[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Israelis don't have to move; they just need to stop moving.

Stop moving? When was the last time Israel expanded?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You haven't told me what you think is wrong with my views.

This is what's wrong with your views:

"A recently fabricated popular identity that is predicated on evil intent and propped up by historical revisionism is one that I reject and will continue to reject as illegitimate and worthless, even if G-d forbid, there are still Arabs calling themselves that wretched name generations from now."

You think you're going to make progress by sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "you don't exist la-la-la-lol I reject the idea of you, now be convinced by my historical reasoning." It's farcical. All the more so because you proudly declare you have another poster on "ignore" while in the same sentence NOT ignoring him, by starting a fight over something he just retracted 30 minutes earlier.

Here's what it boils down to. Israel is objectively "right," and Arab hard-liners are objectively "wrong." But Jewish hard-liners like you are no better than the Arab hard-liners. You both declare that the other side is "evil" based on your fundamentalist beliefs. You both want the other side annihilated never to return. Big Mac, you're Ahmadinejad's doppelganger, the only difference is that you're wearing a different color uniform. Would you be at all surprised to hear Ahmadinejad say this (I wouldn't):

"A recently fabricated popular identity [Israeli] that is predicated on evil intent and propped up by historical revisionism is one that I reject and will continue to reject as illegitimate and worthless, even if Allah forbid, there are still Jews calling themselves that wretched name generations from how."

You (and your counterparts on the other side) are what is impeding progress. Just because you are backing the right horse doesn't make you right. I know it's hard for someone as embittered as you to change your mind, so in lieu of that I'll just say that Israel's peaceful continued existence would benefit greatly if you and those like you would simply bite your tongue when hateful thoughts like these find you. Turn the other cheek, so to speak.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Stop moving? When was the last time Israel expanded?

He's talking about settlements

[lpkmckenna]

I was preparing my answer to Big Mac's question about Israeli atrocities, but now why bother? He's not gonna read it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I was preparing my answer to Big Mac's question about Israeli atrocities, but now why bother? He's not gonna read it.

I guess he's only interested in listening to "truth" that agrees with him?

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I was preparing my answer to Big Mac's question about Israeli atrocities, but now why bother? He's not gonna read it.

He took his ball and went home????

[Hawkeye_a]

lpkmckenna,
I'm kinda thinking your mind is pretty must completely set/closed to the legal aspect of this conflict all-together. I've outlined why the moral dimensions of this issue are a non issue as the Arabs tent to get preferential treatment due to oil, with the Israelis constantly having to compromise what they were LEGALLY entitled to.

I still think you are taking the 'populist' (as in popular) stance against Israel and totally disregarding the legal aspect, so I’ll try and reiterate the highlights:

1. The British Mandate (entire) was put aside for the Jewish homeland. Jews were already living and had settled there prior to this (disregarding historic ties to the region altogether for this argument).

2. When the British left, that created a power vacuum. The neighboring Arab states, in their quest to expand geographically and maintain predominately Muslim/Islamic rule over the entire region of the Middle East, refused to accept an independent Jewish state on land that had been conquered by Muslims earlier. The Jews, however, wanted a nation of they’re own, and organized accordingly, and with complete legal support of the U.N. attained it. Compromises were made by the Jewish leaders at that time in order to secure a piece of land 8000 sqmiles, a fraction of the size originally intended, for a Jewish state. And still they chose negotiations over war, as opposed to the Arabs.

3. The refugee problem is a direct result of the Arab policy to wage war for territorial expansion, yet they are allowed to wipe their hand clean (except for the funds and arsenal supplied to fight against Israel of course), and expect Israel to maintain some form of security and standard there, while pouring aid in for the Arab refugees (and no "Palestineans" do NOT exist.... show me a 'passport' with a nation of that name on it, they are Arabs, and they are refugees (self proclaimed) and by that definition, they cannot be a country/state/nation, as they have not agreed upon boundaries with their neighbours. You keep pressing this point, but by any definition of the words nation/country/state, certain privileges and rights are implied, which are not associated with refugee camps. So are they a state/nation or are they refugees? You cannot have it both ways. And by the reality on the ground, it is obvious they are not a nation by definition, as they have not agreed to territorial boundaries with all their neighbors, and the U.N. does not recognize them as a state.)

4. No Arab state will take responsibility for their welfare or their(refugees) actions. Why? Because then (like with Lebanon) they would be responsible for what goes on behind the borders. It’s sort of a 'legal loophole' that Muslim nations are using the world over when engaged in conflict with.....well.....everyone else.

5. The only reason why Israel still controls the west bank TODAY is because if they leave it's obvious to EVERYONE what will ensue...it happened in gaza when they left. and if and when it happens in the west bank and you can expect a similar magnitude of life lost. So what are Israel's choices here? Control gaza and the west bank to ensure Israelis their safety? Annex both completely and hope for the best (even when they will get the worst) ? Give in to historically uncompromising Arabs, and concede even more in the hopes for peace? If it were "Canada" instead of Israel in that situation what would you have them do?

6. Legally Israel can have the entire region west of Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. It could expel/exile all the Arabs from the refugee camps, the way all the Muslim nations expelled Jews, Christians, Zorastrans, etc.. And suffered nothing as a consequence...just because they have oil. Israel could have refused to sign the water sharing deal in Oslo, thus obligating them to giving the refugees nothing, not a SINGLE DROP.

You keep implying that Israel is the bad guy in this equation, yet throughout the 60+ years it has only sought for peaceful coexistence, absorbing the religious extremism of it's neighbors while affording full citizenship to people of various faiths as I pointed out earlier and not penalizing them for the actions of their kin. All the Arabs have been asked to do throughout this conflict is to maintain secure borders with Israel, which none are willing to comply with. If it's not Iraq, its Lebanon, if its not Lebanon, its Syria, if not Syria, the refugees, or Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, now it's Iran, etc.... When has Israel ever encroached on Iran/Iraq/S.Arabia's territory, and any of the other Muslim countries she doesn't share a border with? Border disputes can arise with neighbors I get that, but countries half a world away ? so what’s their beef apart from the fact that Israel is not a Muslim nation ?

And i stick to my view that if the Arabs enjoying Israeli citizenship cannot take an oath to Israel, they need not be burdened with Israeli citizenship. Any country which provides citizenship to people requires them to take an oath and fulfill some basic obligations to the country accepting them as an equal member of society, you are not forced to take the oath, but by refusing to do so you also forfeit citizenship, and i think that should be a prerequisite for anyone Jews/Christian/Muslim who wants or has Israeli citizenship. In fact I think it's shameful and racist for Israel to discriminate its Muslim population (20%) by not endowing on them the same responsibilities and duties it does on it's other citizens.

Consider this oversimplified version:
-"Free the refugees”?
-What is Israel asking for in return? .....secure borders. They gave Egypt and Jordan and Lebanon back EVERYTHING legally obligated to. Despite the flimsy border security.
-What are the Arabs asking for? .... More.
-The Arabs were offered a state TWICE, and they refused!!! The Jews in the region took whatever the U.N. decided, as pointed out earlier.

Imagine all this could have been avoided had the Arabs chosen negotiations during any period after 1947. Yet, if you researched what i suggest earlier, you will realize what was needed to get the Egyptians to talk and stop the rhetoric and war mongering.

I suggest your rebuttal have some legal dimension to it, cause if all you are going on is personal opinion, and a short term view of the conflict you cannot expect anyone to take you seriously, except for other people with short-term-views of this conflict and the muslims/arabs who will patronize you because of your support regardless of the legality/morality. Muslims/Arabs also tend to grab at anything when trying to vilify Jews/Christians/Hindus/Buddhists/etc....especially when it involved territorial disputes.

edit>>sorry for the typos guys.

[Big Mac]

Bless you, Hawkeye.

[nonhuman]

That's an awesome reply Hawkeye. Saving it for future reference!

[lpkmckenna]

Big Mac and nonhuman are quite easily impressed, it seems.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

lpkmckenna, I'm kinda thinking your mind is pretty must completely set/closed to the legal aspect of this conflict all-together.

I'm pretty closed-minded about treating people like cattle and shipping them to another country to satisfy rabid zealots.

1. The British Mandate (entire) was put aside for the Jewish homeland.

The British Mandate (of Palestine, words you forgot) was the document that guided British rule, not Israeli independence. That was the 1967 establishment of Israel and Palestine as separate states. The Mandate only established British goals, but regardless of its contents, its relevance vanished when British rule ended.

Jews were already living and had settled there prior to this (disregarding historic ties to the region altogether for this argument).

The Palestinians lived there too.

2. When the British left, that created a power vacuum. The neighboring Arab states, in their quest to expand geographically and maintain predominately Muslim/Islamic rule over the entire region of the Middle East, refused to accept an independent Jewish state on land that had been conquered by Muslims earlier.

You can't blame the Arab nations for wanting control over land they once controlled, prior to the British colonization.

The Jews, however, wanted a nation of they’re own, and organized accordingly, and with complete legal support of the U.N. attained it. Compromises were made by the Jewish leaders at that time in order to secure a piece of land 8000 sqmiles, a fraction of the size originally intended, for a Jewish state. And still they chose negotiations over war, as opposed to the Arabs.

Those "compromises made at the time" are the founding terms of the nation of Israel. When you sign on the dotted line, you don't get to cross your fingers behind your back.

3. The refugee problem is a direct result of the Arab policy to wage war for territorial expansion, yet they are allowed to wipe their hand clean (except for the funds and arsenal supplied to fight against Israel of course), and expect Israel to maintain some form of security and standard there, while pouring aid in for the Arab refugees (and no "Palestineans" do NOT exist.... show me a 'passport' with a nation of that name on it, they are Arabs, and they are refugees (self proclaimed) and by that definition, they cannot be a country/state/nation, as they have not agreed upon boundaries with their neighbours. You keep pressing this point, but by any definition of the words nation/country/state, certain privileges and rights are implied, which are not associated with refugee camps. So are they a state/nation or are they refugees? You cannot have it both ways. And by the reality on the ground, it is obvious they are not a nation by definition, as they have not agreed to territorial boundaries with all their neighbors, and the U.N. does not recognize them as a state.)

What a soup of nonsense. I never mentioned refugees, and I don't consider them refugees, so I'm not asking for anything "both ways."

4. No Arab state will take responsibility for their welfare or their(refugees) actions. Why? Because then (like with Lebanon) they would be responsible for what goes on behind the borders. It’s sort of a 'legal loophole' that Muslim nations are using the world over when engaged in conflict with.....well.....everyone else.

Uh, how can any Arab state "take responsibility" for people in an area under Israel's occupation?

5. The only reason why Israel still controls the west bank TODAY is because if they leave it's obvious to EVERYONE what will ensue...it happened in gaza when they left. and if and when it happens in the west bank and you can expect a similar magnitude of life lost.

What's obvious is that Gaza and the West Bank will be nests of terrorism without a national government to police it.

So what are Israel's choices here? Control gaza and the west bank to ensure Israelis their safety? Annex both completely and hope for the best (even when they will get the worst) ? Give in to historically uncompromising Arabs, and concede even more in the hopes for peace? If it were "Canada" instead of Israel in that situation what would you have them do?

Canada is still working out treaties with the many native bands within itself, as opposed to deporting them out into another country or settling non-natives on lands reserved for natives.

I've already outlined what I'd hope Israel would do. But reversing the flow of squatters into the West Bank is the most important if they want peace.

6. Legally Israel can have the entire region west of Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.

Horsecrap, there isn't a political body on the planet (including Israel) that recognizes such nonsense.

It could expel/exile all the Arabs from the refugee camps, the way all the Muslim nations expelled Jews, Christians, Zorastrans, etc..

Yes, behave like theocratic tyrannies instead of a modern democracy, that will help plenty.

You keep implying that Israel is the bad guy in this equation, yet throughout the 60+ years it has only sought for peaceful coexistence...

Until Israel initiated the settler movement in the 1980s, I'd agree completely. I don't see Israel as the bad guy, I see Israel as the good guy who screwed up.

...absorbing the religious extremism of it's neighbors while affording full citizenship to people of various faiths as I pointed out earlier and not penalizing them for the actions of their kin.

They did that because it's the right thing to do and their legal obligation.

All the Arabs have been asked to do throughout this conflict is to maintain secure borders with Israel, which none are willing to comply with. If it's not Iraq, its Lebanon, if its not Lebanon, its Syria, if not Syria, the refugees, or Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, now it's Iran, etc....

None? Uh, Israel has treaties with Jordan and Egypt.

When has Israel ever encroached on Iran/Iraq/S.Arabia's territory, and any of the other Muslim countries she doesn't share a border with?

Settlers in the West Bank and Gaza come to mind...

Border disputes can arise with neighbors I get that, but countries half a world away ? so what’s their beef apart from the fact that Israel is not a Muslim nation ?

You know the answer: grandstanding and diversion.

And i stick to my view that if the Arabs enjoying Israeli citizenship cannot take an oath to Israel, they need not be burdened with Israeli citizenship.

Whatever, it has nothing to do with peace in the Holy Land.

Any country which provides citizenship to people requires them to take an oath and fulfill some basic obligations to the country accepting them as an equal member of society, you are not forced to take the oath, but by refusing to do so you also forfeit citizenship, and i think that should be a prerequisite for anyone Jews/Christian/Muslim who wants or has Israeli citizenship. In fact I think it's shameful and racist for Israel to discriminate its Muslim population (20%) by not endowing on them the same responsibilities and duties it does on it's other citizens.

I've lived in Canada my entire life, and I have never been required to utter an oath to legally bind my citizenship. The same is true of most countries. Only new immigrants utter oaths of citizenship. (School kids sometimes do it, but it's not legally binding in any way.) As for "racist and shameful" discrimination, many nations give exemption to religious minorities in regards to military service. As a liberal-tarian, I regard conscription as indentured servitude and thus unconstitutional, so expecting my agreement here is pointless.

I suggest your rebuttal have some legal dimension to it...

Why, your points have nothing "legal" about them. On the contrary, your "legal arguments" are a farce.

... cause if all you are going on is personal opinion, and a short term view of the conflict you cannot expect anyone to take you seriously, except for other people with short-term-views of this conflict and the muslims/arabs who will patronize you because of your support regardless of the legality/morality.

My views about the two-state solution are the international norm, held by the UN and the USA and the nation of Israel itself. Only fringe radicals like yourself and Big Mac and the West Bank squatters think otherwise. And no international body holds that Palestinians are "a non-people" and that Israel is legal entitled to the entire region you claim. It is your views that "you cannot expect anyone to take seriously."

Muslims/Arabs also tend to grab at anything when trying to vilify Jews/Christians/Hindus/Buddhists/etc....especially when it involved territorial disputes.

Gee, another helpful overgeneralization.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

3. The refugee problem is a direct result of the Arab policy to wage war for territorial expansion, yet they are allowed to wipe their hand clean (except for the funds and arsenal supplied to fight against Israel of course), and expect Israel to maintain some form of security and standard there

Isn't that exactly what the British did too, with their "mandate?"

6. Legally Israel can have the entire region west of Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.

Every side of every argument is going to cling to their historical feelings of entitlement from the _height_ of their good fortune. The conquering British army may have declared a "legal" entitlement to Israel, but in doing so they set a de facto precedent that whoever has the biggest guns gets to hand out legal entitlements over the region (and not even have to stick around to enforce them). By that standard, Israel's Arab neighbors are just trying to follow Britain's lead, so they can "legally" entitle someone else to that land instead.

Were you blustering about "legal" entitlements during the "illegal" invasion of Iraq 6 years ago? I'm guessing no, you probably thought the people doing that looked pretty desperate for something to "prove" them right. That's what your post looks like now.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Big Mac and nonhuman are quite easily impressed, it seems.
I'm pretty closed-minded about treating people like cattle and shipping them to another country to satisfy rabid zealots.
The British Mandate (of Palestine, words you forgot) was the document that guided British rule, not Israeli independence. That was the 1967 establishment of Israel and Palestine as separate states. The Mandate only established British goals, but regardless of its contents, its relevance vanished when British rule ended.
The Palestinians lived there too.

Why are you obsessed with the name "Palestine". it's just a name, get over it. ok, it was the "British Mandate of Pslestine", if the Jewss chose that name for their country in 1947, the Arabs would have chosen something else. it's an inconsequential name, and doesnt change the dynamics of the agreements.

As far as people being treated like cattle and shipping them to another country....well im glad you agree with me on that, i've always spoken out against the Muslim nations which discriminate and force religious minorities to either convert or leave, like they did with Christians/Jews/Zorostrans. Although im not certain how you single out Israel for this condemnation since they have a thriving 20% of citizens who are Israeli citizens, compare that to the trends of Christian/Jews/other populations in Muslim countries which have seen constant declines.

The displacement of people when states are formed is unfortunate, but to claim that they are all 'forced out' is pure vilification imo. In the case of India/Pakistan(Hindu/Muslim)... most left willingly, and im sure that that was the case when Israel accepted the U.N. partition plan and the Arabs did not(because they wanted it all under muslim rule).

Accepting that partition, guaranteed both sides nation/state/country status on the world stage.... when i speak of "Legal" dimensions, lets examine that decision in some depth.
-A governing body(British), relinquish control.
-Two separate entities lay claim (Jews/Muslims)
-The U.N. divides up the territory.
-The Jews accept the partition and thus legally obtain statehood.
-The Muslim-side reject it(thus giving up national status) in the hopes of (with the support of their neighboring Muslim brethren) obtaining (illegally) control of the territories entire.
-After the initial disputes.... a nation of Israel emerges, the mostly Muslim side goes under the control of Jordan and Egypt.
-Neither Jordan nor Egypt nor Syria nor Egypt now Lebanon(all muslim nations at this point in time) take responsibility for cross border conflicts and constant security breaches.
-Inorder to quell the BS from the Arab side, Israel takes control of the West Bank and Gaza, an expensive and imo undesirable(from the Israeli perspective) proposition to maintain security for it's citizens(irrespective of faith). Had the Arabs maintained secure borders with a sovereign country this wouldn't be an issue, but alas...this tale has been sung in many different languages from Chechnya to Kashmir to the Philippines to Indonesia to Malaysia to Cyprus, etc....all with one common element.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You can't blame the Arab nations for wanting control over land they once controlled, prior to the British colonization.
Those "compromises made at the time" are the founding terms of the nation of Israel. When you sign on the dotted line, you don't get to cross your fingers behind your back.

Why not ? The Jews at that time consolidated their area under one flag, didn't encroach on any existing nation/state/country and legally gained independence through UN approval. The Arabs in the rest of the mandate and some who were living inside the then territory of Israel could have accepted the partition plan and had a state as a well. but their rejection of having a Non-muslim state in such proximity was unacceptable (blatantly racist, but lets not go there). I'm not sure what you mean by 'cross your fingers behind your back', but i assume you are aware that Israel was attacked the day after it's nationhood was ratified, right ? How would you have any nation under the sun react ? You mention Egypt and Jordan with regard to pace treaties, did you read up on the topics i mentioned earlier regarding the evens that transcribed in 1973 ? All that was required(sarcasm) to get the Egyptians to talk, was to take the Egyptian third Army hostage. And Israel gave back everything to get the Egyptians to sign peace treaties.... makes you wonder, had the Egyptians/Jordanians/etc signed peace treaties to begin with.. all that 'cattle' would have still been alive today.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

What a soup of nonsense. I never mentioned refugees, and I don't consider them refugees, so I'm not asking for anything "both ways."

If *you* dont qualify them as refugees ? what do you qualify them as ? THEY(Arabs) keep claiming to be in the biggest refugee camps in the world.
So whose qualification should we accept for these argument ? yours or theirs ? Would you like different sets of negotiations to go with that as well ? Maybe, and this is just my suggestion, you and the Arabs/Palestinians need to agree upon what status they fall under and then accordingly formulate a strategy for peace. Cause if they are not refugees, i personally don't see why they need so much aid from Israel and the West.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Uh, how can any Arab state "take responsibility" for people in an area under Israel's occupation?
What's obvious is that Gaza and the West Bank will be nests of terrorism without a national government to police it.

Prior to Israel taking control of the areas(i think they were under Jordan and Egypt), what was happening ? And now, if like with Gaza, Israel withdraws from the West Bank, who takes responsibility ? Who is taking responsibility for those rockets fired from Gaza into Israel after Israel pulled out ? Is Egypt ? No (despite the weapons being smuggled in from their territory). So what would you suggest Israel do ? let the Arabs from all around continue to fire into Israel ? How would you like your government to respond in such a scenario ? Knowing your logic, if and when your government responds to such provocations you would proceed to chastise them(after all is safe of course) for doing so.

"Palestinian Government"... yea. And let me guess it's upto the Israeli's to provide them with that, right ? the way the Israelis were provided a government as well.... oh wait...

You see, thats what i mean by taking responsibility.... their "government" is incapable of taking responsibility, and their attitude is to blame Israel. Israel obviously doesnt want to govern them, and is only looking to quell attacks on Israelis. 60 years enough to form an accountable government ? Like i said post WWII scored of other nations did it. Is it our fault or the Israeli's fault if the Arabs are incapable or unwilling to do so ? All that concerns Israel with those two pieces of land is Israeli security, thats all. So all the Arabs need do is stop with all the shooting.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Canada is still working out treaties with the many native bands within itself, as opposed to deporting them out into another country or settling non-natives on lands reserved for natives.

'Deporting' would be if Israel was expelling them..... much like what the Muslim nations did to their Jewish populations(amounting to roughly the same number of Palestinians at that time). Since the Palestinians, of whom many *choose* to leave for the protection of their Muslim brothers who would fight for them, how exactly did Israel 'deport' them ? If in fact they were 'deported' as you claim, that would mean they are not on their own land now, and so begs the questions.... if they are not on their own land, whose land are they on, and whose land is being 'occupied' ?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I've already outlined what I'd hope Israel would do. But reversing the flow of squatters into the West Bank is the most important if they want peace. Horsecrap, there isn't a political body on the planet (including Israel) that recognizes such nonsense.

And i've outlined mine. Egypt takes responsibility and control of Gaza. Jordan of the Westbank. No change in territory by either side. And as far as Israel having claim to everything west of Jordan.... luckily for the Arabs, the Israelis were more compromising(than me).

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes, behave like theocratic tyrannies instead of a modern democracy, that will help plenty.

So you can belittle/ignore those 'theocratic tyrannies' when the people suffering anguish are Jews/Christians/Zorastrans/other, and when those people try and maintain some form of security due to unrelenting(continuing) aggression, you choose to speak out ?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Until Israel initiated the settler movement in the 1980s, I'd agree completely. I don't see Israel as the bad guy, I see Israel as the good guy who screwed up.

If the Arabs are refusing to make peace(personally, i think they dont want to because they love the attention from ppl like you), why should anyone else wait ? In fact i think it's the Settler movement that will pressure the Arabs to finally do something they have been opposed to for 60 years..... make peace.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

They did that because it's the right thing to do and their legal obligation.

Once again, no signature on the dotted line.... no legal obligation imo.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

None? Uh, Israel has treaties with Jordan and Egypt.

Yes and when i researched the events that lead to those treaties and the terms of those treaties, i only garnered a greater respect for Israel. For example, with regard to Egypt.... it was only when Egypt lost the Yom Kippur war(initiated by the Egyptians), the Israelis had the Egyptian 3rd army surrounded ,were 60miles from Cairo, and the Egyptian forces in total disarray that they agreed to negotiate(something they and the other Arabs refused to do before that point).
And what were the terms ? Israel would have a peace treaty with a neighboring muslim nation, something it was willing to do from day 1, meaning that Egypt would honor Israel's borders. And Israel would relinquish control of Sinai (something Israel didn't have in 1947.... ie no leverage to get the Arabs to negotiate)

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Settlers in the West Bank and Gaza come to mind...

In Gaza ? last i checked Israel copletely pulled out of Gaza and forcefully removed the settlers.....so as far as gaza is concerned Israel met all obligations, and the Arabs in that territory failed to meet their obligation....security. Thus, once again, legally breaking down the terms of that treaty, and opening up the possibility of invasion imo. I think Israel should have kept a chunk of Gaza after the latest operations, which would have served as a warning to those thinking of continuing to launch rockets, and those claiming to control the territory. But alas, Israel pulled out completely.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You know the answer: grandstanding and diversion.

Whatever, it has nothing to do with peace in the Holy Land.

So if another Muslim invasion of Israel is staged, you think the Arabs in Israel will support the country which has protected them ? If not, should they be allowed to 'enjoy' Israeli citizenship ? Mind you, said arabs in israel are quite outspoken regarding their hatred of the Jewish state, and i wouldnt trust them tofight for Israel if a war broke out, in fact i would think of them as a liability/security concern.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I've lived in Canada my entire life, and I have never been required to utter an oath to legally bind my citizenship. The same is true of most countries. Only new immigrants utter oaths of citizenship. (School kids sometimes do it, but it's not legally binding in any way.) As for "racist and shameful" discrimination, many nations give exemption to religious minorities in regards to military service. As a liberal-tarian, I regard conscription as indentured servitude and thus unconstitutional, so expecting my agreement here is pointless.

Good for you i guess. But given the circumstances, regarding the support of Arab Israelis, i think, in order to maintain 'peace in the Holy Land', they should. if they are incapable of doing so, they should not be entitled to citizenship. Also, as far as religious minorities not being required to serve, i think thats not a 'standard'/'expectation' and is upto the country's discretion.... so Canada might not expect religious minorities to serve, but i see no reason why Israel should do the same.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Why, your points have nothing "legal" about them. On the contrary, your "legal arguments" are a farce.
My views about the two-state solution are the international norm, held by the UN and the USA and the nation of Israel itself. Only fringe radicals like yourself and Big Mac and the West Bank squatters think otherwise. And no international body holds that Palestinians are "a non-people" and that Israel is legal entitled to the entire region you claim. It is your views that "you cannot expect anyone to take seriously."

I'm not a fringe radical at all, and i dont think BigMac is either. As far as 'legality'...... here we have Israel, accepting the U.N. partition plan and forming a state legally, and then you have the Arabs refusing it, and mounting wars constantly to try to annihilate a legal state.... that is, imo...'illegal'. I also support enforcing the 'law', so if for example the Lebaneses cannot(or will not) control Hiz on their side of the border, i support Israel launching campaigns to quell those illegal attacks (as no one else, not the US, not the UN, nor Canada) did anything to stop it.

I never suggested they are a "non-people" I think they are a 'people' as well...just not a nation/country/state (i hope you know the difference, if not, im not sure why im having this discussion with you). I fully support a 2 state solution, and i know Israel will sign on the dotted line to a peace agreement on the current frontiers, as they were wiling to do so before 1967. The problem unfortunately is that the Arabs will not accept the current borders, they didnt accept it in 1947, nor did they accept it prior to 1967, nor when they were handed a state twice and refused it. So who here, is *really* opposed to the 'two state' solution ?(Ive presented you with at least 3-4 times when Israel was willing to withdraw completely and accept an Arab State). Now show me one instance in the history of Israel when the Arabs were willing to sign peace treaties on the existing frontiers(ie without demanding more).

About the Palestinians "They have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity" - Abba Eban

And that's not Israel's or anyone else's fault, imo.

I'm all for a two state solution and i've always been. My disappointment with the inability of Arabs to maintain secure borders and sign peace treaties doesn't mean im opposed to them(finally) taking responsibility of what goes on on their side of the border. Where Israel has always wanted to be recognized by it's neighbors(which it recognizes anyway), the Arabs have always been opposed to recognizing a jewish State and resorted to war (something i am opposed to).

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Gee, another helpful overgeneralization.

Find me a Muslim controlled news outlet that published opposition to the illegal firing of missiles from Gaza. As a person who lived in the mid east, i can tell you that even the name "Israel" was not mentioned in news stories. That BS about organ harvesting and Joos eating children on the other hand always made it onto the evening news.

All it takes is an ill-informed and biased reporter from anywhere to say that Israel is "stealing" water, and as far as the Arabs are concerned it's a fact...ignoring the agreements made and the fact that Israel was supplying more water than legally obligated to.

So as far as my 'overgeneralization'....i will gladly relent my 'overly general' statement, when anyone produces a single example of published news from the Muslim world which criticizes the illegal firing of rockets, or the terrorist attacks targeting civilians inside Israel, or the illegal supply or ammunition to militias who are bent on Israel's destruction. I've looked and could not find a single one, i gave up, but by all means, i encourage you to keep searching, as i am truely hopeful that not all of them are that racist.

Thats a long post, with heaps or questions....here are my questions:
1. When have the Arabs offered/accepted peace on existing frontiers ?
2. When have the Arabs fulfilled their obligations to the treaties they have signed with regard to Israel ?
3. When has Israel NOT fulfilled the obligations it had agreed to ?
4. Is it the Israelis or Palestinians(Gaza/WestBank) who's stated goal as a "people" to destroy the other ?
5. Which side refused the partition plan ? Which side refused a state on multiple occasions ?
6. Why is it Israel's duty to, at her expense, see to the welfare of a people bent on her destruction ?
7. Regarding my "overly general" statements... please provide proof of the contrary, and i will relent my statement.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Why are you obsessed with the name "Palestine". it's just a name, get over it.

I use the name the entire world uses, expect for some crazies.

As far as people being treated like cattle and shipping them to another country....well im glad you agree with me on that, i've always spoken out against the Muslim nations which discriminate and force religious minorities to either convert or leave, like they did with Christians/Jews/Zorostrans. Although im not certain how you single out Israel for this condemnation since they have a thriving 20% of citizens who are Israeli citizens, compare that to the trends of Christian/Jews/other populations in Muslim countries which have seen constant declines.

I do condemn those persecutions, but that's not the subject of this thread.

If *you* dont qualify them as refugees ? what do you qualify them as ? THEY(Arabs) keep claiming to be in the biggest refugee camps in the world.
So whose qualification should we accept for these argument ? yours or theirs ? Would you like different sets of negotiations to go with that as well ? Maybe, and this is just my suggestion, you and the Arabs/Palestinians need to agree upon what status they fall under and then accordingly formulate a strategy for peace. Cause if they are not refugees, i personally don't see why they need so much aid from Israel and the West.

You fail to see that "the Arabs" are not a monolithic entity. The Palestinians generally don't see themselves aa refugees, but surrounding Arabs nations do (or did, not sure how Egypt or Jordan sees them now.)

"Palestinian Government"... yea. And let me guess it's upto the Israeli's to provide them with that, right ? the way the Israelis were provided a government as well.... oh wait...

Actually, yes. The Israeli's were preparing for decades to form a government. The Palestinians weren't; some were expecting Jordan or Egypt to reassume control of the area, some were hoping for statehood. If Israel is committed to a two-state solution, that means assisting the establishment of a Palestinian gov't thru the gradual withdrawal of Israel authority.

You see, thats what i mean by taking responsibility.... their "government" is incapable of taking responsibility, and their attitude is to blame Israel. Israel obviously doesnt want to govern them, and is only looking to quell attacks on Israelis. 60 years enough to form an accountable government ? Like i said post WWII scored of other nations did it. Is it our fault or the Israeli's fault if the Arabs are incapable or unwilling to do so ? All that concerns Israel with those two pieces of land is Israeli security, thats all. So all the Arabs need do is stop with all the shooting.

The shooting isn't gonna stop without a Palestinian gov't that can enforce the ceasefire.

And i've outlined mine. Egypt takes responsibility and control of Gaza. Jordan of the Westbank. No change in territory by either side. And as far as Israel having claim to everything west of Jordan.... luckily for the Arabs, the Israelis were more compromising(than me).

I think that's a great solution. Really. Both the Egyptians and Jordanians have good relations with Israel, and have the power to enforce a ceasefire. However, that's not what the Palestinians want, it's not what Israel has agreed to, and it's not the international consensus. I doubt either Egypt or Jordan want those areas anymore.

So you can belittle/ignore those 'theocratic tyrannies' when the people suffering anguish are Jews/Christians/Zorastrans/other, and when those people try and maintain some form of security due to unrelenting(continuing) aggression, you choose to speak out ?

I don't belittle any such thing.

If the Arabs are refusing to make peace(personally, i think they dont want to because they love the attention from ppl like you), why should anyone else wait ?

I very much doubt the Arab world gives a crap about my opinion.

In fact i think it's the Settler movement that will pressure the Arabs to finally do something they have been opposed to for 60 years..... make peace.

Ridiculous. Do you read the news? Abbas is giving up politics because the Israeli side is pointlessly aggravating the settler issue.

In Gaza ? last i checked Israel copletely pulled out of Gaza and forcefully removed the settlers.....so as far as gaza is concerned Israel met all obligations, and the Arabs in that territory failed to meet their obligation....security. Thus, once again, legally breaking down the terms of that treaty, and opening up the possibility of invasion imo. I think Israel should have kept a chunk of Gaza after the latest operations, which would have served as a warning to those thinking of continuing to launch rockets, and those claiming to control the territory. But alas, Israel pulled out completely.

Israel left Gaza in the hands of a gang, not a government. At least the settlers were evicted, as they should have been. Now similar steps are needed in the West Bank.

So if another Muslim invasion of Israel is staged, you think the Arabs in Israel will support the country which has protected them ? If not, should they be allowed to 'enjoy' Israeli citizenship ? Mind you, said arabs in israel are quite outspoken regarding their hatred of the Jewish state, and i wouldnt trust them tofight for Israel if a war broke out, in fact i would think of them as a liability/security concern.

This issue is pointless. I frankly don't care about such an internal issue, and how Israel manages it's own people doesn't bother me.

I'm not a fringe radical at all, and i dont think BigMac is either. As far as 'legality'...... here we have Israel, accepting the U.N. partition plan and forming a state legally, and then you have the Arabs refusing it, and mounting wars constantly to try to annihilate a legal state.... that is, imo...'illegal'.

This is fascinating in a history class, but irrelevant today. And the war between Israel and the surrounding nations was perfectly legal as any other war. The subsequent terrorism, certainly not.

I also support enforcing the 'law', so if for example the Lebaneses cannot(or will not) control Hiz on their side of the border, i support Israel launching campaigns to quell those illegal attacks (as no one else, not the US, not the UN, nor Canada) did anything to stop it.

Canada supported the Israeli side, actually. And I personally don't fault the Israeli gov't for their actions either.

I never suggested they are a "non-people" I think they are a 'people' as well...just not a nation/country/state (i hope you know the difference, if not, im not sure why im having this discussion with you). I fully support a 2 state solution, and i know Israel will sign on the dotted line to a peace agreement on the current frontiers, as they were wiling to do so before 1967. The problem unfortunately is that the Arabs will not accept the current borders, they didnt accept it in 1947, nor did they accept it prior to 1967, nor when they were handed a state twice and refused it.

Here we go with "the Arabs" again. The present opinion of the surrounding Arab states in the past or now is irrelevant to the two-state solution today. As for "rejecting a state twice," the Palestinian Authority rejected the agreements because they rejected some of the terms. Today, they are still rejecting Israel's terms regarding the settlers, because those terms are simply unacceptable.

So who here, is *really* opposed to the 'two state' solution ?(Ive presented you with at least 3-4 times when Israel was willing to withdraw completely and accept an Arab State). Now show me one instance in the history of Israel when the Arabs were willing to sign peace treaties on the existing frontiers(ie without demanding more).

It is Israel that is demanding more, thru the support of continued settler expansion.

Find me a Muslim controlled news outlet that published opposition to the illegal firing of missiles from Gaza. As a person who lived in the mid east, i can tell you that even the name "Israel" was not mentioned in news stories. That BS about organ harvesting and Joos eating children on the other hand always made it onto the evening news.

I have serious doubts about organ harvesting stories and water agreements too. But don't bother looking for unbiased press from Arab news, because they are all state owned. Would you trust the state-owned press of a theocracy?

So as far as my 'overgeneralization'....i will gladly relent my 'overly general' statement, when anyone produces a single example of published news from the Muslim world which criticizes the illegal firing of rockets, or the terrorist attacks targeting civilians inside Israel, or the illegal supply or ammunition to militias who are bent on Israel's destruction. I've looked and could not find a single one, i gave up, but by all means, i encourage you to keep searching, as i am truely hopeful that not all of them are that racist.

State-owned news. Just ignore it.

1. When have the Arabs offered/accepted peace on existing frontiers ?
They will when the terms are right.

2. When have the Arabs fulfilled their obligations to the treaties they have signed with regard to Israel?
Who are we talking about? The Egyptians and Jordanians are doing great. I'm pretty sure there aren't any Lebanese and Syrian treaties with Israel, and even if there are, we know the Syrians are a terrorist-exporting nation and shouldn't expect much else.

3. When has Israel NOT fulfilled the obligations it had agreed to?
As far as I'm aware, never. Israel is a good nation. They gotta quit coddling the squatters, though.

4. Is it the Israelis or Palestinians(Gaza/WestBank) who's stated goal as a "people" to destroy the other?
Both the Israeli state and the Palestinian Authority have the stated goal of a two-state solution. Many, many fringe groups within both sides have the entire Holy Land as their side's exclusive domain.

5. Which side refused the partition plan ? Which side refused a state on multiple occasions ?
The side that was getting screwed in the terms.

6. Why is it Israel's duty to, at her expense, see to the welfare of a people bent on her destruction ?
Because not all or even the majority of those people are culpable.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

1. When have the Arabs offered/accepted peace on existing frontiers ?
They will when the terms are right.

Thats the whole point of this conflict !!! when have the terms ever been "right" ? as far as i can see the only "terms" the Arabs are willing to accept is total Muslim control of the region. They keep clamoring on about 1967 borders...well why wernt they willing to make peace in 1966 then ? and before that why didnt they accept the Partition plan in 1947 ? every time a designation is set it's never been good enough...that's unacceptable, and imo a signal that peae isnt the goal.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

2. When have the Arabs fulfilled their obligations to the treaties they have signed with regard to Israel?
Who are we talking about? The Egyptians and Jordanians are doing great. I'm pretty sure there aren't any Lebanese and Syrian treaties with Israel, and even if there are, we know the Syrians are a terrorist-exporting nation and shouldn't expect much else.

The Arabs i am referring to are the Palestinians. As far as Egypt and Jordan.... it's a cold peace, but thats better than no peace at all. Egypt could do a lot more to prevent arms for getting into Gaza for example, that is assuming the desire to do so existed, cause after all, it would be a non-muslim state benefiting if they did.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

3. When has Israel NOT fulfilled the obligations it had agreed to?
As far as I'm aware, never. Israel is a good nation. They gotta quit coddling the squatters, though.

As far as i'm concerned, whatever Israel reaped from the 1967 war which was a direct consequence of Arab aggression is Israel's that includes all the land and whichever arab villages it chooses to annex. it had no moral/legal obligation to surrender any of those assets. As far as the "squatters" if the state sanctions them, they are 100% legal.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

4. Is it the Israelis or Palestinians(Gaza/WestBank) who's stated goal as a "people" to destroy the other?
Both the Israeli state and the Palestinian Authority have the stated goal of a two-state solution. Many, many fringe groups within both sides have the entire Holy Land as their side's exclusive domain.

Hammas ("elected representative") after Israel withdrew completely. That's another treaty nullified imo, and Israel should take a nice big bite out of Gaza for Gazans/Hammas violating the terms of the withdrawal imo.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

5. Which side refused the partition plan ? Which side refused a state on multiple occasions ?
The side that was getting screwed in the terms.

The Arabs were getting screwed ? have you seen the proposed Maps before the U.N. partition plan ? Do you notice which side got a lot less and accepted it anyway ? and which side wasnt willing to compromise at all(ie want war) ?The Arabs got the entire area of Trans Jordan and a lot of the west bank. and they were getting raw deal ? please explain.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

6. Why is it Israel's duty to, at her expense, see to the welfare of a people bent on her destruction ?
Because not all or even the majority of those people are culpable.

[/QUOTE]

Then have those who are culpable(The Arab state, who now conveniently sit on the side lines and wipe their hands clean of any responsibility) see to their welfare, not Israel, as she was not the aggressor only the victor. And i hold every Gazan culpable for their present state......for empowering Hammas even after Israel withdrew and for violating their agreements and for their incursions and provocations. You seem to assume that the those culpable are separate from the general populous...please not that without the support of the populous those few would not be in positions to cause such damage for so long.

Arabs keep begging for Israeli land and only then will they attempt to make peace. if it's peace they want, why dont they give up a chunk of land the way Israel did with Egypt and Jordan? If there ever was a sign from the side that wants peace in this conflict that was it. what has been their reward ? rockets and suicide bombers ? if land is the currency and peace is the product i say the Israelis keep getting screwed by the Arabs.

[Powerbook]

Israel admits harvesting Palestinian organs
Ian Black, Middle East editor
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 December 2009 21.46 GMT

Israel has admitted that pathologists harvested organs from dead Palestinians, and others without the consent of their families – a practice that it said ended in the 1990s, it emerged at the weekend.

The admission, by the former head of the country's forensic institute, followed a furious row prompted by a Swedish newspaper reporting that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to use their organs – a charge that Israel denied and called "antisemitic".

The revelation, in a television documentary, is likely to generate anger in the Arab and Muslim world and reinforce sinister stereotypes of Israel and its attitude to Palestinians. Iran's state-run Press TV tonight reported the story, illustrated with photographs of dead or badly injured Palestinians.

Ahmed Tibi, an Israeli Arab MP, said the report incriminated the Israeli army.

The story emerged in an interview with Dr Yehuda Hiss, former head of the Abu Kabir forensic institute near Tel Aviv. The interview was conducted in 2000 by an American academic who released it because of the row between Israel and Sweden over a report in the Stockholm newspaper Aftonbladet.

Channel 2 TV reported that in the 1990s, specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.

The Israeli military confirmed to the programme that the practice took place, but added: "This activity ended a decade ago and does not happen any longer."

Hiss said: "We started to harvest corneas ... whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family."

However, there was no evidence that Israel had killed Palestinians to take their organs, as the Swedish paper reported. Aftonbladet quoted Palestinians as saying young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been seized by the Israeli forces and their bodies returned to their families with missing organs. The interview with Hiss was released by Nancy Sheppard-Hughes, professor of anthropology at the University of California-Berkeley who had conducted a study of Abu Kabir.

She was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that while Palestinians were "by a long shot" not the only ones affected, she felt the interview must be made public, because "the symbolism, you know, of taking skin of the population considered to be the enemy, [is] something, just in terms of its symbolic weight, that has to be reconsidered."

Israel demanded that Sweden condemn the Aftonbladet article, calling it an antisemitic "blood libel". Stockholm refused, saying that to so would violate freedom of speech in the country. The foreign minister then cancelled a visit to Israel, just as Sweden was taking over the EU's rotating presidency.

Hiss was removed from his post in 2004, when some details about organ harvesting were first reported, but he still works at the forensic institute.

Israel's health ministry said all harvesting was now done with permission. "The guidelines at that time were not clear," it said in a statement to Channel 2. "For the last 10 years, Abu Kabir has been working according to ethics and Jewish law."

Israel admits harvesting Palestinian organs | World news | The Guardian

[nonhuman]

in the 1990s, specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives

Had ****-all to do with the Palestinians. No on was targeted for this, no one was killed for this, which was the claim made by the original allegations.

Honestly, I think we should be doing this in the US. It's unconscionable to me for us to allow perfectly good organs to rot while there are people dying for lack of those organs.

[subego]

Is there any religious angle with the Palestinians? I seem to recall that Jews aren't supposed to donate organs/blood/etc.

[imitchellg5]

That's correct.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

That's correct.

What's the justification for this? (Just curious.)

[imitchellg5]

I don't know, I just remember this subject came up in a world religion class. Perhaps someone else can clarify?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What's the justification for this? (Just curious.)

According to Orthodox Judaism, when the moshiach arrives the dead will be bodily resurrected, so they'll probably want to have their bodies intact. This is why Judaism calls for burial, not cremation, within 24 hours (and ideally in Jerusalem as many believe those who are buried there will be the first to be resurrected).

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

According to Orthodox Judaism, when the moshiach arrives the dead will be bodily resurrected, so they'll probably want to have their bodies intact. This is why Judaism calls for burial, not cremation, within 24 hours (and ideally in Jerusalem as many believe those who are buried there will be the first to be resurrected).

Interesting... Christians believe the same thing (except for the 2nd coming and nothing specific against Jerusalem), but it's okay to donate blood/organs.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Interesting... Christians believe the same thing (except for the 2nd coming and nothing specific against Jerusalem), but it's okay to donate blood/organs.

I generally think Judaism is pretty reasonable, but it's a bit silly IMO to worry about your body being taken apart, as nature will do that soon enough anyway once you're dead. Unless the Messiah gets down here in a hurry, we'll all be dust by the time he arrives.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Interesting... Christians believe the same thing (except for the 2nd coming and nothing specific against Jerusalem), but it's okay to donate blood/organs.

Do Christians believe in the actual resurrection of the physical bodies of the dead? I thought they all expected the living (and devout) to be bodily taken up to heaven and reunited with the dead there (hence the whole Left Behind idea).

Personally, I don't see how you can expect that the dead will walk again, presumably cured of the up to thousands of years of decay (or are we going to have an actual zombie apocalypse?), and not think that something as insignificant as a missing cornea will also be repaired.

[Splinter]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Do Christians believe in the actual resurrection of the physical bodies of the dead? I thought they all expected the living (and devout) to be bodily taken up to heaven and reunited with the dead there (hence the whole Left Behind idea).

I'm sure you will find Christians on both sides of that.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Personally, I don't see how you can expect that the dead will walk again, presumably cured of the up to thousands of years of decay (or are we going to have an actual zombie apocalypse?), and not think that something as insignificant as a missing cornea will also be repaired.

Call me crazy, but if we are already working on the assumption that the messiah will be resurrecting however many billions of bodies from the dead I don't think it will be too much more effort to regenerate bodies and organs.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Do Christians believe in the actual resurrection of the physical bodies of the dead? I thought they all expected the living (and devout) to be bodily taken up to heaven and reunited with the dead there (hence the whole Left Behind idea).

Personally, I don't see how you can expect that the dead will walk again, presumably cured of the up to thousands of years of decay (or are we going to have an actual zombie apocalypse?), and not think that something as insignificant as a missing cornea will also be repaired.

It depends on viewpoint. Most Christians that I've met seem to take it literally, but I don't really see how one could be certain. The Bible speaks of the dead being thrown out of wherever they are on judgement day in Revelation 20. Some take this literally, some figuratively. It's one of those things that doesn't really change the point, but it's interesting to consider.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I generally think Judaism is pretty reasonable, but it's a bit silly IMO to worry about your body being taken apart, as nature will do that soon enough anyway once you're dead. Unless the Messiah gets down here in a hurry, we'll all be dust by the time he arrives.

The particular mode and practicalities of resurrecting the dead are not necessarily tied to concern over the treatment of dead bodies. G-d in His omnipotence is not limited to reanimating remains, although some Jewish sources link the two, and some have theorized that one particular bone in the human body that is said not to disintegrate under normal burial conditions could serve as the material basis for resurrection. Ezekiel's Valley of Dry Bones does directly link bodily remains with resurrection, but that doesn't mean that only those with remains will be resurrected. And although we believe that redemption could come at any moment, even if Moshiach ben David were to come tomorrow resurrection would not happen immediately; the time-based requirements of Jewish burial have to do with honoring Shabbat and returning the body to earth expediently. (Just as man's body was formed from the earth, his remains are returned thereto, while his spirit returns to G-d who made it.)

So it's true that the concern over a kosher Jewish funeral can be linked to the resurrection expectation, but not in an immediate context. Proper burial is important for other reasons. Aside from returning the body to the earth, Judaism teaches that there are different segments of one's soul, and while they higher portions return to their Creator immediately, the lowest part dwells with the body for a period of time and experiences "pain of the grave," where the soul mourns over the body and witnesses its gradual decay. Based on that belief, the destruction of the body in cremation (aside from violating other religious mores) would be even more traumatic to the soul. See this article.

[Splinter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I generally think Judaism is pretty reasonable, but it's a bit silly IMO to worry about your body being taken apart, as nature will do that soon enough anyway once you're dead. Unless the Messiah gets down here in a hurry, we'll all be dust by the time he arrives.

I'm sorry to bring this up since I'm only stretching further off topic, but I have to ask. Which level of Judaism is reasonable? The traditionalists? The religious? The orthodox?

I have to say I have never seen any religious practice that is more insulting to the intelligence of their God than rabbinical law. They paraphrased and reinterpreted every one of their Gods laws to come up with 240,000 new 'sub-laws' all based on the assumption that God was apparently stupid and and even though he was omnipotent omnipresent and is outside of time he somehow couldn't anticipate the future. They even came out with a book whose sole purpose is to explain what God really meant... and you know what they came out with after that? A book to explain the book that explains what God really meant. (The mishna and the gomorrah... I don't remember which is which)

My favorite is the dairy and meat laws. Oh boy. They took a sentence "Thou shalt not boil a kid in his mother's milk." and twisted it into billions of new made up kosher laws and sub laws and precedents and stipulations we have today. Why am I so confident God didn't mean for this to be understood as "don't mix dairy and meat"? Because God isn't dumb and plain simple logic (and 14th century B.C. cuneiform tablets found in Syria describing Canaanite religious practices) tells us that at the time there was a very well known CANAANITE PAGAN RITUAL that consisted of the specific practice of boiling a kid in his mother's milk. What a coincidence that Exodus 34 has all these commandments about keeping away from the "pagans" around you and not imitating their practices and their way of life etc etc but no... this CLEARLY means don't mix milk and meat in your diet and wait 6 hours in between and keep separate dishware cookware and silverware for each.

Sadly it didn't end there. About 150 years ago they decided people were dumb as well and so as not to confuse God or people they made poultry not kosher to eat with dairy... why? No, they didn't start believing you could milk chickens. It was so that no one would see them eating it and think it was meat by mistake because what people think is what's really important about God's laws. Oh yeah and somehow fish isn't meat. Unfortunately this is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Jewish rabbinical law.

But hey... live and let live. I just don't think having to walk around in this (This is what they wear year round. Yes even in the summer they wear the long black coats and the layers which is really unfortunate since they also don't believe in deodorant.) and having to eat cook and store dairy and meat items separately and having to find workarounds for electricity on the Sabbath qualifies as "reasonable".

Did you know there is a Orthodox research center thingy in Israel whose whole purpose is to make Sabbath electronics and gadgets so that you don't have to flip a light switch on the Sabbath and worry about God being confused by this strange magic called electricity and mistakenly think you are kindling a fire. Poor confused God... he can breath life into the dead create the universe in a week but his kryptonite is understanding the workings of modern technology.

So people practicing this stuff for tradition I can understand after all they have been doing it for thousands of years. Other than that... They are about as reasonable as DC-8 spaceships, Xenu, and Theatans.

Silly God... passing down laws that we have to fix. If only God were as smart as the rabbis...

Just want to clarify this is not an attack on the Jewish religion. I couldn't care less what anyone believes as long as they live and let live (unfortunately the orthodox sect specifically doesn't but that's a different story and not what I was addressing.). I was simply pointing out what I perceive as flawed logic undeserving of the title "reasonable". And to my Jewish brothers on this board don't take offense. This is only my point of view not a dogmatic stand for what is right and wrong.

[nonhuman]

You're conflating the fringe edge of Orthodox Judaism (known by many as Ultra-Orthodox) with all of Judaism... Not to mention assuming that just because you don't see a reason to do something means that there is no reason to do something.

However some of your criticisms, I think, are fair. I totally agree that the concept of Shabbat appliances is insane. If observing Shabbat does not require any significant difference in the way you live your life, then how can you even be said to be observing it? The whole idea of Shabbat appliances is taking what I think is one of the most practically beneficial and pleasurable aspects of Judaism (Taking a day off from all work and dedicating it to family and study? How is that not awesome?) and stripping it of many of the things that make it special.

Also the Haredim who insist on maintaining unchanged the exact fashions of the place and time in Europe their particular lineage came from is ridiculous. There are certain restrictions and requirements on attire that do come from Judaism, but there's nothing that says you can't wear modern styles while still following those particular rules, and there are plenty of Jews—even Orthodox Jews (generally known as Modern Orthodox)—who do.

As for which levels of Judaism are reasonable, I would say this:
Aside from any supernatural claims which clearly different people are simply going to disagree on, Judaism has always encouraged literacy, mental development, and a highly legalistic approach even to religion. A direct result of this is a culture that (outside of the Haredi/Ultra Orthodox communities) values education and learning, even of the secular sort, and encourages intellectual pursuits, and has produced some of the greatest minds humanity has known (which I am saying is a result of a cultural priority of education and learning not some sort of racial or genetic superiority, mind you).

[Splinter]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

You're conflating the fringe edge of Orthodox Judaism (known by many as Ultra-Orthodox) with all of Judaism...

Kinda... But really only with the dress. Practicing religious Jews do all that stuff except for the garb but, unlike the ultra-orthodox, don't bother me in the least since they are a part of society and actually work and serve in the military and are not social leeches.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Not to mention assuming that just because you don't see a reason to do something means that there is no reason to do something.

I see a reason I just don't agree with it. Their reason is that "the smart ones" interpreted the actual meanings of the laws or whatever and then that became the acceptable norm. I'm just curious why God would give them his law and then allow them to go 2,500 years without the "real definitions". Smells fishy. But the explanations and definitions they come up with are just out of this world bizarre and in the end you just have to take their word for it or not.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The reason is also to establish a community and to demonstrate pride in that community. Many practices are important because others don't do them, as much as they are because the Torah says to do them.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Splinter 

I see a reason I just don't agree with it. Their reason is that "the smart ones" interpreted the actual meanings of the laws or whatever and then that became the acceptable norm. I'm just curious why God would give them his law and then allow them to go 2,500 years without the "real definitions". Smells fishy. But the explanations and definitions they come up with are just out of this world bizarre and in the end you just have to take their word for it or not.

I think there's more to it than that. In large part I agree very much with what Uncle Skeleton says, Jewish practices and idiosyncrasies are what define Jewishness and Jewish culture. Even for non-observant or non-religious Jews such as myself it's a meaningful thing to see people walking around wearing kippot, payot, tzitzyot, and having mezuzot on their doors and hannukiyot in their windows. If nothing else these outward signs—and even other things such as ritual hand washing, and keeping kosher—are, if nothing else, ways to lead a more thoughtful life and simply be more aware of who you are and what you're doing: keeping kosher requires that you actually put thought into what you eat, which I think people in general would benefit from doing (the thinking about it, not necessarily abstaining from bacon and pepperoni pizza).

[Splinter]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I think there's more to it than that. In large part I agree very much with what Uncle Skeleton says, Jewish practices and idiosyncrasies are what define Jewishness and Jewish culture. Even for non-observant or non-religious Jews such as myself it's a meaningful thing to see people walking around wearing kippot, payot, tzitzyot, and having mezuzot on their doors and hannukiyot in their windows. If nothing else these outward signs—and even other things such as ritual hand washing, and keeping kosher—are, if nothing else, ways to lead a more thoughtful life and simply be more aware of who you are and what you're doing: keeping kosher requires that you actually put thought into what you eat, which I think people in general would benefit from doing (the thinking about it, not necessarily abstaining from bacon and pepperoni pizza).

Absolutely. Like I said in my first post I see every reason to do this for traditions sake and being your own identity. I just don't agree with the ultra orthodox reasoning for it. I may not wear a kippah but I rest on Shabbat, I keep biblically kosher, I don't eat bread on passover, and I fast on Yom Kippur. I just don't buy into their reasoning and I most definitely am against their (ultra-orthodox) way of life. Or at least the way they live here in Israel. I don't know what they do in the States or anywhere else but here, after terrorists, they are the most hated group of people around.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Splinter 

Absolutely. Like I said in my first post I see every reason to do this for traditions sake and being your own identity. I just don't agree with the ultra orthodox reasoning for it. I may not wear a kippah but I rest on Shabbat, I keep biblically kosher, I don't eat bread on passover, and I fast on Yom Kippur. I just don't buy into their reasoning and I most definitely am against their (ultra-orthodox) way of life. Or at least the way they live here in Israel. I don't know what they do in the States or anywhere else but here, after terrorists, they are the most hated group of people around.

Ah, I see I completely misinterpreted your point of view here! I think we're actually in complete agreement! I guess I'm just too used to dealing with either people who just assume that Christianity is normative for everyone on the one hand, or people who just assume that everything about religion is evil and should be completely done away with on the other so I tend to expect people to disagree with me.

[Big Mac]

Why is it the first time I've heard of this Splilnter guy, who has apparently been around for years and posting a fair amount?

First of all, glad to make your acquaintance, my brother. But with all due respect, Master Splinter (and Turtles, Shredder, et al ), this isn't the thread at all for the type of discussion you started. In fact, I don't think this is an appropriate venue for you to air your grievances against Rabbinic/Torah Judaism at all. If you're going to go so far as to mock Halacha, our Sages and our beliefs about G-d, I'd encourage you to at least find a venue to do it on that is devoted to Judaism, with many knowledgeable religious Jews (not just one or two as on here) on it to offer facts and counterpoints, and one that doesn't have vile Jew-haters and atheists of various stripes freely posting. I can point you to far better forums for such discourses. But if you insist on staying here to debate these points, you should have at least created a different thread. Do you not see it as inappropriate to mock the Torah and Judaism - the basis for why Jews have survived and will survive into the future - in a thread created by a Muslim mocking and denouncing the state of Israel (supposedly your country) for its existence? I personally count such an act as Chilul HaShem, although that may be overstating the importance of MacNN.

In truth I do agree with a fraction of what you wrote, but much of it is incorrect in various ways and openly mocking toward our religion. And the fact that you refer to the Mishna and Gemora but plainly say you don't remember "which one is which" is substantive proof that you're very much ignorant about core religious facts and apparently not in a position to objectively assess the correctness of our religious institutions. (Not only don't you know those definitions, you apparently can't be bothered to educate yourself by looking up the two words so that you'll know a bit about the sacred books you're mocking.)

It also seems to me that your hatred of the Haredim of Israel (a term which has a different meaning outside of Israel) has caused you to be prejudiced against all religious Jews, and that you are apparently conflating your hatreds (as nonhuman pointed to in part). Most of the reasons people cite for disliking Israeli Haredim have to do with their stances toward sharing the responsibilities and receiving the benefits of their citizenship and not particularly their religious devotion; as I'm sure you know, there is a continuum of religious (Dati) categories in Israel. There are different religious sects because there are disagreements between them about how to approach the world in a religious context, but concerning Halacha all religious Jews are going to be in the same ballpark, especially on the issues you seem to really care about. So when you single out the Haredim (and their hated status in your eyes) among all others as part of your general critique of core parts of Torah Judaism, you make me think that you don't have a clear understanding of religious Jews in Israel nor what religious Judaism entails.

Also, you say that you generally keep the Mitzvot - at least the ones you agree with, to the degree you see fit. If you think our religion is as lacking as you claim, why do you bother to keep any portion of it? You mock the kosher laws but you say you keep "biblically kosher" - whatever that may mean to you. The fact of why Kashrut can be complex is because the Torah reflects its complexities. If by Biblically kosher you mean you abstain from certain prohibited animal flesh like swine, that's only part of what the written Torah mandates as far as Kashrut is concerned. As an example, a kosher animal is fit to eat only when slaughtered as Moshe instructed the nation to do so - see Deut. 12. So if you're eating non-kosher meat and think you're holding to what the Torah says just because the flesh you're consuming came from a kosher animal, then you're mistaken. Also, do you carry burdens on Shabbat? If so, then you're violating Jeremiah 17. You seem to think the rabbis made these things up as extra-biblical details because they wanted to rule over and burden their people, which just isn't the case. Yes, one of the things that the Sages did was to erect "fences" around some Torah prohibitions so that if people ran afoul of the fences they would hopefully correct their behavior before going that extra step of violating the Torah explicitly. They made some aspects of observance more difficult to protect the people from serious sins, but they also made certain obligations more lenient for the benefit of the people in other ways.

As for your claim that the Torah means something other than the Sages said regarding cooking a kid in its mother's milk because some scholars think they found that practice among the other nations contemporary at the time, so what? If the Canannites did perform that practice, that actually confirms the Torah account: G-d says that He specifically wants His nation not to do many of the abominable practices of the Canaanites - they lost the Land because of their abominations, according to the Torah. And if you challenge the rabbis, what are you claiming the commandment specifically prohibits instead? The prohibition was included three separate times - it's definitely important and of concern to those who want to keep the Torah. Are you saying it just pertains to the cooking process? If so, it's well known that if you grill a piece of meat for a while and then take it off the cooking surface, it will continue to cook internally for a while after that. If you add cheese while it's sitting their continuing to cook, you seem to be literally violating the mitzvah. Now if you claim your beef (pun intended) is narrowly with having to wait 6 hours after eating meat before having dairy again, then you should know that's the most stringent ruling for the most piously careful to observe. A Chabad rabbi told me that the Halacha mandates 3 hours, and I've heard of some communities that reduce that down to a single hour. Now I will agree with you that the prohibition of not just cooking but eating the two together in any fashion could be viewed as a fence guarding the underlying mitzvah rather than the mitzvah itself, and I think that argument has some merit. And I also could agree on some level that extending the prohibition to fowl seems to be an unnecessary fence, but then again it also makes sense to me that eating chicken or turkey and cheese can lead one to eating cheeseburgers. Either way, those are the ruling of the Sages, and they have the force of law - the Torah empowered the scholars of each generation to make rulings that the people are commanded to follow without question, so if you abide by that mitzvah you're kind of in a bind.

You're in a similar situation when it comes to Shabbat. Work is prohibited, but what work? How do we know? Torah Judaism teaches that the Oral Torah, passed down from Moshe to the Sages of every generation until being codified in the Talmud, is what informs us on the specifics. We are taught that the work prohibited are the categories of work that went into creating the Mishkan as well as categories of work that people do in their daily lives. Electricity did not exist until fairly recently, so religious Jews had to rely on the rulings of the authorities of the day. They said that manipulating electric devices falls under categories of prohibited work. It personally makes sense that since modern people use electricity all the time in the course of daily work, use of electricity should properly be refrained from. You can agree or disagree, but that is the majority ruling and the ruling that Torah observant Jews go by. Crudely parodying that ruling doesn't change its existence. Of course, if you're not going to accept what the Sages have passed down and every religious authority in the mainstream has reaffirmed all the way down the line, then you're outside the Jewish mainstream. Now maybe Karaite Judaism is what you're looking for. They deny the authority of the Sages in favor of their own varied judgment and independent traditions. That's fringe Judaism, tiny, and isolated - a tiny minority within a tiny world minority of people, but that sounds like that's what you're after. In truth, people who have called themselves Karaites for periods of time usually come back to Judaism proper because they see the deficiencies in trying to rely solely on Tanakh without the benefit of the accumulated knowledge of the Sages.

You can debate some of those choices and their fine details and implications, but to go from that level of thought to rejecting wide swaths of the religion out of apparent ignorance (and then to boast about it on a public forum that is often hostile to Jews and Judaism) goes far beyond the pale (and yes I know the history of that phrase). Now you say you fast on Yom Kippur, but the written Torah doesn't explicitly instruct one to fast - it says afflict your soul. How do you know that afflicting your soul is done by fasting, if you disregard the words of our Sages? And if you accept their authority about some things but not others (which you perceive as antiquated), how are you so sure you're drawing legitimate religious lines in what you do and don't do?

Don't get me wrong - I'm glad you hold to some of your Judaism, but you don't seem to appreciate the objective implications of the type of religion you claim to observe. It sounds like your Judaism is one that is kept out of convenience and doing what's right in your own eyes, and in that case you don't even have a basis for knowing what's objectively right and wrong in religious terms because you are lacking in basic Torah knowledge, as I pointed out. I don't mean to come off quite so sanctimoniously. I became a Baal Teshuva as an adult. Some of the arguments you made here are similar to the ones I made before I decided to embark on a more religious path. And just as I have taken you to task for a lack of religious knowledge, there are many regular Jews at higher levels of religious knowledge (at least in some areas) and certainly higher levels of observance who can easily school me on fine points and excoriate me for falling short of important goals in observance. I just want you to see that given what you wrote, there are some serious defects in your understanding of your religion and your people that you should take into account going forward.

[Splinter]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Why is it the first time I've heard of this Splilnter guy, who has apparently been around for years and posting a fair amount?

I dunno... I was hiding from Shredder in the sewers...

Sorry for the delayed response... I have been absolutely buried at work. Also the post was too long so when quoting your text I had to chop it up and leave a lot out of the quote.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...But with all due respect, Master Splinter (and Turtles, Shredder, et al ), this isn't the thread at all for the type of discussion you started.

This really isn't the thread, and I did apologize ahead of time for running the ship further off course but it was already off the mark when I came in. I would have no objections to having this part split off into a new discussion.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...I don't think this is an appropriate venue for you to air your grievances against Rabbinic/Torah Judaism at all. If you're going to go so far as to mock Halacha, our Sages and our beliefs about G-d, I'd encourage you to at least find a venue to do it on that is devoted to Judaism... and one that doesn't have vile Jew-haters and atheists of various stripes freely posting... But if you insist on staying here to debate these points, you should have at least created a different thread.

As for this being the time/place well someone said something I disagreed with and I said so. And since opinions usually comes with an explanation... I obliged. No one here is a master in middle east politics no matter how much I have seen many from both sides think they are. I had a long series of posts here long ago about how you really can't know until you have lived it and seen it with your own eyes. And that is how it is with everything in this section. People talking about what they know or think they know... no one here is a qualified expert in these fields and if they are it is by chance and is not a prerequisite. This is discussion board and everyone discusses their personal opinions. And I'm sorry that you saw that as mocking. However my intention was to express in the clearest terms possible the way these things are perceived by me. I wouldn't just come out and say “well I disagree with this period.” and not explain why. And yes, I use more silly sarcastic terms than would have been needed except that that is exactly how I perceive it to be. And again from my first post: "This is only my point of view not a dogmatic stand for what is right and wrong."

And I find it even better that there be other people of other mind sets and other religions to be here. I suppose I am supposed to discuss this in a forum of people who only share your view on the matter?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Do you not see it as inappropriate to mock the Torah and Judaism - the basis for why Jews have survived and will survive into the future -

Who was mocking the Torah? I was bothered because of people, who in my perception, are freely adding and manipulating the holy word of God. To me that IS the mockery. I know we won't agree on that but I wasn't mocking the word of God. I don't believe the Jews survived because of Judaism or the Torah... I believe it's because of God's covenant with them and it doesn't matter how misguided some may be... God's word is his word. And that is why the Jews survived.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

in a thread created by a Muslim mocking and denouncing the state of Israel (supposedly your country) for its existence?...

As for who started this thread... Yeah so Talsien hates Israel... מה נשתנה? Who cares? So many people around the world hate Israel hate Jews hate Arabs hate Muslims hate Ultra Orthodox hate atheists hate clowns (damn clowns)... what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The haters are just pissed off cause they can't do anything about their situation cause we keep kicking their asses in wars. I would be pretty angry and hating too if I got my ass handed to me on 7+ occasions.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

In truth I do agree with a fraction of what you wrote, but much of it is incorrect in various ways and openly mocking toward our religion. And the fact that you refer to the Mishna and Gemora but plainly say you don't remember "which one is which" is substantive proof that you're very much ignorant about core religious facts and apparently not in a position to objectively assess the correctness of our religious institutions. (Not only don't you know those definitions, you apparently can't be bothered to educate yourself by looking up the two words so that you'll know a bit about the sacred books you're mocking.)

Political correctness is the sickness of the West and it's disgusting. For the love of all that is good and holy in this world why do people have to hide what they mean behind vague phrases and outright lies about how they actually feel? Look those books may be sacred to you but to me they are a mockery of the word of God. I'm not here to make people feel good about my opinion and make sure it suits everyone... it's an opinion and it's personal for everyone. No one is telling you to accept it. No, I'm sorry I won't feed you some watered down bullsh*t so that we can all go hold hands in a hippie circle I respect human beings too much to pull that. You can disagree with what I say but at least you will know what I am saying is proper representation of what I think. So if I am ignorant of some of the particulars of these things I won't pretend to know or pretend to care about learning which is which because it doesn't matter to me. Either what I said about one being an explanation and the other being the explanation of the explanation is true and the rest of the details have really no relevancy to what I was trying to get across or it's not true and I have to go tell a bunch of Ultra-Orthodox guys that they were wrong about those books.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...your hatred of the Haredim of Israel...has caused you to be prejudiced against all religious Jews, and that you are apparently conflating your hatreds...you make me think that you don't have a clear understanding of religious Jews in Israel nor what religious Judaism entails.

I thought I was pretty clear on this but if not I will clarify it now. I may disagree with what practicing modern religious Judaism entails and I may think it's quite ridiculous at times but again like I said in the first post: “I couldn't care less what anyone believes as long as they live and let live”. And I love these people as my brothers and I have fought alongside them and them alongside me and we have shed blood sweat and tears together. We got into these discussions too, and no, they didn't take offense. You know... 3 Jews 10 opinions. Everyone has their own beliefs and they though mine were pretty wacko too and they told me so. See here no one is afraid to tell you exactly what they think or disagree with and it's a vital part of surviving here.

Now my dislike for Haredim or Ultra Orthodox may be a shocker to you but it is a feeling shared by religious and non religious alike here. One of my bosses is a religious Jew... wears a kippa and the tzitzit He doesn't touch electronics on sabbath has his phone off won't look at a digital readout he keeps separate plates silverware etc goes to synagogue all the time... and guess what? He can't stand the Haredim. Why? It has nothing to do with their religious beliefs they could be atheist Muslim Christians Buddhist or any combination of any religious practice you want it wouldn't make an ounce of difference because the dislike this nation has for them is not based on religious views it's based on the fact that they are “social leeches” in this nation. They get paid by the government to live here so that means everyone else's taxes are higher... If that wasn't bad enough they don't hold jobs anyway and so they don't even help grow the economy. They don't serve in the military and don't even support the military and yet they demand it's protection. They disrespect women and are racist bastards. They will stone you if you drive near their neighborhoods on the Sabbath and they will mob you if you go near their area with a camera... (watch the documentary - where in the world is Osama Bin Laden and you will see exactly what I mean. The guy visited Afghanistan and Pakistan and he was in the most danger in a ultra orthodox religious neighborhood here.). They physically persicute anyone suspected of being a Messianic Jew. They ran my friend out of the country because he wasn't Jewish and what was he doing here? He was volunteering at a food bank... I could go on for pages. But none of this has anything to do with their religious views... they live they just don't let live. And that is why I, and the rest of Israel, can't stand them.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...but you say you keep "biblically kosher" - whatever that may mean to you...Yes, one of the things that the Sages did was to erect "fences" around some Torah prohibitions so that if people ran afoul of the fences they would hopefully correct their behavior before going that extra step of violating the Torah explicitly...

It's very simple. I believe in the Bible and what is says is the word of God. So yeah I keep the mitzvot to the degree God sees fit. That's how I see it. I know that is not how you see it but that is your opinion and this is mine. Biblically kosher means pretty much the exact same level of kosher that I assume you keep except for what I believe is the made up poppy cock of milk and meat and all the laws pertaining to that. The instructions for the slaughtering of the animals is in the Bible and that stuff is what I believe because it's in Gods word.

As for your fences. I think they completely negate part of the purpose of God's commandments. One of the main things God desires is for us to realize that we are fallible creatures and that what He desires from us is unattainable on our own and we need His help. He wants us to seek his help. He's not dumb. He knows we can't do it on our own. What is faith if we can just fence ourselves out of any situation we can't handle on our own?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...what are you claiming the commandment specifically prohibits instead?

The cooking of a kid in it's mothers milk. Unlike the rabbis I don't assume God is playing mind games and word jumble with us. I don't think he has any interest in silly games. I think He says what he means and means what He says.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...Are you saying it just pertains to the cooking process? If so, it's well known that if you grill a piece of meat for a while and then take it off the cooking surface, it will continue to cook internally for a while after that. If you add cheese while it's sitting their continuing to cook...

No... I claim that it doesn't have anything to do with kosher or not kosher. It has to do with pagan rituals and the worship of other Gods other than the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob... which considering the context of the passage it appears twice in is a painfully logical conclusion to come to.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Now if you claim your beef (pun intended) is narrowly with having to wait 6 hours after eating meat before having dairy again...

I don't care if it's 1 second or 1 year. I mix milk and meat because it's tasty and because God's word doesn't tell me not to.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...but then again it also makes sense to me that eating chicken or turkey and cheese can lead one to eating cheeseburgers. Either way, those are the ruling of the Sages, and they have the force of law...

Hehehe... we Jews have such a doomsday complex... well I can see eating this but it would probably lead me to temptation to do other things that could lead to something bad. So just to be safe I'm going to not do the thing that could lead to the thing that could lead to something bad and then call it a sacred law of my religion.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...then you're outside the Jewish mainstream. Now maybe Karaite Judaism is what you're looking for...

I never claimed to be apart of any sort of mainstream anything. And I really don't care to be. I dislike organized religion it always falls short of what it seems God intended... it always ends up about the organization not the one they serve. As for the 'Karate' (Karaite) Jews, I don't care to be grouped with anyone. They can believe whatever they want... if it happens to coincide with what I believe then so be it. I'm under the impression you think I am unclear on my beliefs and looking for something to fill a void or something or give me a direction. I am very set in my way it's alright I don't need to be associated with any specific religious group.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...Now you say you fast on Yom Kippur, but the written Torah doesn't explicitly instruct one to fast - it says afflict your soul. How do you know that afflicting your soul is done by fasting, if you disregard the words of our Sages?

I fast because it's a tradition in my family specifically and in General in this country as a sign of solidarity with my people and my country. Like I said I understand doing these things out of tradition.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And if you accept their authority about some things but not others (which you perceive as antiquated), how are you so sure you're drawing legitimate religious lines in what you do and don't do?

How does any person in nay religion draw “legitimate” religious lines? Following the word of their God. It's really not that difficult to understand. I believe in what is written in the Bible and I do not believe the sages were ordained by God any more than I believe the pope is holy. The fact that you disagree is as relevant to me as if you were a Protestant and a Catholic were to tell you he disagrees with your views.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...It sounds like your Judaism is one that is kept out of convenience and doing what's right in your own eyes, and in that case you don't even have a basis for knowing what's objectively right and wrong in religious terms because you are lacking in basic Torah knowledge,...

Seriously? Gosh if only God had told us what is right and wrong in some book that we could look at and read and understand and know his will. I'm flailing in the dark with no basis for knowing right from wrong. Give me a break.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...I just want you to see that given what you wrote, there are some serious defects in your understanding of your religion and your people that you should take into account going forward.

The only defects in my understanding are perhaps of your religion. As for the people I have a very clear understanding of them but you should know that over here and over there is night and day. Don't be so sure that if you know one you know the other.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

In fact, I don't think this is an appropriate venue for you to air your grievances against Rabbinic/Torah Judaism at all. If you're going to go so far as to mock Halacha, our Sages and our beliefs about G-d, I'd encourage you to at least find a venue to do it on that is devoted to Judaism, with many knowledgeable religious Jews (not just one or two as on here) on it to offer facts and counterpoints, and one that doesn't have vile Jew-haters and atheists of various stripes freely posting. I can point you to far better forums for such discourses.

Why would you suggest to have the discussion elsewhere? Is there anything you don't want others to know? I'm `listening' in on your conversation with great curiosity.

[lexapro]

Somehow, I am certain that Israel is responsible for this!!!!

LiveLeak.com - Gaza aid held up in Jordan by Egypt

EVIL ISRAELIS WHO CONTROL EGYPT! EVIL JEWS!

[OAW]

An interesting op-ed piece was published today in the Jerusalem Post (emphasis mine):

A taboo question for Israelis | Columnists | Jerusalem Post

There's a question we Israelis won't ask ourselves about the Palestinians, especially not about Gaza. The question is taboo. Not only won't anyone ask it out loud, but very, very few people will dare ask it in the privacy of their own minds.

However, I think it's time we start asking it, privately and in public. If we don't, I think there's going to be Operation Cast Lead II, then Operation Cast Lead III, and each one is going to be worse than the last, and the consequences for Palestinians and Israelis are going to be unimaginable.

The question we have to ask ourselves is this: If anybody treated us like we're treating the people in Gaza, what would we do?

We don't want to go there, do we? And because we don't, we make it our business not to see, hear or think about how, indeed, we are treating the people in Gaza.

All these shocked dignitaries, all these reports, these details, these numbers - thousands of destroyed this and tens of thousands of destroyed that. Rubble, sewage, malnutrition, crying babies, humanitarian crises - who can keep up? Who cares? They did it to themselves. Where to for lunch?

IT'S NOT that we can't imagine life in Gaza. It's that we are determined not to try to imagine. If we did, we might not stop there. Next we might try to imagine what it would be like if our country were in the condition in which we left Gaza. And sooner or later we might try to imagine what we would do if we were living over here like they're living over there.

Or not even what we would do, just what we would think - about the people, about the country, that did that to us and that wouldn't even allow us to begin to recover after the war was over. That blockaded our borders and allowed in only enough supplies to keep us at subsistence level, to prevent starvation and mass epidemics.

What would we think, what would we do, if somebody, some country, did that to us?

A lot of people here, I'm sure, would reply angrily: So why won't the Gazans try making peace?

But is that how we would react? Is that what Israelis would do if a foreign army did to this country what the IDF did to that one a year ago? If another country sent F-16s, Apache helicopters, white phosphorous, drones, tanks and battalions into Israel, if any nation bombed and killed over here like we bombed and killed in Gaza, then rubbed our noses in it afterward, would we want to make peace with them?

Forget we; does anyone know a single Israeli who would?

I'M SURE a lot of people would argue: What about Sderot? Didn't the terrorists in Gaza bomb and kill in Sderot? Let's the turn the question around: What would the Gazans have done if another country did to them what they did to the people in Sderot?

Fair enough. Yes, they would have hit back, too. They're not pacifists, either, to say the least. In fact, their elected leaders are fanatical, murderous Jew-haters sworn to Israel's destruction. That's extremely important to remember, and we do. But what we don't want to remember, what we make 100 percent sure to forget, is that we do all sorts of hateful things to Gaza that they don't do to us, and that this is the way it's been since 1967.

Aside from choking the flow of goods to Gaza by land, we blockade their entire coast. We don't allow ships to sail into Gaza or out. Does anyone stop ships from coming and going at the ports of Eilat, Ashdod or Haifa? What would Israel do if anyone tried? (Think of what Israel did two weeks after Egypt blockaded the port of Eilat in May 1967.)

We also blockade Gaza's airspace, preventing planes from flying in or out. Does anybody stop planes from flying in and out of Israel? Would we stand for it if someone did?

For 37 years, between 1967 and 2005, our soldiers and settlers were the overlords of the Gaza Strip. If foreign soldiers and settlers tried to come in and take over Israel, what would we do?

And regarding the years of rocket attacks on the people in Sderot, I've never been through such an ordeal, but I imagine it's hell. However, I've also never been through the ordeal that people in Gaza have gone through, and are still going through, yet I know - as everyone in the world knows, except Israelis - that life in Gaza is incomparably worse than life in Sderot ever was.

DURING THE 2008 US presidential campaign, Barack Obama visited Sderot, saying, "If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that."

Absolutely right. I wonder, though, what sort of empathetic reaction he might have had if he'd also visited the Jabalya refugee camp that summer. I wonder how he'd react if he visited Jabalya now.

And how would we react? If we Israelis could go to Gaza and see in person what we've done to that place and its people, would we be capable of empathy? If we thought of our children living in a country that was just like postwar Gaza, would we allow ourselves to think what we might do?

We can't go to Gaza, but we have to start using our imagination. We have to dare to put ourselves in those people's place. And we have to stop doing to them what we would never allow anyone to do to us. Otherwise, we Israelis have no conscience, and little by little we become capable of anything.

I imagine this piece will be most "controversial". Thoughts?

OAW

[lexapro]

If the Palestinians in Gaza would take up the cause of peace and not incessant terrorism then I am pretty sure they would be flying their own planes soon enough.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

If the Palestinians in Gaza would take up the cause of peace and not incessant terrorism then I am pretty sure they would be flying their own planes soon enough.

Had they made that choice anytime between the announcement of the partition plan(1947) to now(2009), they could have had a country, an economy ... a future.

Their situation isnt very different to the Jews in the area prior to the state of Israel. They(Jews post WWII) didnt have much to bargain with and so compromised to get a state..... the Palestinians/Arabs have nothing to bargain with now, but keep demanding more. it doesnt work like that. Noone handed the Jews(or anyone else) a state, yet Israel handed the Palestinians a state twice, and they(or rather their incompetent leadership) refused. How do you contend with that ?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OAW 

An interesting op-ed piece was published today in the Jerusalem Post

It's a ridiculous question. Gaza is a terrorist enclave at war with Israel, and any country worth its sovereignty would have wiped it off the map completely long ago. Israel continually returns kindness for the cruelty it receives from Gaza and the PA.

The PA under Abbas is in truth no better than Hamas - indeed it's worse because it speaks in moderate tones in English much of the time, trying to mask its true intentions from the West. Look for example at how the PA has celebrated the wanton murderers of innocent Rabbi Hai. Instead of condemning the attack that destroyed the life of a man of G-d, the PA condemns Israel for getting the terrorists responsible (two of whom were irresponsibly released from Israel jails):

The response of the PA has been unequivocal support and backing for the terrorists. Since Friday, the leadership of the PA, the heads of Fatah, the heads of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the PA-controlled media have continuously portrayed the killers as Palestinian heroes and Shahids -- holy Martyrs -- while describing Israel's killing of the three terrorists as "murder in cold blood" and "assassination."

Astonishing. How [is] Israel ever expected to make peace with the likes of that? And those are the "moderates"!

[Hawkeye_a]

What people tend to forget about this conflict, is that Israel has no problem negotiating and making peace with countries(Jordan, Egypt,etc) and peoples(PA), when there is mutual respect for the other's right to exist. The problem with Gaza and Hamas isn't the Israelis, it's Hamas' stated goal to destroy Israel, thats the obstacle(diplomatic). Anyone who expects Israel to *negotiate* with a group with that goal is out of their mind.

It's like two people in a room, one's stated goal is to kill the other, and you blame the guy who doesn't want to kill anyone, for not negotiating.

Thats just the first step. Once you get past that, you have to contend with the realities on the ground with terrorist attacks, and the lack of Palestinian condemnation, in fact they hail said killers as heroes. that's not a commitment to peace, and if anyone blames Israel for killing civilians during military ops, that imo is collateral damage(which is very unfortunate as well).

Israel on the other hand catches and prosecutes Israeli terrorists(as few as they might be) who target Palestinians and muslims. that's a commitment to peace. imo.

I think there needs to be a real proposal for peace from the Arab side, not demands(1967 borders, ie more), which are ridiculous. but hey thats my opinion, in fact id get Jordan annex the W.Bank and Egypt annex Gaza instead of using them as pawns to try and pester Israel constantly.

Cheers

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

1. When have the Arabs offered/accepted peace on existing frontiers ?
They will when the terms are right.

You say this, but I have no evidence for it. Peace talks become meaningful when people decide that they cannot afford to continue losing.

Think about the conditions under which different enemies surrendered to the USA. In all cases, the surrendering party had determined that it could not continue to lose. So far, the PA and its supporters believe that they can, and all agreements are made in order to stockpile until ready to continue attacks.

This is why negotiations so far have been without result.

2. When have the Arabs fulfilled their obligations to the treaties they have signed with regard to Israel?
Who are we talking about? The Egyptians and Jordanians are doing great. I'm pretty sure there aren't any Lebanese and Syrian treaties with Israel, and even if there are, we know the Syrians are a terrorist-exporting nation and shouldn't expect much else.

"Great" is an interesting characterization.

It was not until last month that the Egyptians actually began trying to prevent the funneling of arms into Gaza through the tunnels the Gazan Arabs have dug.

Egypt signed the treaty when they realized they couldn't afford to lose another war. Even at the time, the signing was so unpopular that Sadat was killed as a result of making the agreement.

The peace with Jordan is very cold. This is because the Jordanian population wasn't ready for it. When the agreement was made, Israelis started crossing the border to take advantage of price differentials in services. Dental work, for example, was more affordable across the border. Or, it was until the Dental Board in Jordan regulated all dentists ruling that no Jordanian dentist would perform dental work on a Jew.

And that illustrates another important point about what peace is: Peace is not just the absence of fighting, but is characterized by the presence of trade relations.

3. When has Israel NOT fulfilled the obligations it had agreed to?
As far as I'm aware, never. Israel is a good nation. They gotta quit coddling the squatters, though.

Please look back at the IDF-forced evacuation of Gaza of all Israelis.

Using the military to forcibly remove citizens from their homes isn't what I'd call 'coddling.'

It was painful, and the damage to lives, livlihoods, and political landscape has not been repaired. Don't expect this to happen again anytime soon.

4. Is it the Israelis or Palestinians(Gaza/WestBank) who's stated goal as a "people" to destroy the other?
Both the Israeli state and the Palestinian Authority have the stated goal of a two-state solution. Many, many fringe groups within both sides have the entire Holy Land as their side's exclusive domain.

Actually, the Palestinian Authority has no such stated goal. The Palestinians believe that they did not agree to this in Oslo. Further, Hamas is the majority controlling group in the PA, and they insist that they stand by their charter which calls for the violent elimination of Israel.

I'd hardly call that 'fringe.'

5. Which side refused the partition plan ? Which side refused a state on multiple occasions ?
The side that was getting screwed in the terms.

Actually, the original offers had Israel as very small and Palestine as very large. But any agreement was unacceptable. Now, with every new offer, the offer for a Palestine has gotten smaller. You'd think the PA and its people would notice a trend, but they haven't yet realized that they can no longer afford to continue losing.

6. Why is it Israel's duty to, at her expense, see to the welfare of a people bent on her destruction ?
Because not all or even the majority of those people are culpable.

[/quote]

Israel does a pretty honorable job of providing money from her tax revenues to PA coffers. Israel does a pretty good job of providing weaponry to PA security forces. Israel does a pretty good job of providing monetary reparations to PA residents it learns it harmed wrongfully (accepting that this is by its own findings.)

Remembering that most of those funds and weapons are used to attack Israelis.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Please look back at the IDF-forced evacuation of Gaza of all Israelis. Using the military to forcibly remove citizens from their homes isn't what I'd call 'coddling.'

Seemed more like ethnic cleansing of Jews to me. Jews who were productively making use of the land they were holding on to. Jews whose presence was serving as a buffer zone and a check on Hamas and its ability to attack, which Israel lost and then had to go to war due to the absence thereof.

Israel should do something about the squatters, though - like the Arabs who illegally build large homes on Israeli owned land. And the Arab populations that gets free utilities from Israel. Of course, they're protected from having to follow the law. But if there's a piece of building machinery that those pesky settlers could be using, the Prime Minister gets a special call from Obama's office demanding the anti-Jewish freeze be upheld.

[lexapro]

I wonder if this was written by our very own Talesin?

Truth they are hiding: The real price of Zionist "humanitarian assistance"

The real gory secret of the "humanitarian" zionist assistance becomes simple, if you look at the roots. And if you are clear-eyed enough to see the multi-billion business of human parts trafficking and the sinister organization behind it.

It really is a well written piece of fiction. Horrifying that any person with a mildly functioning brain believes it.