---

by Tannhauser
Besides, the Holy Land belongs to the Nephilim, obviously. Which is kind of coool, since they have been at a bit of a loose end since Carl McCoy left.

(Sorry, Goth Rabbinical gag)

---

<grin>

However...if you ask me (did anyone? perhaps not, but I'll say it anyway) organised religion is one of the greatest evils on the face of the planet. Look at all the conflict in the name of essentially peaceful religions. As someone said towards the beginning of this post (sorry, it's a long way up the page and I've had a long week...), Judaism and Islam *do not* advocate violence. nor does Christianity, Buddhism, Paganism or any other religion my Friday-evening brain can think of. It's the individuals that cause the wars. The naive part of me wants to know 'why can't everyone get along?' and I know it's impossible, but please, can't we try?!

Astronut, I agree that a certain amount of public support, and possibly the final impetus for the invasion of Palestine came with the full discovery of the Holocaust. I just find it hard to accept that all those in the west who supported the action (and I'm talking about powerful politicians, not just vox pop) did so for this reason. It seems just as likely that anti-semitism was a force that helped the formation of Israel.

On the targeting of Police Stations, this might be the expressed aim and explanation, but the actions do not bear this out. Where there has been sniper fire from Palestine it has been answered with shells. Who believes this will only kill the attacker, and not bystanders? Anyone in the way of the bulldozers are killed, including a recent case where and ambulance crew and passengers were killed. The homes destroyed are not solely Hamas. The apparent truth is that Sheron does not value Arab lives. Nor, would it seem, do the Israeli armed forces, or a large section of the Israeli populace. The figures dead from both sides show whose taking the heavier casualties. It strikes me as being akin to the Irish Republic invading Northern Island, tearing up homes and bombing Police Stations because of the association between the RUC and the UDA.

I'm not trying to push the blame onto any one side here. I'm certainly not trying to demonize Israeli's or Jews in general. Suicide bombings are not acceptable. The wanton killing without care for whose life is gone is both tragic and disgusting. But the Israeli's are the invaders, and they are the more brutal or at least more successful in their destruction. And they don't know when to quit. The continuing movement into areas that were previously declared 'No Go' for new settlements shows the level of contempt for which many, and certainly the most powerful, Israelis hold for their neighbours. The only leader of Israel who ever really tried for peace was assassinated - by an Israeli.

As for the point raised by Trinity, as a rabid atheist I would have to agree with the overall gist. Although I would disagree that the three religions descended from Abraham are peaceful in teaching. All three make it quite clear that if god gives the thumbs up then killing the infidel is the holy path.

Anyone who finds this discussion getting a bit serious, Satirewire currently have a funny article entitled "God Names Next Chosen People: It's Jews Again"

*Avenger can't remember if he's allowed to post URLs here or how to do it if he can, but its easy enough to guess anyway!*

(Edited by Avenger 16/03/2002 08:33)

---

by Avenger


*Avenger can't remember if he's allowed to post URLs here or how to do it if he can, but its easy enough to guess anyway!*

(Edited by Avenger 16/03/2002 08:33)

---

From the Members guide:

Posting URLs/Links to other websites. The posting of messages principally for the purpose of advertising other websites is not allowed outside of forums specifically for this purpose.You can post URLs relevant to the discussion topic as part of a wider message, and you can include a homepage as part of your Member Profile

---

by Diandra
Hear, hear. Historical ownership or occupation of land as a justification for claiming doesn't seem like such a hot idea. Didn't anyone notice all the fuss that was caused when Hitler claimed the Sudetenland as historically German?

---

During the Gulf War how much did you hear about the West carving the most oil rich portion of Persia off into Kuwait and setting up an emirate friendly to the West....Israel is not a precedent.

<-- Devil's Advocate time
Okay, a question (/me hopes that this won't stir the pot *too* much):

Considering that these conflicts have been going on for thousands of years, with all attempts of ceasing the hostilities being ineffectual, does anyone think that the situation could ever be resolved? If not then why shouldn't we focus our efforts closer to home and to situations to which we can make a difference?

Fair point by Stoo, two reasons why I disagree:-

(1)The situation in the Middle East is directly relevant to our lives. A major war there could decimate western economies due to interuption of oil supplies and consequent price rises. That means unemployment in this country, less money to spend on public services etc.

(2)I believe it is possible to resolve conflicts. It is easy to look at the situation with pessamism. It will not be an easy or smooth path to peace, it will take people of real bravery and vision to bring it about. But, 60 years ago, millions of people were killed in a bloody war which ripped Europe apart. Who could imagine that some of the participants in that war could now be living not just in peace, but co-operating politically and economically to the extent of sharing a currency.

The question is not should we be putting efforts into securing Middle East peace. The question is, economically, politically and spiritually, can we afford to give up?

---

by Stoo
Considering that these conflicts have been going on for thousands of years, with all attempts of ceasing the hostilities being ineffectual, does anyone think that the situation could ever be resolved? If not then why shouldn't we focus our efforts closer to home and to situations to which we can make a difference?

---

The fact that previous attempts have failed does not mean that all future attempts will fail as well. The history of mankind is a history dominated by perseverance in the face of frequent failure.

An Irish friend of mine told me 4 years ago that peace in Northern Ireland was impossible because the hatred on both sides ran too deep and because no lasting ceasefire had been achieved before. Ireland may not be quite there yet but has come far closer than it ever did before.

25 years ago, I doubt you would have believed that a Soviet premier would introduce policies that would lead to the end of Nuclear proliferation and of the Cold War, or that the Berlin Wall would be knocked down.

As has been previously pointed out, foreign policies and domestic policies are interlocked because we operate in a global economy, and in any case they are not mutually exclusive. Caring about the Middle East situation does not mean you care any less about domestic issues.

These things are driven by our sense of personal morality, and national morality. As with all things in life, we don't necessarily do something because it is easy, or avoid doing something because it is difficult, we do them because we believe in the principles that underpin those actions.

There's another aspect of this tendency to say 'We should concentrate on the home front', as far as discussion forums are concerned anyway, which is, to put it bluntly, that no-one's saying people can't post about the NHS or Consignia if they want to. It's not like what we discuss here will actually affect much in the wider world one way or the other; mostly it just means that people on this forum will be wiser (hopefully) about what's being discussed, whether it's international terrorism or assisted suicide.

Reminds me of a tortuously long running discussion in IA (anyone here feel strongly enough that the people in "Woomera Refugee Concentration Camp" in Oz are being mistreated to the point where we can't justifiably discuss treatment of Al Quaeda suspects by the US which could lead to a loss of support among the international community? Great, start a thread) ).

---

by Jayjay
Astronut, I agree that a certain amount of public support, and possibly the final impetus for the invasion of Palestine came with the full discovery of the Holocaust. I just find it hard to accept that all those in the west who supported the action (and I'm talking about powerful politicians, not just vox pop) did so for this reason. It seems just as likely that anti-semitism was a force that helped the formation of Israel.

---

That seems like an overly cynical view to me - a lot of things in this world occur as a result of the right motivations rather than hatred or personal gain. However, I didn't say that all those who supported it were in the charitable category. I dare say some anti-Semitism was involved - but in the mood of that time, no Western politician would ever admit to it - it would be political suicide.

---

by Jayjay
On the targeting of Police Stations, this might be the expressed aim and explanation, but the actions do not bear this out. Where there has been sniper fire from Palestine it has been answered with shells. Who believes this will only kill the attacker, and not bystanders? Anyone in the way of the bulldozers are killed, including a recent case where and ambulance crew and passengers were killed. The homes destroyed are not solely Hamas. The apparent truth is that Sheron does not value Arab lives. Nor, would it seem, do the Israeli armed forces, or a large section of the Israeli populace. The figures dead from both sides show whose taking the heavier casualties.

---

And the Palestinians, whose problems are specifically with Israel's military forces, are continually targetting innocent civilians. As I say, neither side is any better than the other - you can't say one side is better because they cause less collateral damage.

---

by Jayjay
As for the point raised by Trinity, as a rabid atheist I would have to agree with the overall gist. Although I would disagree that the three religions descended from Abraham are peaceful in teaching. All three make it quite clear that if god gives the thumbs up then killing the infidel is the holy path.

---

This bugs me somewhat, I'm afraid. NONE of the teachings of the three religions state this. Religious leaders whose political agendas require rabble-rousing encourage it, twisting the words to suit their needs. The Qu'ran explicitly states that killing those "of the book" (meaning Jews, Zoroastrians and Christians) is wrong. And I say this as an ex-Christian. If you read what Trinity actually said - it's spot on.

Stoo, I'm agreeing with Avenger and Incandenza here, and remembering Sinclair's answer to Delenn's query about "why Babylon 5?". Of course, although I saw it just last week, I can't remember the quote, but the gist was that we keep trying, and if someone knocks us down, we try again, and again, until we succeed. We do it because it needs to be done.

Stoo, the conflict in the middle-east has not been occurring for thousands of years. Israel did not exist a hundred years ago, never mind a thousand. However, I would agree with those who've posted above that even if they had that we shouldn't give up. I'm kinda put in mind of some suffragettes meeting up at the turn of the previous century, and one of them standing up to announce 'well, what's the point, men have been treating women as second class citizens since pre-history - what makes us think we can change that?' History is useful as a method to avoid repetition of follies; it should not be a barrier to change.

As for me being cynical, Astronut, I plead guilty. However, I don't really believe we are in disagreement on the fundamentals here, and neither of us can ever know what the true driving force behind western support for Israel was, or even is. I wish you good luck with your positivism while I look smug and self-content with my cynicism.

I also agree with you that both sides have proponents who are abhorrent. However, I cannot help but to have more sympathy for your average Palestinian than your average Israeli. If I weigh up the standard of living on both sides; that the Palestinians have had their homes and relatives taken from them so that Jews can live on land ascribed to them in a two-thousand year old book, and that they are treated as second class citizens in their own country. Yeah, my sympathies are definitely with the Palestinians. This does not mean, however, that I want the dissolution of Israel or that I approve of the killing of civilians. But I can sympathise that, at the moment, Sheron, and therefore the people who elected him, are giving them little other choice.

Finally, my comments on the three monotheistic religions from the middle-east. I too am an ex-Christian. I'm also ex-Bahai'i (an offshoot of Islam). I've done my best to study all the documented religions. The three monotheistic religions do contain texts about protecting the meek, of not killing, and of generally of being nice to one and other. However, when read in context these are clearly commands that only apply to other members of the same faith. They do not apply to outsiders, nor to members of your 'tribe' (these are, after all, texts written by nomads) who refuse to follow the rules of your god, or wish to worship a different god.

To take the example I find easiest to remember, Deuteronomy makes this quite clear. This obscure text that contains something called the '10 commandments' also deals with the stoning of female victims of rape, men who 'lie with men as if they were women', cross-dressers, and of course god helping the Israelites to kill Canaanites because 'god promised the land to the sons of Israel'. And you want to tell me that the teachings of these three religions are peaceful?

---

by Jayjay
Stoo, the conflict in the middle-east has not been occurring for thousands of years. Israel did not exist a hundred years ago, never mind a thousand.

---

Stoo is in fact correct Yes it has been occuring for the past 2 or 3 thousand years just because Israel the country didnt exist doesnt mean that there has been no conflict.

The Israelites have been attacked and attacked others for the past few thousands of years Caananites ect.

To be honest I dont think there will be peace in the middle east as it consists of countries that hate Israel slightly more than each other and even if Israel was removed from the equation would war amongst themselves.

They all need to take a leaf out of John Spartan's book and enhance their calm. They need to take a leaf out of Lenina Huxley's book and start the ass licking instead of the ass kicking.

Hope that helps.

---

by Vong
They all need to take a leaf out of John Spartan's book and enhance their calm. They need to take a leaf out of Lenina Huxley's book and start the ass licking instead of the ass kicking.

---

Knarley!!

---

by JtB
Stoo is in fact correct Yes it has been occuring for the past 2 or 3 thousand years just because Israel the country didnt exist doesnt mean that there has been no conflict.

---

Really? And just how were the Palestinians and Israelis fighting each other in the eighteenth century, never mind ‘2 or 3 thousand years’ ago?

---

by JtB
The Israelites have been attacked and attacked others for the past few thousands of years Caananites ect.

---

The Palestinians are not descended solely from the Canaanites, and are a completely separate culture. That Jews chose to war with Canaanites and Palestinians over the same bit of land, but a few millennia apart, does not make them the same conflict.

That Jews throughout history have been persecuted is also a completely different issue from the Palestine-Israel conflict. Jews and Israelis are not the same thing, as not all Jews are Israelis, or even agree with the re-establishment of a Jewish Israel.

---

by JtB
To be honest I dont think there will be peace in the middle east as it consists of countries that hate Israel slightly more than each other and even if Israel was removed from the equation would war amongst themselves.

---

Israel is hated by its neighbours as any invasionary force would be hated by its neighbours. Did they expect to be thanked? As for the suggestion that all Islamic countries in the middle-east hate each other, this is simply a gross exaggeration. Yes, Syria and Iraq haven't had the most stable of governments, but to suggest that they would all be at war with each other if Israel didn't exist just doesn't stand up.

Either way, none of this makes peace impossible. South Africa is finding a route to peaceful co-existence despite its history of invasion, slavery and racist government. Its biggest problem today is poverty, not racial or religious divisions. I see no reason why this cannot be repeated elsewhere. It just requires the majority of both sides of the conflict to recognise each other’s humanity and to accept their right to exist.