All Comments (34)

that is not the interpertation of most rabbis and commentators throughout history- it is specifically stated that jews should NOT return until this happens- there are countless warnings and prophecies against this.

are you serious?

Victoria,

The coming of the Messiah will begin the gathering of all Israelites who have "strayed" and are spread throughout the world to their homeland. It is not said that until then Israel should not be a Jewish state.

im just going by what the tanakh tradition has imparted- if youre aware of revisions or the return of the messiah that the rest of us have missed- id be happy to hear it-

this is the first time anyone has argued these prophecies- possibly youre not aware of them-

but there are conditions to bring the people of israel from exile - i didnt invent this- its jewish scripture-

commentators and rabbis have warned for a1000 years and more to the jewish people that they not jump the gun and wait until god has sent the messiah-

you are aware that most jewish people (well not the lubavichers) are waiting for the messiah right?

I meant to say Syria, not Jordan. I had been reading something else about Jordan at the time, and I guess I typed it without realizing - my mistake.

Oh, so if you think it is God's plan, then no one is to blame? Maybe it's God's plan for Israel to now have that land for themselves. Your response makes no sense.

No not people- god pretty much was the architect of the diaspora -

jordan wants to annihilate israel?

have you no concept of jordans policies?
are you kidding?

heres a hint- google csapn and the speech king abdullah of jordan gave on saturday

sheesh

The West did not create Israel and destroy Palestine; it helped Israel get back part of what was rightfully theirs from the Palestinians who forcefully took it from them. For hundreds of years different people have been forcing the Jews out of their land, the Palestinians being the latest (if you don't count Jordan and Lebanon, who want to annihilate them...)

here is an interesting article that i found today- it states clearly in pure math the actions of israels and palestinians last year-

from the bbc- and israeli human rights watch

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6215769.stm

the conclusions are obvious-

palestinian agression decreasing by half-

you see palestinian children deaths are 6 times the TOTAL of israeli deaths last year-

660-23

i think this says it all-

Victoria, I'm saying that there have been atrocities committed on both sides. So neither side deserves any moral sympathy, regardless of the validity of the cause. If the Palestinians want moral sympathy, then they should attack only Israeli soldiers, not civilians. And if the Israelis want moral sympathy, they should attack only those individual Palestinians who are attacking them, instead of treating all Palestinians as terrorists.

no white hats or black hats?

ok- when a soldier takes up arms- they make a contract to defend or attack for their country- there are inherent dangers that are entered upon willingly-

2 soldiers were detained in lebanon-
2 adult combatants

how many people and property and villages and infrastructure were destroyed in the retaliation?

just listen to the language sometimes tonio- wenever israel attacks- it is always a retaliation- implying that its justified-

do you think maybe israels hat turnd a bit dark after the lebanon debacle?

what about the troops storming nablus this week?

Jihadist and Victoria, my point about Gandhi and MLK was not about the strategic effectiveness of pacifism. My point was that both sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are deliberately targeting civilians, especially children. Now, that does not lessen the validity of Israel's right to exist or the Palestinians' right to rule themselves. But it does mean that neither side can claim any moral high ground. It means that there are no "white hats" and "black hats" in this conflict.

Tonio- you raise a good point- what if the palestinians had been pacific in their occupation- what if they had been bulldozed and railroaded into ocompliance?

can we assume that the world would stand up for the rights of the palestinians?

did it?

which came first- annexation and refugees or arafat?

pacifism as a force to start the engines of social change has worked twice- to effect that change-

but it became obsolete after the change was effected-

its not really a reasonable structure to build a government upon-

when ones homes are bulldozed and children are shot by soldiers is it really fair to tell the victims theyre not pacific enough?

pacific rocks against ICBMs- who has been the winner?

the rocks have been on the losing side for a long time-

and the voices silenced by the world from cries of ant-semitism-

which is the observation of the moderators in the framing of the question itself isnt it?

almost a defensive apologetic request to ask for the right to criticize israel-

TONIO,

You: "What would the Israeli/Palestinian conflict look like if Arafat had followed the examples of Gandhi and Martin Luther King?"

Gandhi's passive resistance works because the colonizing powers in India were British. In Vietnam, monks and nuns tried to lead the passive resistance or peaceful protest, the French mowed them them. Likewise in Indonesia. The Dutch were impressed but unmoved by the Balinese "puputan" - mass suicides, and took over Bali anyway.

Gandhi could not stop the partitioning of India and Pakistan and the deaths of hundreds of thousands who moved across borders to be among their religious compatriots.

Martin Luther King only started to have appeal to both blacks and whites in the US after the appalling violence and riots. He came at the right time with the right message - "I have a dream..". People on both side of the racial divide responded to him, being put off by extremists on both sides, including the KKK, the Black Panther etc.

Ironically, those that perpetrate violence are the ones that lost patience with and are the most intolerant of what they see as continued injustice and the most demanding of rights for their people. The American Revolution are started this way too, and the Brits sees them as terrorists and send Redcoats after them. "Give me liberty or give me death" if ever actually uttered, sounds fanatical to me.

The actions of present day extremists and terrorists do push people to look at "the root causes of terrorism" and to seek ways for a solution. and put Redcoats out after them.

Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King were assassinated for what they believe in. Same for Rabin. All killed by extremists who don't want compromises or peace with the "other".

As for Mandela of South Africa, he is noble indeed, to look past his terrorist past, cut a deal with the South African apartheid goverment before being released by them not to go after them and hence, the reconcialition commission and process for the healing of the nation scarred.

You: "Maybe resolving the conflict might mean not just finding a truly impartial mediator, but also the players being willing to grant that trust. Harlan Ellison's story "Untouchable Adolescents" is an allegorical example of the situation, where a culture has been so emotionally wounded by its contacts with outsiders that it would rather perish than ever trust outsiders again."

Me: On the terrorists killing women and children, it is haram in Islam, the killing of non-combatants. The terrorist invoke the Lesser Jihad, armed struggle against what they see as their oppressors and those who displaced them from their homes and land. And the Suras in the Qur'an did call for Muslims to fight against that.

So, in a way, the Lesser Jihad pursued by the Palestinian PLO and Hamas are actually "legal war" in the minds of Muslims. But the methods and tactics, including suicide bombings and killing of civilians are not so by the Qur'an. That is why the terrorist groups have their own "in-house" leaders making their own "fatwas" (religious/legal opinions) to justify that. They always pointed out their women and childen being killed by Israeli bombs and that they are merely retaliating. The US media hardly reports on first stikes by Israelis or strikes to as collective punishments for the acts of a few terrorists.

And without fail, the Palestinians, like the Isrealis, like to tell their friends that they can never possibly understand for we are not living through what they have and are. It is life and death for them they all said.

The Israelis, scarred by the Shoah in Europe, would not trust the Europeans to be impartial mediators. The Palestinians would not trust the US for what it see as US bias towards Israel. Not would they trust British whom it sees as responsible for the Balfour Declaration, for going into Iraq with the US when even many European states were leery and sceptical of the reasons.

"If I can't have it neither will you. If I am to go down, I'll take you down with me" is the mindset of the affected parties.

It only takes one person to be forgiving and willing to compromise to make a difference.

Best regards

J

--------------------------------------------------

CONCERNED:)

I suggest that you, as a Catholic, start to reform the Catholic Church first. You got a thumping from your fellow Catholics in the thread on whether sex is sacred or a sin. If they are not persuaded by a fellow Catholic, well.....

Don't forget to look within too, say the fact that one in every four child in the US is abused and which has nothing to do with the Qur'an.

That since 9/11, at least 85,000 Americans were killed by other Americans. The NRA said guns don't kill. So, those guns must be secretly Muslims killing Americans all on their own after reading the Qur'an.

You love us Muslims so much to define yourself against eh, you sexy, sexist, racist thang :)

-------------------------------------------------

Gentlemen,

I would not be reading On Faith for a while. Work and life beckons. So, don't take I was being rude if I don't respond to your reactions.

It has been a pleasure :)

Asim,

Wrong, the Koran teaches/preaches death to non-believers as shown 24/7 by Sunnis who believe Shiites are non-believers and vice versa.

Sorry, the last Anonymous at 11:13 AM is mine.

"Concerned the Christian"
Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your ignorance of the Quran is appaling:the Quran strictly sanctions and allows only for a defensive, just and moral war-only if Muslims are attacked or aggressed upon as in the following examples: the crusades, the Inquisition before and after 1492,European colonialism, the destruction of Palestine as a would be state in 1947,the creation of israel the Apartheid entity and the plight of the Palestinian people, Chechnya, the Serbian oppression of Kosovo, Genocide of Bosnian Muslims, denial of self-determination to Kashmiri Muslims, the war on Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and the looming war on Iran.
It's not the Quran, its accumulated grievances on a historical scale which provoke those oppressed Muslims to resist. Ehud Barrack, a lock picker and a thug in his youth, and soldier and assassin later and finally a PM of Israel said once-quote "I would be a "terrorist” if I were a Palestinian." This comes from a man with Palestinian blood not on his hands but all over his body. Of course Israel brands any one who criticizes its atrocities as anti-Semitic and brands any one who resists its barbaric occupation as a terrorist. Terrorism is always defined by the "other."

Correct version-as inadvertantly posted above earlier.
Mr. Goldberg,
First: The treatment of Christians in Egypt is much better and more humane than the racist and oppressive treatment of Palestinians under Israel's 60 year brutal occupation of Palestine: ask the head of the Coptic church in Egypt and he will confirm that to you; In Sudan, there is no hostility at all towards Christians in the South: there are counter measures against separatists-who happened to be Christian-to prevent the breakup of Sudan as a state; those Christians as well as animists are being armed and trained by Israel and other radical Christian rightists in the west. Israel’s Apartheid and brutal occupation of Palestine has pushed especially the Christian Palestinian Arab population numbers in their historic homeland to an all time low, observe for example the Israeli strangling of Bethlehem from all directions.
Second: so "it's their behavior-the Palestinians-that sent them behind barricades"??? This is absolutely appalling, outrageous and immoral. So your Palestinian slaves are not behaving???They should just accept your Israeli occupation and Apartheid and shut up. The source of all evil is the Israeli occupation, simple.
More over, you unashamedly describe as barricades, the Apartheid Wall, the Cantons, “Indian reservations” and brutal and humiliating check points-where Palestinian women often deliver their babies while awaiting to cross in extreme hot or cold weather.
Israel was illegitimately created by the West to (1) atone for the atrocities of the holocaust which is truly regrettable but no more regrettable than the Serbian Genocide of 250,000 Bosnian Muslims in the back yard of Europe or the Chechens who were forced marched during WWII by Stalin to Siberia in the middle of the winter where 50 percent of them perished, as well as the on-going holocaust of the Palestinians for the past 60 years, and (2) to get rid of the Jews. The West failed at both.
The West created Israel and destroyed Palestine in 1947; so who should complain about the dire need for the right to exist: the Destroyed/the vanquished/the victim-The Palestinians-or the Usurper, the Aggressor and the Tormentor and the party that has been occupying Palestine for 60 years-Israel the Apartheid state who is starving the Palestinian People into submission-and failing of course-and driving them to despair;
The party that has a state with Nuclear weapons and occupying a whole people against their well is the one who should recognize the exisistence of the shattered, dispersed, tormented and occupied Palestinians.
Instead of recycling the package of the holcaust/anti-semitism, why don't the Jews learn a lesson from the holocaustic if they really know what suffering is; the Jews should stop tormenting the Palestinians and should not inflict the same agony they went thru-otherwise to please shut up.
In a nut shell then: the only viable solution to this conflict, is One Secular Democratic State to accommodate all people now living in historic Palestine, Arabs-both Christians and Muslims-and Jews if they wish to stay and live in peace and equality. The present racist militaristic Apartheid Jewish state is simply not sustainable as it's unacceptable-the only state in the world without a constitution and without borders-creeping borders that stretch as far as the range of the American freely supplied tanks can reach. If people of all colors, races and creeds can live in a secular democratic republic, the USA, then why can’t Israel and its Jews accept a secular democratic state on the land of historic Palestine and co-exist peacefully with the Palestinians? The Jews should once and for all forget the myth of the so called “land of Israel.”
The two state solution will never work: Israel devoured all Palestinian land, water, resources and even their tax revenues-any Palestinian state will be born dead.

Israel demsnd respect because they are the chosen people. Maybe the source of the disrespect Israel possess lies in this understanding of inequality. Israel first everyone else second. Declaring by respecting Israel, you gain respect is not commion sense. Israel should act respectable and they will be seen as respectable.

In Nichiren Buddhism, the understanding of the Law is respectful and therfore the person propogating the Law is respectful as well. Oneness of the Person and the Law. Israel might try being respectful first and not last!

Good reply, Jihadist. I agree with your general point about the root cause of terrorism, the "failure of states to address longstanding grievances."

But in my view, that failure does not in any way justify the bloodshed, particularly that of innocents. Children should not be condemned to death because the failings of their nations' rulers. What would the Israeli/Palestinian conflict look like if Arafat had followed the examples of Gandhi and Martin Luther King?

I understand the reluctance by Third Worlders to trust Western nations' intentions when it comes to advice and impartiality. Thanks for bringing up my point about "family matters." What I'm suggesting is that in any conflict like this, the players could maintain some emotional distance from their historical grievances for the sake of stopping bloodshed. Maybe resolving the conflict might mean not just finding a truly impartial mediator, but also the players being willing to grant that trust. Harlan Ellison's story "Untouchable Adolescents" is an allegorical example of the situation, where a culture has been so emotionally wounded by its contacts with outsiders that it would rather perish than ever trust outsiders again.

Jihadist (aka Crusader),

Ghandi's peaceful methods of protest are much preferred as is democratic voting.

By the way, your "religion" continues to promote terrorism via the militaristic and demeaning (terror imposed on women) passages of the Koran. I suggest you clean up the Koran since much of the terrorist activity you mention is carried out in the name of some god by religious fanatics to include Islamic fanatics yelling Allah is Great with a copy of the Koran in one hand and a bomb in the other.

Tonio,

Sorry, that particular anonymous was from me. First time for me to forget that. My bad.

You said:
"Now, one could reasonably argue that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is much gentler than, say, Afghanistan's treatment of Abdur Rahman. But both situations go against basic decency, justice, and rights. So does the terrorist war waged against Israel by groups like Hezbollah and Hamas."

The fact also remains that where there are terrorists, it is because governments failed. In Lebanon, the government failed to control Hamas or to care for the Lebanese living in the south. The PLO failed to deliver peace. The Isrealis failed to control illegal land settlements in the occupied territories.

The Sri Lankan government failed to effectively address the greivances of Tamils. The British failed to address Norhtern Ireland conviningly. I could go on.

Terrorism is the failure of states to address longstanding greivances. It is states and governments that should be held accountable. Why do you think the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and Group of 77 (G 77) year in year out said the root causes of terrorism must be addressed? Both NAM and G77 all comprise developing countries, or if you prefer, the Third World.

I pesonally prefer the term developing countries as used by NAM and G77. It accurately reflect the ongoing development in every sphere - economic, political, social. Most in Africa and Asia are societies that are in transition from traditional norms. Saying we are the Third World makes it sound like we are from another world, but we are in some, many ways for now.

So, when it comes to the west talking about moral standards and human rights standards, third worlders gets really irritable for there is a whole generation that still remember the colonials behaving badly with their clubs not allowing natives in, talking about the "savage but noble native", derogating those among them who eat and dress like a native as "going native', and lauding those who eat, dress and comply by western etiquette as a civilized person and such.

Whatever good advice comes from the west is considered as "lectures". Only natural for newly independent peoples and sovereign states to assert self-determination and pursue their own courses for better or worse. As you said in your other posts, people within nations may argue and oppose each other vehemently, but when an outsider intervene, it is seen as interference in a family matter that no outsider could possibly understand. Only when invited would the outsider be welcomed as a third party to mediate. Whether they succeed depends on the percieved impartiality of the third party mediator.

As for the Israel-Palestine conflict, no one in the world, least of all the Palestinians, thinks the US can be objective and/or impartial mediators. There is the problem of ethical, moral standards at play too with regard to the credibility of states as players. No amount of talk about who is moral or not is going to resolve that issue. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians regard the other as not up to their own moral standards.

best regards

"Fact is, the standards people judge countries and peoples are by what they see as basic decency in treating other people, in perceived fairness, justice and rights."

I agree. That is my idea of "moral standards" for geopolitical situations like this. Now, one could reasonably argue that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is much gentler than, say, Afghanistan's treatment of Abdur Rahman. But both situations go against basic decency, justice, and rights. So does the terrorist war waged against Israel by groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Mr.Goldberg,
First: The treatment of Christians in Egypt is much better and humane than the racist and Israel's 60 year brutal occupation of Palestine:ask the head of the coptic church and Egypt and he will confirm that;In Sudan,there is no hotility at all to Christians in the South:there is are counter measures against sepreatists-who happened to be Christian-to prevent the breakup of Sudan as a state-those christians are being armed by trained and armed by Israel and other radical christian rightists in the west. Israel Apartheid and brutal occupation of Palestine has pushed especially the christian
Arabs into forced exile and their number in their historic homeland has dwideled to an all time low.

Second:so "it's theeir behavior that sent them behind barricades"??? This absloutely appaling,outrageous and immoral. So your plaestinian slaves are not behaving???they should just accept your Israeli occupation and Apartheid and shut up.The source of all evil is the Israeli occupation,simple.

Israel was illegitimately created by the West to (1) atone for the atrocities of the holocaust which is truly regrettable but not more regrettable than the Serbian Genocide of 250,000 Bosnian Muslims in the back yard of Europe or the Chechens who were forced marched by Stalin in the middle of the winter where 50 percent of perished, as well as the on going holocaust of the Palestinians, and (2) to get rid of the Jews. The West failed at both.

The West created Israel and destroyed Palestine in 1947; so who should complain about the dire need for the right to exist: the Destroyed/the vanquished/the victim-The Palestinians-or the Useper, the Aggressor and the Tormentor and the party that has been occupying Palestine for 60 years-Israel the Apartheid state who is starving the Palestinian People and driving them to despair;

The party that has a state with Nuclear weapons and occupying a whole people is the one who should recognize the exisistence of the shattered, dispersed, tormented and occupied Palestinians.

Instead of recycling the holcaust/anti-semitism, why don't the Jews learn a lesson from the holocaustic if they really know what suffering is, the Jews should stop tormenting the Palestinians and should not inflict the same agony they went thru-otherwise to please shut up.

In a nut shell: the only viable solution to this conflict, is one secular democratic state to accommodate all people now living in historic Palestine, Arabs-both Christians and Muslims-and Jews if they wish to stay and live in peace and equality. The present racist militaristic Apartheid Jewish state is simply not sustainable as it's unacceptable-the only state in the world without a constitution and without borders-creeping borders that stretch as far as the range of the American freely supplied tanks can reach.

The two state solution will never work: Israel devoured Palestinian land, water, resources and even their tax revenues-any Palestinian state will be born dead.

What moral standards? Which moral standards? Whose moral standards? Who are the deciders and judgers of the moral standards?

Is the United Nations the standard setter for moral standards? Is it legal standards? Ethical standards? Human rights standards?

Fact is, the standards people jugde countries and peoples are by what they see as basic decency in treating other people, in perceived fairness, justice and rights.

Goldberg is absolutely right about judging all nations and cultures by the same moral standards. Why does Israel appear to be under the microscope from both supporters and critics? I think there are several reasons. First and foremost, the Holy Land has immense importance to the Abrahamic religions, and the region was a source of tension between Christianity and Islam for centuries. Second, many well-meaning people outside Judaism have been concerned about the welfare of Jews worldwide since the Holocaust. Third, any conflict in the Middle East can impact the world's oil supply. It's worth noting that the Christian right ranks among Israel's most fervent supporters, but for mostly eschatological reasons.

"Christian" left?

Western Left-wing obsession with Israel has little to do with Christianity. It has all to do with the Soviet Unions policies and anxieties.

The left wing discourse was concocted in the USSR post-1967, and absorbed by the Western left to the point of being a badge of identity.

All the phrases, arguments, buzz words, come from the Soviet anti-Zionist campaigns. These are ghosts in Eastern Europe now, but they still rattle around in corners fo the Western left.

You will never win arguing with them, it's like arguing with a religious fanatic. The best response is historical contextualization of their beliefs - they greatly fear having to face their ideas are not their own.

When I visited Sweden and met my Aunt for the first time in 1990,who was a Holocaust Survivor, she told me something I will never forget. "When you are a Jew, you are hated all over the world". At first, her comment shocked me, but as time has gone by and anti-semitism has risen it's ugly deplorable head all over again, I realize my Aunt made a significant point.

Truly, the only for peace to ever exist in the world, not only must Israel have the right to exist, but the Jewish people as well!!!!!!!

Afterall, we are the Lord's chosen people..........

Why is it fair to blame America for the crimes of Europeans? It was America and the Allied Forces that ended the Holocaust, and it was America and the United Nations that created Israel. Yet somehow Israel's greatest benefactors and Judaism's best friends on earth are told to mind their own business or to mind someone else's business other than Israel's.

Good point. I think that Israel supporters get so defensive when criticized is due to the fact that Israel is held up to an impossible standard and its enemies are held to no standards. Usually by people safe in their suburban homes.

99%+ of the middle east is under the boot of Arab dictators. 99% of the problems in the middle east are due to the actions of those dictators. Israel receives 99% of the blame. I don't think that it is wrong to criticize Israel, however some perspective is in order.

Finally, I saw one post blaming Israel for Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq. Neither, Bush, nor Cheney, nor Rumsfeld (nor Chalabi, nor the royal family of Kuwait) are Jewish. Should we blame the Protestants? The Muslims? How about we blame...Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Again, some perspective is in order.

Victoria,

You ask why are we at war with terrorism. It is simple, the militaristic passages of the Koran which you and most Muslims refuse to renounce and condemn.

Ok. Fine, point taken. Don't critizise Israel alone. Will do. But then, please, let's start to criticize Israel, because honestly, there isn't much of it in the U.S. Most Americans blithely approve and support Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Whatever noise gets made from the "left" is drowned out by the silent approval from elsewhere.
Whatever solution may come to the Israel/Palestine problem, it will have to involve leaning on Israel to ALSO behave better.

Can anyone criticize the Jews? Apparently not. They are after all the chosen people. It was certainly tragic when they ran up against people who thought they were the master race. I've heard many times from jews that "everyone hates the jews". Has this been God's will? Will we ever be able to make sense of it? Many view Israel as the west's attempt to colonize the middle east. The west first thinks in terms of power rarely in terms of fairness. Burning petroleum is bad for the earth. When we finally give it up we will be a lot closer to peace.

Mr Goldberg-

I am currently watching Joseph Lieberman pleading his case for going to war before the securities commission right now-

I would say that the criticism needs to be evaluated -

are we not considering going to war to protect israel in particular?

is there any other reason?

answers anyone?

Jeffrey Goldberg,

You are quite right.

I always disliked the fact that some of my ancestors were Presbyterians, but couldn't articulate a reason. Now I have a reason, even though those Presbyterian forebears lived before Israel was established.

Perhaps I saw where they were headed.

Best wishes.

Certainly you are right about the hypocrisy of Christians who criticize Jews. It is called Pharisaism -- again a word invented by Christians with which to criticize Jews but never themselves.

The valid kind of criticism of Israel stems from support for Israel and a desire to have it avoid suicidal behavior which, however understandable in the light of a tragic history, could destroy Israel itself.