• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Two Forward commentaries on Sheikh Jarrah

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
except that the European label is likewise incorrect and Jersualem is not a settlement. But feel free to hitch yourself to that wagon.

So rights groups, international law that forbids many of Israel's settlements, and the EU countries that issued the statement are all incorrect. I suppose the Israeli narrative is the only correct one, right?

This is exactly why secularists believe religious dogma is absolutely poisonous when mixed with politics. It simply obscures facts in favor of identity politics and tribalism.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
This illustrates how Muslims are 2nd class citizens in Israel and reinforces my attitude toward the mess because the statement by the Mayor is true but without Israel treating people equally it's meaningless words.

Later that night, in a nearby, unrecognized Arab village that lacked proper bomb shelters, a father and his 16-year-old daughter were killed by a Hamas rocket.

“Hamas missiles do not differentiate between Jews and Arabs,” said Lod Mayor Yair Revivo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...89b49c-b28e-11eb-bc96-fdf55de43bef_story.html
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
So rights groups, international law that forbids many of Israel's settlements, and the EU countries that issued the statement are all incorrect. I suppose the Israeli narrative is the only correct one, right?

This is exactly why secularists believe religious dogma is absolutely poisonous when mixed with politics. It simply obscures facts in favor of identity politics and tribalism.
no, the labeling of land under international law is clear but rights groups choose to ignore the law, in much the same way that someone might invoke a question of settlements in a discussion of Jerusalem.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
This illustrates how Muslims are 2nd class citizens in Israel and reinforces my attitude toward the mess because the statement by the Mayor is true but without Israel treating people equally it's meaningless words.

Later that night, in a nearby, unrecognized Arab village that lacked proper bomb shelters, a father and his 16-year-old daughter were killed by a Hamas rocket.

“Hamas missiles do not differentiate between Jews and Arabs,” said Lod Mayor Yair Revivo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...89b49c-b28e-11eb-bc96-fdf55de43bef_story.html
How does this demonstrate anything other than the war crimes by those who fire rockets towards civilian (non dual-use) targets? The fact that Arabs made their own village and didn't build following Israeli building codes, including shelters? Arabs who live in actual cities go in to bomb shelters with whoever is there.
Bomb_shelter_Israel.jpg


or will you say that her chair is not as nice? I would suggest speaking to actual Muslim Israeli citizens, who go to schools, have jobs, serve in government, have citizenship and freedoms before you decide that your presumptions have validity.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
This illustrates how Muslims are 2nd class citizens in Israel
Hah!

Lod last night:

gvarim_120521_106_autoOrient_i.jpg


Bat Yam tonight:

151622.jpg


Now guess where an Arab was lynched and where Jews were attacked.

Also, why do you keep referring to Arabs as "Muslims"?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I wish I could put whole threads on ignore because this one is starting to make me feel sick.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Later that night, in a nearby, unrecognized Arab village that lacked proper bomb shelters, a father and his 16-year-old daughter were killed by a Hamas rocket.
A thought has occurred to me. Say, hypothetically, Israel would have put its foot down and said: "Enough is enough. We've had it with this illegal village and its breaking of the building code."
What must then be the proper course of action, in your view?

a. Legalizing the village - This begs the question: Why is this case different from Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, which I'm certain you believe should be destroyed rather than legalized?

b. Destroying the village - Would you have agreed to that or called Israel racists and whatnot?
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
I wish I could put whole threads on ignore because this one is starting to make me feel sick.
Perfect is not in words.
In acts too.
I.Believe when people live in justice regime. All are equal by name of religion and humanity.Like USA or Europe. That will auto end the problem
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
A thought has occurred to me. Say, hypothetically, Israel would have put its foot down and said: "Enough is enough. We've had it with this illegal village and its breaking of the building code."
What must then be the proper course of action, in your view?

a. Legalizing the village - This begs the question: Why is this case different from Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, which I'm certain you believe should be destroyed rather than legalized?

b. Destroying the village - Would you have agreed to that or called Israel racists and whatnot?

For the sake of argument, what is your response to law breakers no matter they be Jews or Palestinians? If you state that the law should be applied in the same way no matter who broke the law, then I give you +1 props.

So if Israel recognizes illegal Palestinian villages and Israeli villages or destroys them both, I'll accept the decision as being even handed for this one point.

There's a bigger point of course about legal Israeli settlements taking over more and more territory. To me it would be fair if Israel allowed wealthy Muslims to buy up Israeli land and establish Palestinian villages on that land. If Israel does not want that then they should stop doing it to Palestinians.

You see my view was initially formed from the USA's founding declaration that we are all created EQUAL with unalienable rights. That's my ideal for the Middle East as well.

It's worth noting that my earlier comment about the motivation for the resumption of the war is being exploited by both sides for political purposes is echoed in this piece:

Upsurge in violence could prove political boon for Netanyahu and Gaza’s Hamas leaders

“They were just about to call the president and say we have reached a deal, we have a coalition,” said Gayil Talshir, professor of political science at Hebrew University. “The riot came just in time to prevent the change of government in Israel.”

For Hamas, which controls Gaza, the conflict allows the group to position itself as the champion of Palestinians in Jerusalem at the expense of its rival faction, the Fatah party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that governs in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
There's a bigger point of course about legal Israeli settlements taking over more and more territory. To me it would be fair if Israel allowed wealthy Muslims to buy up Israeli land and establish Palestinian villages on that land. If Israel does not want that then they should stop doing it to Palestinians.
I don't get the comparison. Israel captured Judea and Samaria fairly and squarely in 1967. The Palestinians didn't capture Israel, neither fairly or squarely or even at all.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I don't get the comparison. Israel captured Judea and Samaria fairly and squarely in 1967. The Palestinians didn't capture Israel, neither fairly or squarely or even at all.
So you're claiming right by conquest. That's about as barbaric as it gets. What's next? Conquest because Israel needs more Lebensraum?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
So you're claiming right by conquest. That's about as barbaric as it gets. What's next? Conquest because Israel needs more Lebensraum?
a. Do you know nothing of the history of Israel?
Do you know why the war was fought, among other places, in Judea and Samaria?
I recommend educating yourself at least a teensy bit on the history before wading into the issue.

b. Conquest is barbaric? So leave your home. I assume you live in one of those places taken by force from the Native Americans.
Yep, from Wikipedia's page on California:

"The Spanish colonization began decimating the natives through epidemics of various diseases for which the indigenous peoples had no natural immunity, such as measles and diphtheria.[citation needed] The establishment of the Spanish systems of government and social structure, which the Spanish settlers had brought with them, also technologically and culturally overwhelmed the societies of the earlier indigenous peoples."
Go back to Europe, you barbarian (I assume your family has Ashkenazic background, but if not (and also assuming you're not descended from the European Sephardic communities, such as Greece, Romania and Holland), then go back to wherever your family was from).

And if you stop and think for just a little bit, you'll realize that many countries nowadays are built on conquered land. I'm sure many Arabs living in Israel, even in Gaza, came there via Muslim conquests.

What's next? Conquest because Israel needs more Lebensraum?
c. Considering the 1967 war started solely because Israel was threatened by multiple neighboring countries that wanted to utterly annihilate it and toss all of the Jews into the ocean, and until then had managed to make do with the little territory it had, in terms of finding room for everyone, I don't think there's any fear of that.

By the way, I take note of the fact that you're somewhat knowledgeable on the history of Nazi Germany but know very little about the history of Israel.

d. Finally, I'll note that you're the one who used the term "conquest", which makes it sound as though Israel had a secret colonializing plot stashed away until it was finally implemented in 1967 - this is of course entirely false. The land was captured during the war; these things tend to happen during wars - territories exchanging hands. My great-great-grandfather started WWI as a Russian citizen and ended as an Austrian citizen. His village hadn't moved an inch, I can tell you that.
 
Last edited:

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
You see my view was initially formed from the USA's founding declaration that we are all created EQUAL with unalienable rights. That's my ideal for the Middle East as well.

b. Conquest is barbaric? So leave your home. I assume you live in one of those places taken by force from the Native Americans.

I think the problem is, that both identity and individuality are both proactive positions that take up disk space in our finite world, and a person might be at the mercy of either, for they are various in their demands of humans. Both positions are argued for in your bibles as well, and an alternative position to these doesn't appear to exist, philosophically or politically, to my knowledge. Instead, it appears that one of these diametrically situated positions can only ever seem to annex the other, and therefore would open a conflict, unless there be more nuanced positions within this spectrum, which may generate paradigms I haven't yet ascertained. But we americans certainly can't be in the best position to judge so many international actions, given our history. I myself might choose to will any land I might inherit by lake superior, to the Ojibwa by the end of my life, if that would be the correct tribe.. As I doubt I will reproduce at this point, as I don't want offspring to take on heritable mental conditions
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
By the way, I take note of the fact that you're somewhat knowledgeable on the history of Nazi Germany but know very little about the history of Israel.

Wrong. I'm not about to spend an hour typing in everything I know about the history of Israel from the Balfour Declaration on nor what I know about the aliyahs and so forth. But dismissing my points by assuming I'm ignorant is not responding to what I raised. I'm not surprised given your usage of "Judea and Samaria" rather than "East Bank" which is in and of itself a political statement about the land.

The land was captured during the war; these things tend to happen during wars - territories exchanging hands

So if Hezbollah attacks from Lebanon and Israel responds by invasion, Israel gets to keep whatever land they took (since you don't like the word I used earlier) because "things tend to happen during wars" and given that winning is your justification.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm not surprised given your usage of "Judea and Samaria" rather than "East Bank" which is in and of itself a political statement about the land.
Hmm! Well, let's think about it. Which of the terms are ancient terms that appear in many documents that are thousands of years old, while the other is a modern invention? Political, shmolitical. Go complain to the ancients.
So if Hezbollah attacks from Lebanon and Israel responds by invasion, Israel gets to keep whatever land they took
That's usually how war works. I take it you don't know much about war, either.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Hah!
Also, why do you keep referring to Arabs as "Muslims"?
I assume for similar reasons why you keep referring to Israelis as "Jews".

Hmm! Well, let's think about it. Which of the terms are ancient terms that appear in many documents that are thousands of years old, while the other is a modern invention? Political, shmolitical. Go complain to the ancients.
Perhaps we should refer to the region by its proper Latin term, "Syria".
 
Top