party won one more seat than the right-wing Likud party. On the other hand, the war also hardened opinion in Israel and the extreme rightist party of Avigdor Lieberman is holding the political balance. The war also provided an opportunity to demonstrate the efficacy of Israeli defence technology, even though, of course, this magnificent technology was unable to discriminate between civilians and military targets. Indeed, it can be argued that the Israeli state has become a sort of war state, in which the Israeli defence industry, Israeli intelligence and the Israeli defence forces are integrated into the fabric of governing institutions and political authority depends on the idea that the state's main role is to protect Israel from its enemies.
On the other side, the Israeli occupation, the checkpoints and the periodic attacks have prevented the emergence of any unified Palestinian political authority and allowed a state of lawlessness in both the West Bank and Gaza, in which armed factions, militia groups, clans and organised crime have grown in strength and influence. Of course, the Hamas coup in Gaza has led to a crack down on factions but also much greater repression; and in the West Bank, there are areas like Jenin where the Palestinian Authority, spurred by international pressure, has managed to re-establish a more peaceful situation. Nevertheless, the struggle against Israel offers a kind of framework for all these unsavoury networks. Hamas, as a resistance movement, acquires its legitimacy through the attacks on Israel. One of the most chilling sentences of the war was the Hamas spokesman who said: "Every time they attack our homes, mosques and schools, it legitimises our attacks on their homes, synagogues and schools."
The tendency of new wars is not towards the extreme; rather it is for wars without end - a permanent war psychosis. A parallel can be drawn with the "war on terror". Understood as a classic Clausewitzean war, each act of terrorism calls forth a military response, which in turns produces a more extreme counter-reaction. The problem is that there can be no decisive blow. The terrorists cannot be destroyed by military means because they cannot be distinguished from the population. Nor can the terrorists destroy the military forces of the United States. But if we understand the "war on terror" as a mutual enterprise, whatever the individual antagonists believe, in which the US administration shores up its image as the protector of the American people and the defender of democracy and those with a vested interest in a high military budget are rewarded, and in which extremist Islamists are able to substantiate the idea of a global jihad and are able to mobilise young Muslims behind the cause, then action and counter-reaction merely contribute to "long war" which benefits both sides.
In the aftermath of Gaza, the prognosis for peace is not hopeful, whatever the efforts of the new Obama administration. The prognosis is for more rockets and more bouts of violence and for the rise of more and more extreme factions on both sides. Far from recognising each other as human beings, each bout of violence has the opposite effect.
Is there a role for the outside world? At present, the outside world, at official levels, tends to endorse the Israeli perception that this is a war designed to shore up Israeli national security. Even though organisations like the EU or the UN do a lot to alleviate suffering through their humanitarian assistance, this is not reflected in the dominant political rhetoric of the US (even since Obama) and the Quartet (the US, the EU, the UN and Russia), which tends to focus on issues like the rocket attacks, weapons smuggling to Gaza, or Hamas's non-recognition of Israel.
Towards human security
What is needed is a shift in international policy from concern with Israeli state security to concern about the human security of both Israelis and Palestinians. Such a shift of policy would have to mean pressure on Israel to allow Palestinian to lead more normal lives through allowing freedom of movement, releasing Palestinian tax revenues, or freeing prisoners. To some extent, this is beginning to happen in parts of the West Bank where Condoleeza Rice and Tony Blair have tried to achieve limited gains in institution-building and economic development particularly in areas like Jenin. But it needs to involve much more extensive and coordinated external pressure and to be applied throughout the West Bank and Gaza. The pressure could take the form of an arms embargo or conditions attached to EU neighbourhood policy. None of this would solve the problem but at least it could improve every day life for Palestinians a little bit and perhaps create the conditions for engagement with all political (and non-political) actors including Hamas, which in turn is necessary for any possible change of heart. (Of course, the Palestinian Authority should be regarded as the legitimate government).
Ultimately, there can be no end to this new war unless and until Israelis begin to view Palestinians as fellow human beings. Even if peace negotiations bring limited agreements, and there are plenty of proposals for different versions of the two-state solution with complicated arrangements covering such issues as the settlements, the right of return or Jerusalem, there can be no long term solution until Israelis and Palestinians are ready to live together. Unfortunately, each time Israel attacks Palestinians and each time Hamas launch a rocket, this prospect gets more remote.
This is why Abuelaish's story is so important. Nothing will bring back Abuelaish's daughters and niece. But his case has revealed a tiny chink of humanity in Israel.
|
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
Edited by - Miriam Binder on 20/02/2009 21:30:09 |
|
|
|
BLONDIE
Barsoom
491 Posts |
Posted - 21/02/2009 : 12:15:46
|
| Natanyahu now in the chair. There would seem to be little hope for peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. I forsee an uprising in the Middle East generally. |
|
|
|
Anubis
Calaspia
718 Posts |
Posted - 21/02/2009 : 18:38:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by BLONDIE
Natanyahu now in the chair. There would seem to be little hope for peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. I forsee an uprising in the Middle East generally.
You could well be right, BLONDIE. The enthusiasm of Obama in pursuing the Bush policies in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the rights of their internees labelled 'enemy combatants') are coming as a serious shock to the credulous individuals who kidded themselves a black president would bring change. Indeed, we've made little progress in the Middle East during the last 40 years --
I was recently looking at the last message Bertrand Russell wrote in his ninety-eighth year, two days before he died, way back in 1970:
"The aggression committed by Israel must be condemned, not only because no State has the right to annex foreign territory, but because every expansion is also an experiment to discover how much more aggression the world will tolerate ... We are frequently told that we must sympathise with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. I see in this suggestion no reason to perpetuate any suffering. What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy."
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Israel, Palestine, et al ...