Murky Waters

There is no happiness like that of being loved by your these returning vnhxtrrpczayd was very pleasant or desirable no magnet drew me.

There is no happiness like that of being loved by your these returning vnhxtrrpczayd was very pleasant or desirable no magnet drew me.

aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf

aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf

m929k

"are you saying that israel is above being accountable for the massive human rights abuses it has practiced on the palestinian peole?"

I am saying your use of massive is at best hyperbolic.

"yes, the world and billions also condemn other countries that blatantly abuse or occupy lands that others have held."

I don't think you are right about Israel. Which countries are you thinking about?

"you cant be suggesting that the world is pushing jews to give up their religion?"

If you check what you have posted, you will see insistence that Jews stop referring to themselves as the chosen people and stop talking about Israel as their eternal home. Without that you would have a Judaism so acceptable to Muslims and Christians that it would no longer be Judaism.

"face of mountains of evidence ive supplied you with"

Mountains of words you like so much you repeat them over and over do not constitute evidence.

"while you deny there is any mistreatment and even deny the palestinians have a race"

There is certainly mistreatment. You don't just declare that you are a race.

I don't view Jews as a race. I don't view Californians as a race. That does not mean they have no right to be.

I do not recall having studied most incidents enough to be absolutely sure what happened. Imputing guilt when the evidence is scant or ambiguous does not lead to peace. It just makes the people deemed guilty feel they are not being treated fairly. What is the value to that?

The statement "our right to be" was written by an American Jew. When I reference it, I have in mind the way people, such as those I mention in paragraph six above, feel about Jews.

and basically the point is dave- in the face of mountains of evidence ive supplied you with-

you cannot once say that israel is responsible or should be responsible for the abuses suffered by the palestinians.

even israelis themselves concede these points, and want to work to rectify some situations.

while you deny there is any mistreatment and even deny the palestinians have a race- somehow surmising that this means they have no right to stay on their own land- and its perfectly ok for israel to conduct its many injustices on its people.

in other words, you deny and completely absolve israel in every instance and claim this denial is in the interest of peace!

while you complain that some question israels 'right to be'-
you completely deny the palestinians 'right to be' even going so far as to try and invalidate them altogether by saying they are not a race!!!

are you saying that israel is above being accountable for the massive human rights abuses it has practiced on the palestinian peole?

yes, the world and billions also condemn other countries that blatantly abuse or occupy lands that others have held.

so- expecting israel (youre the one lumping all jews together when the issue is and has been israel)

to act in accordance with the human rights declaration that all the countries signed 60 years ago (as did israel) is only asking them to keep their word and honor their committment.

while trying to misleadingly portray the issue as the world against the jews- you are creating false impressions-

you cant be suggesting that the world is pushing jews to give up their religion?

and or else what?

america has made israel a nuclear power!

and wont let anyone else develop nuclear power, the greatest hypocrisy.

how about nato?
what happened to that?
yes dave, the world is saying, why is it okay for israel to continue with its apartheid treatment of the original landholders?
why is it alright for israel to steal land and displace the inhabitants?

why is it ok for the palestinians to live in a gated prison now?

or use palestinian children as human shields ?
and imprison almost 10,000 palestinains without democratic process?

how can israel claim to be democracy when its laws fly in the face of reason?

the laws in israel would be thrown out of the courts in america-

can you imagine if americans said only christians could buy and own land here?

or only chirstians could use roads?

the abuses by israel are so voluminous it would be impossible to catalogue them here.

"People say that because many people do question our right to be and who knows what will happen with modern technology and billions of people who expect Jews to change and adapt to what they want or else."

By what math is that excessive?

yes dave- so your claim of billions and billions seems a bit excessive doesnt it?

6.7 billion.

"According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world.

Christianity 2,039 million

Islam 1,226 million

Hinduism 828 million

No religion 775 million

Buddhism 364 million

Atheists 150 million

Sikhism 23.8 million

Judaism 14.5 million

In the United States alone:

Catholic 71,796,719

Baptist 47,744,049

Methodist/Wesleyan 19,969,799

Lutheran 13,520,189

Presbyterian 7,897,597

Pentecostal/Charismatic 6,219,569

Episcopalian/Anglican 4,870,373

Judaism 3,995,371

So why the obsession with Jews among Muslims and Christians? Why the belief that Jews in the US have more power than Christians?

dave do you even know how many people are on the planet?

Victoria,

I do not follow what you are saying. The backing of the US does not ensure that billions of people will think as the US does.

You seem to think it is right to question Jews' right to be. And I suspect there are billions who agree with you. So where is the paranoia?

well, why do people question their right to be, dave?

is it possible they may have a point to such a question?

billions of people dave?

isnt that a little tiny bit paranoid?

especially when israel has the backing of the united states?

"i have read many people that say things like- 'do not question our right to be' as if it is a foregone conclusion-"

People say that because many people do question our right to be and who knows what will happen with modern technology and billions of people who expect Jews to change and adapt to what they want or else.

this is not unique in human history- rather it is the norm.

but- as always and forever- it avoids the question so dave, you dont have reasons, you have a conclusion, you expect your conclusion to be validated by others while you make no attempt to validate it yourself,
ok!

thats all ive been asking for dave- as ive validated my conclusion with much resources and reasoning-

in all these boards, i have read many people that say things like- 'do not question our right to be' as if it is a foregone conclusion-

but no one has yet offered any reasonable suggestion as to why that should be an accepted premise-

but its not necessarily an accepted premise- but no one has stepped up to the plate to offer suggestions as to WHY

even in this forum ive looked for compelling reasons -

im willing to accept another persons point of view-

but no one has one-
no one digs deep-
not a one

I have a more rigorous concept of proof than you do. It involves checking things out not assuming things are so because the right people say they are so.

I think the commitments are clear.

We disagree about what constitutes stability.

We also disagree about what the following words mean.

Truth

Racism

Anti-semitism

Colony

Empire

Imperial

Apartheid

Genocide

Nazism

Fascism

Terrorism

Peace

Justice

Palestinian

Arab

For example the notion that Israel is a racist state that practices Apartheid and is genocidal depends on these ideas:

Jews are part of the White Race.

Arabs are not part of the White Race.

Palestinians are a race apart from Arabs.

Otherwise you have a tiny group, which has been pushed down for millenia. dealing with a huge group, which has been pushing people around for a very long time.

the question still remains the same dave- as i respond to your points- you still ignore mine and ignore the original question that spawned all this distracting info-

you support israel because we made a committment to them- and they provided stablity to the region

ok- prove it dave

Many countries have not had a violent change of government since 1947.

dave- this is exeptionally poor reasoning-

what countries WERE stable in 1947?

the entire european continent was recovering-

this is not a reason- if you think its a validation for what as done to the palestinians ok-

i figured you had something little more- well sensible- something that could be empathized with or understood-

displacing an entire nation and creating the largest refugee population the earth had ever seen constitutes providing stablity?

for who dave? for who?

"youre trying to say that region was unstable in 1947?"

Yes. There were regimes put in place by the British and French that did not like each other and did not have popular support."

Note how much guerilla action there was and how many revolutions. Note also that in 1947 King Farouk was in power in Egypt. Was that a stable situation?

i said-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it was the formation of israel in that region that was the CAUSE of all the present and past instabilities

youre trying to say that region was unstable in 1947?

it was the expulsion of the palestinians and the buying up of land and interference ofthe brtish (all outside sources) that CREATED the instability
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

we clear there dave?

ok so i ask- what instability?

saying something is a slogan dave (even when its not) sill is not an answer-

"it was the formation of israel in that region that was the CAUSE of all the present and past instabilities

youre trying to say that region was unstable in 1947?"

Yes. There were regimes put in place by the British and French that did not like each other and did not have popular support.

Statements such as all instabilities were caused by the creation of Israel are slogans. Things have multiple causes and the connections between what went before and what came after are hard to figure out.

Is the battle over the waterway where Iran seized the British soldiers and sailors the fault of Israel in your view?

well im surrounded by turks dave-

and there is no danger whatsoever of any islamic group taking over turkey-

the party that is islamic is indeed pretty small and basically a powerless fringe-

as a matter of fact-in the whole country- only 50 of them showed up to protest the popes visit- and they were rounded up without a ripple from the turks-

so to get back to your statement-

israel is by no means the only stable government in the region-

this is yur justification for funding-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Israel is one our most loyal allies and allies help each other.

Israel has the most stable government in the region and the region desperately need stability
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

it was the formation of israel in that region that was the CAUSE of all the present and past instabilities

youre trying to say that region was unstable in 1947?

it was the expulsion of the palestinians and the buying up of land and interference ofthe brtish (all outside sources) that CREATED the instability-

how does this reason work?

even imagining that your statement is historically true-for the sake f argument-

it is not true today-

possibly you want to modify your rationale?

but you tell yourself what you want dave=
whatever gets you through the night

You do not like my answers. I did not realize you are an expert on Turkey.

You might try accepting that I think what I think and mean what I say and move on.

if if if?

not what if dave- what is-

and dave- im privy to turkish newspapers every day-

you have GOT to be kidding!

wmoen in government arent even allowed to wear hijab!

the right wing islamic party in turkey is a very smalland powerless minority

very small- so again- what about those countries?

you didnt answer the responded question posted

(big surprise)

Turkey has people who are trying to overthrow the government and establish an Islamic Republic. They may do that. The same forces are at work in Jordan. If the king dies, there could be chaos.

israel is more stable than jordan?
or turkey?
or just pick a country and insert it-

ok dave- ill start giving you details then

Politics is the art of deciding things without violence.

My reasons, all given before, some almost verbatim, some with much less detail:

Israel is one our most loyal allies and allies help each other.

Israel has the most stable government in the region and the region desperately need stability.

We have made commitments to Israel and wise governments honor the commitments they have made.

Some aid for some things is clearly appropriate. It is not all going to killing children. Some may in retrospect have not been used well. I think most people will agree with that. This is where I do not have enough details to comment further. Nor do I know where to look for further details. A huge problem is that there is no source of general information about that kind of thing which everybody trusts. And people are making no effort to find specific things everyone can agree about.

Israel is no more a monster than France, Denmark, and Germany all of which have been severely criticized for the way they treat Muslims.

i didnt call you a weasel dave- i said youre using a weasel maneuver-

dave- straight question- straight answer-

you dont have a straight answer-

no dave- its an opinion question
why do you think something?
i think something for this reason

simple

its my failure because i cant read through your circuitous code?

where is your answer dave?

ive been asking- steadily-

havent seen one yet-

now your new tackis to say you gave one i just didnt like it-

i guess you figure if you give the impression youve asnwered, that people will assume you did-

dave- i dont care

you have an answer, you dont-

all these semantics and circular gong back and forth-

you havent produced an answer-

your answer is you havent studied it enough

go study and when you have an answer let me know

id say running someone around in circles when tey ask a simple question for 2 weeks is not polite

you have a future in politics

The question you keep asking is a true or false question. You are frustrated because you can't get that kind of answer from me. Nor did I say it is unimportant simply not all important. Not understanding that seems to be because you think either it is important or it is not important. And that is "important true or false."

Moreover your failure to read what I wrote does not mean it is not sitting there to be read even now.

Is calling someone a weasel polite?

however the question continues to be relevant to others-

ive been polite to you and never cast any aspersion on you-
while you say you want peaceful progress- id suggest you shouldnt accuse others of being in a true false mode- not only is this personally insulting- it is just bad manners -

sayng the issue suddenly becomes unimportant because you dont have a reason-

you could have stated that 2 week ago- but didnt

youre right dave- sorry for being so confrontational-

i appreciate the reasoned answer you gave elsewhere

"you dont have an answer so you say the question is unimportant???"

I have given you answers. They aren't the sort of answers you want. That is because I view the issue much differently than you do.

Once again you are in true false mode. It is as if you feel this very complex collection of issues can be reduced to twenty simple true or false questions.

Not feeling how much aid we give to Israel is the only important issue is much different from feeling the issue is unimportant. I think our continuing inability to simply talk about this is a far more important issue. No peaceful progress can be made with varying groups of people who do not know how to talk to each other without starting fights.

what kind of weasel maneuver is that?

you dont have an answer so you say the question is unimportant???

why didnt you say that 2 weeks ago?

you have stated your support of american financing of israel- point blank

i asked you what your reasoning is- for 2 weeks

you dont have a reason

fine

you should have said it weeks ago

just come out honestly -"i dont have a reason"

o, ok dave- no problem.

what is wrong with you?

direct question dave-

youve stated you support america funding israel

what are the reasons you feel this way?

Why do you think everyone must study and evaluate this issue? There are many important issues.

If we don't have the details, we can only guess. And you can't do much thinking through with guesses.

The you must find this important right now or you are a bad person view is another thing that troubles me about some of these demonstrations. In SF they like to tie up traffic on the Friday evening commute home. That has never affected me but it seems to be part of this idea that what is important to us right now should be important to you right now and if it is not, we have no sympathy for your petty personal problems.

Compared to people dying, getting home from work on time is trivial. But there are all kinds of reasons why people are dying. And aid to Israel is far from the most important reason why.

dave- go do some research davwe- we give cahs with no accountability-

dave i see you have never looked at this issue and dont really know-

i havent asked about anything but have been supplying you with detailed info (as detailed as it can get since israel never explains where the money goes)

why do you dave marshak- as a moral human reason we should keep giving israel the biiggest foreign aid package for years and years-

dave- the amount is 1 hypothetically ok?

why should the united states give money to israel?
what is your personal feelings and reasons that lead you to support israel funding by us?

you dave marshak- what you think- your personal reasoning

Interesting. You think we have budget items like gob of money to Israel with no explanation of what the gob consists of? That would be sad. You have asked about budgets going back to 1948. Which items would you trim in the budget now and where are you looking at them? Should we pull out of the Middle East completely? Would that make life dramatically better for the people in the region?

the budgets have been outlayed for you-

by no means thousands of budget items-

thats the interesting thing about aid to israel- theres no accountability-

many times lump sums are given and in cash too- (according to what the us government says about itself from manty sources ive provided you with elsewhere-

we reason them together because they are together and go in the same pocket- israels

why do you think we should continue giving them so much money?

dave- what is the reason we are giving israel billions of dollars?

same question its been

You are talking about what I suspect are thousands of separate budget items each of them separately justified. They are certainly not all lumped together with the explanation "must give or face wrath of AIPAC." Neither of us know what most of them are. So how can we reason about them together?

it the united states government policy dave-

are you just going to keep answering this very reasonable question with more questions?

the question reamins, why? what reason?

ive been thinking for some time you dont have a reason other than emotional-

which is fine-

Where does this 10 year limit idea come from?

"30% of our budget"

Which is broken down into specifics where? One site will do.

why do we continue to fund israel tothe tune of 30% of our total aid package?

for 59 years solid?

millions every single day dave-

the palestinians have cut their agressions in half-

the israels have more than doubled theirs last year-

we cut off all funding to palestine(not that it comapared in any way to israel)

16th richest country in the world
1/1000th of the worlds population

30% of our budget

why after 59 years are we still financially supporting them?

cant they support themselves like we do?

every other country in the world has a 10 year limit on american aid

what reason should we give them all that money?

ive provided endless statistics and government websites for you to substantiate it and youve seen and responded to them

so why?

If the rest of the world believes Jews control the Bush adminstration, that is pretty widespread close to if not there anti-semitism and a great excuse to attack Jews.

You write as if there has been a country called Palestine which was established thousands of years ago and comprised just Gaza and the West Bank.

Why did Kennedy and Carter fund Israel as their predecessors had? They thought it would lead to peace. Israel has done what it has done because they hoped it would lead to peace. People who speak for the Palestinians feel that way about what they are saying. So we have many people with a common objective and very different ideas about how to achieve it. So far nothing has worked.

ok dave- you believe against the rest of the world that there is no neocon-israeli connection-

and that the second most powerful lobby in america has nothing to do with our exorbitant funding of israel and the fact that we dont give one penny to palestine.

heres a really specific question in nedd of a specific focused on target answer-

why should the usa keep supporting israel financially?

"Judas Goats"

"This film let's the viewer see with his or her own eyes that the towers and Building 7 were brought down in controlled demolitions."

"9/11 And the Israeli Connection"

"The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians"

You view all of that as measured and reasonable? And you think my not so viewing it shows I ignore the news?

dave thats a pretty wild generalization to make from just looking at a list of books-

how can you possibly infer that satan is ruling america or anyone is saying that?

do you like to say buzzwords for dramatic effect?

dave- turn on cspan someday-

we are fallible humans indeed dave- pay attention to the upcoming aipac meeting in washington

That link took me to this:

"Iraq War, Israel-Palestine, Zionism, Jewish Movements, 9/11
A Listmania list by seekerotruth "seekerotruth" (Southern California)"

It has 12 items including:

"9/11 Mysteries - Part I: Demolitions DVD ~ Avatar
seekerotruth says:
"This film let's the viewer see with his or her own eyes that the towers and Building 7 were brought down in controlled demolitions."

The Judas Goats: The Shocking Story of the Infiltration and Subversion of the American Nationalist Movement by Michael Collins Piper
seekerotruth says:
"Hard-hitting book on the Zionist infiltration of the American Right and more. Does Piper overstate the case? If he does, it is only occassionally - and not by much."

Terror Enigma: 9/11 And the Israeli Connection by Justin Raimondo
seekerotruth says:
"It was a good little introduction into the realm of 9/11 truth for me. But now it is dated because the official version of the event has been shown to be a complete lie."

"The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians" is one of the most explosive indictments of the Zionist state ever published, proving conclusively that the Israelis themselves are guilty of a holocaust."

Why should I take any of those books seriously? The authors and presses are for the most part obscure and the titles suggest they are rather biased.

Today we have many sources of truth:

The so called mainstream media which does not agree with most of that.

Palestinian sources who are fighting the good fight against what they seem to think is evil so inhuman as to be Satanic.

The goverments of Israel and the United States, which if not guided by Satan are deemed to be wholly untrustworthy by the folks who read and write these books.

Jewish leaders in the US who for the most part are viewed as apologists for Isreal who will say and do anything by the crowd who thinks that way.

We are all fallible human beings limited by where we have been in terms of time and space and what we have studied and experienced. However we can compare things and find patterns, which can be evaluated with reason.

heres a list of 25 books about the neo-con isralei influence on american policy makers

http://www.amazon.com/Iraq-Israel-Palestine-Zionism-Jewish-Movements/lm/R3LF7LQZVBQG16

"neocon connection to aipac" got me a bunch of questionable sites. Which are truth tellers and why should I believe them?

"neocon connection to aipac" got me a bunch of qustionable sites. Which are truth tellers and why should I believe them?

It happens partly because the old money Protestant establishment and the evangelicals want it to happen. They want a solidly pro-US presence in the Middle East. Both have huge influence in the Republican Party. Jews do not. And superiors do not take direction from their subordinates.

Liberal Democrats also support Israel because it makes sense based on all of the facts.

Elevating guesses and innuendos to facts because they are air many folks breathe diminishes the truth available and does not lead to understanding and peace.

no dave- it makes sense because it stands on its own- do me a favor dave- google neocon coneection to aipac

i just spent a half hour reading links and links-

what doesn make sense?

the military aid given to israel?

the enormous monies given?

how does that have anything to do with if neocons control bush or not?

what kind of obscurantist and again deflection of the issue is that?

it makes sense dave because its fact-

"the current administration is the tool of the neocons-

the neocons are 95% jewish- thats no secret-"

If the old money crowd which excluded Jews were now controlled by the Jews, what you say would make sense. But that is not so.

what are you talking about dave?

the current administration is the tool of the neocons-

the neocons are 95% jewish- thats no secret-

i have never heard any politician anywhere any time say israel doesnt have a right to exist-

and i watch congressional and senatorial proceedings every singleday- i am right now!

"this aid is "little more than an American subsidy to U.S. arms manufacturers," considering that the majority of military aid to Israel is used to buy weapons from the U.S."

no dave- they pay about 40% discount
well they dont pay anything the us charges itslef a 40% discount and GIVES it all to israel

what kind of bizarre reasining is that?

andi didnt include unpaid loans to israel- the interest on those unpaid loans- and the very large charity money flowing there (which gets written off from taxes here - and who pays for that?)
and the military budget

so yes dave- 300 billion
but does it matter?

enough is enough!

"are you serious?
WHAT FUNDING TO THE PALESTINIANS???"

The funding that is in all the media. It was cut off because the current government won't recognize that Israel has a right to exist.

"Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200"

What happened to the earlier $300B number?

It is useful to have allies.

"When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion."

Only grants are grants.

Tom Malthaner is angry. Is he more important than I am?

"by Stephen Zunes

"The U.S. aid relationship with Israel is unlike any other in the world," said Stephen Zunes during a January 26 CPAP presentation. "In sheer volume, the amount is the most generous foreign aid program ever between any two countries," added Zunes, associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.

He explored the strategic reasoning behind the aid, asserting that it parallels the "needs of American arms exporters" and the role "Israel could play in advancing U.S. strategic interests in the region."

Matti Peled, former Israeli major general and Knesset member, told Zunes that he and most Israeli generals believe this aid is "little more than an American subsidy to U.S. arms manufacturers," considering that the majority of military aid to Israel is used to buy weapons from the U.S."

And that creates jobs which support our economy. It is like Keynes's idea about paying people to dig holes and then fill them in as a way of keeping unemployment low.

"Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria."

Then why were all the wars fought and what is the right of return about?

"That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.

All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid."

The UK does not need a lobby. And there are plenty of Irish American and Italian American groups which lobby for what they view as their interests. We have been a major source of funding for the IRA despite its being a terrorist group.

I only mention that because it shows how wrong many of these facts are.

"There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?"

Most of those are listed on the web here:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/toppacs1992.html

That is a Jewish source. Some secret.

"Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women's organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary,one of the Israel lobby's principal national publications.

Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League. Its original highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million budget, extremely well-funded hate group.

In the 1980s, during the tenure of chairman Seymour Reich, who went on to become chairman of the Conference of Presidents, ADL was found to have circulated two annual fund-raising letters warning Jewish parents against allegedly negative influences on their children arising from the increasing Arab presence on American university campuses."

If all of those organizations get someone angry, the angry person is functionally anti-semitic. Everyone has a right to organize and speak out. We don't benefit from people hiding in the closet moaning to each other about the injustice of it all.

are you serious?
WHAT FUNDING TO THE PALESTINIANS???

IM TALKING ABOUT FUNDING TO ISRAEL DAVE!
I hate to be a blog hog but we seem to be the only ones here-

wrmea.com

* ABOUT WRMEA
* CONTACT US
* SUBSCRIBE
* DONATE
* ADVERTISE WITH US
* WRMEA AD CAMPAIGN
* MIDDLE EAST BOOK CLUB
* JOIN OUR MAILING LIST
* CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
* LINKS
* KEEP TRACK OF AIPAC
* U.S. & LOCAL NEWS

Search www Search wrmea.com
Home > Html > WRMEA: U.S. Aid to Israel

U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact
Summary

Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)

Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000

Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200

Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000

Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200

Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli
$23,240
Special Reports:

*

Congress Watch: A Conservative Total for U.S. Aid to Israel: $91 Billion—and Counting
*

Congressional Research Report on Israel: US Foreign Assistance by Clyde Mark (213K pdf file)
*

U.S. Aid To Israel: The Strategic Functions
*

U.S. Aid to Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know
*

U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship'
*

The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers: True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel

THE STRATEGIC FUNCTIONS OF U.S. AID TO ISRAEL

By Stephen Zunes

Dr. Zunes is an assistant professor in the Department of Politics at the University of San Francisco

Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.

In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years.

Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries.

AID does not term economic aid to Israel as development assistance, but instead uses the term "economic support funding." Given Israel's relative prosperity, U.S. aid to Israel is becoming increasingly controversial. In 1994, Yossi Beilen, deputy foreign minister of Israel and a Knesset member, told the Women's International Zionist organization, "If our economic situation is better than in many of your countries, how can we go on asking for your charity?"
U.S. Aid to Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know

by Tom Malthaner

This morning as I was walking down Shuhada Street in Hebron, I saw graffiti marking the newly painted storefronts and awnings. Although three months past schedule and 100 percent over budget, the renovation of Shuhada Street was finally completed this week. The project manager said the reason for the delay and cost overruns was the sabotage of the project by the Israeli settlers of the Beit Hadassah settlement complex in Hebron. They broke the street lights, stoned project workers, shot out the windows of bulldozers and other heavy equipment with pellet guns, broke paving stones before they were laid and now have defaced again the homes and shops of Palestinians with graffiti. The settlers did not want Shuhada St. opened to Palestinian traffic as was agreed to under Oslo 2. This renovation project is paid for by USAID funds and it makes me angry that my tax dollars have paid for improvements that have been destroyed by the settlers.

Most Americans are not aware how much of their tax revenue our government sends to Israel. For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.)

When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion.

Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.205 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133.132 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen.

I am angry when I see Israeli settlers from Hebron destroy improvements made to Shuhada Street with my tax money. Also, it angers me that my government is giving over $10 billion to a country that is more prosperous than most of the other countries in the world and uses much of its money for strengthening its military and the oppression of the Palestinian people.
"U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship"'

by Stephen Zunes

"The U.S. aid relationship with Israel is unlike any other in the world," said Stephen Zunes during a January 26 CPAP presentation. "In sheer volume, the amount is the most generous foreign aid program ever between any two countries," added Zunes, associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.

He explored the strategic reasoning behind the aid, asserting that it parallels the "needs of American arms exporters" and the role "Israel could play in advancing U.S. strategic interests in the region."

Although Israel is an "advanced, industrialized, technologically sophisticated country," it "receives more U.S. aid per capita annually than the total annual [Gross Domestic Product] per capita of several Arab states." Approximately a third of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget goes to Israel, "even though Israel comprises just…one-thousandth of the world's total population, and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes."

U.S. government officials argue that this money is necessary for "moral" reasons-some even say that Israel is a "democracy battling for its very survival." If that were the real reason, however, aid should have been highest during Israel's early years, and would have declined as Israel grew stronger. Yet "the pattern…has been just the opposite." According to Zunes, "99 percent of all U.S. aid to Israel took place after the June 1967 war, when Israel found itself more powerful than any combination of Arab armies…."

The U.S. supports Israel's dominance so it can serve as "a surrogate for American interests in this vital strategic region." "Israel has helped defeat radical nationalist movements" and has been a "testing ground for U.S. made weaponry." Moreover, the intelligence agencies of both countries have "collaborated," and "Israel has funneled U.S. arms to third countries that the U.S. [could] not send arms to directly,…Iike South Africa, like the Contras, Guatemala under the military junta, [and] Iran." Zunes cited an Israeli analyst who said: "'It's like Israel has just become another federal agency when it's convenient to use and you want something done quietly."' Although the strategic relationship between the United States and the Gulf Arab states in the region has been strengthening in recent years, these states "do not have the political stability, the technological sophistication, [or] the number of higher-trained armed forces personnel" as does Israel.

Matti Peled, former Israeli major general and Knesset member, told Zunes that he and most Israeli generals believe this aid is "little more than an American subsidy to U.S. arms manufacturers," considering that the majority of military aid to Israel is used to buy weapons from the U.S. Moreover, arms to Israel create more demand for weaponry in Arab states. According to Zunes, "the Israelis announced back in 1991 that they supported the idea of a freeze in Middle East arms transfers, yet it was the United States that rejected it."

In the fall of 1993-when many had high hopes for peace-78 senators wrote to former President Bill Clinton insisting that aid to Israel remain "at current levels." Their "only reason" was the "massive procurement of sophisticated arms by Arab states." The letter neglected to mention that 80 percent of those arms to Arab countries came from the U.S. "I'm not denying for a moment the power of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], the pro-Israel lobby," and other similar groups, Zunes said. Yet the "Aerospace Industry Association which promotes these massive arms shipments…is even more influential." This association has given two times more money to campaigns than all of the pro-Israel groups combined. Its "force on Capitol Hill, in terms of lobbying, surpasses that of even AIPAC." Zunes asserted that the "general thrust of U.S. policy would be pretty much the same even if AIPAC didn't exist. We didn't need a pro-Indonesia lobby to support Indonesia in its savage repression of East Timor all these years." This is a complex issue, and Zunes said that he did not want to be "conspiratorial," but he asked the audience to imagine what "Palestinian industriousness, Israeli technology, and Arabian oil money…would do to transform the Middle East…. [W]hat would that mean to American arms manufacturers? Oil companies? Pentagon planners?"

"An increasing number of Israelis are pointing out" that these funds are not in Israel's best interest. Quoting Peled, Zunes said, "this aid pushes Israel 'toward a posture of callous intransigence' in terms of the peace process." Moreover, for every dollar the U.S. sends in arms aid, Israel must spend two to three dollars to train people to use the weaponry, to buy parts, and in other ways make use of the aid. Even "main-stream Israeli economists are saying [it] is very harmful to the country's future."

The Israeli paper Yediot Aharonot described Israel as "'the godfather's messenger' since [Israel] undertake[s] the 'dirty work' of a godfather who 'always tries to appear to be the owner of some large, respectable business."' Israeli satirist B. Michael refers to U.S. aid this way: "'My master gives me food to eat and I bite those whom he tells me to bite. It's called strategic cooperation." 'To challenge this strategic relationship, one cannot focus solely on the Israeli lobby but must also examine these "broader forces as well." "Until we tackle this issue head-on," it will be "very difficult to win" in other areas relating to Palestine.

"The results" of the short-term thinking behind U.S. policy "are tragic," not just for the "immediate victims" but "eventually [for] Israel itself" and "American interests in the region." The U.S. is sending enormous amounts of aid to the Middle East, and yet "we are less secure than ever"-both in terms of U.S. interests abroad and for individual Americans. Zunes referred to a "growing and increasing hostility [of] the average Arab toward the United States." In the long term, said Zunes, "peace and stability and cooperation with the vast Arab world is far more important for U.S. interests than this alliance with Israel."

This is not only an issue for those who are working for Palestinian rights, but it also "jeopardizes the entire agenda of those of us concerned about human rights, concerned about arms control, concerned about international law." Zunes sees significant potential in "building a broad-based movement around it."

The above text is based on remarks, delivered on. 26 January, 2001 by Stephen Zunes - Associate Professor of Politics and Chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at San Francisco University.
The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers: True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel

By Richard H. Curtiss

For many years the American media said that "Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid" or that "Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid." Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies—true lies.

Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that "Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid." That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.

One can truthfully blame the mainstream media for never digging out these figures for themselves, because none ever have. They were compiled by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. But the mainstream media certainly are not alone. Although Congress authorizes America's foreign aid total, the fact that more than a third of it goes to a country smaller in both area and population than Hong Kong probably never has been mentioned on the floor of the Senate or House. Yet it's been going on for more than a generation.

Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't.

The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts.

Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel's 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.

All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world.

The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.

AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.

Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women's organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary,one of the Israel lobby's principal national publications.

Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League. Its original highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million budget, extremely well-funded hate group.

In the 1980s, during the tenure of chairman Seymour Reich, who went on to become chairman of the Conference of Presidents, ADL was found to have circulated two annual fund-raising letters warning Jewish parents against allegedly negative influences on their children arising from the increasing Arab presence on American university campuses.

More recently, FBI raids on ADL's Los Angeles and San Francisco offices revealed that an ADL operative had purchased files stolen from the San Francisco police department that a court had ordered destroyed because they violated the civil rights of the individuals on whom they had been compiled. ADL, it was shown, had added the illegally prepared and illegally obtained material to its own secret files, compiled by planting informants among Arab-American, African-American, anti-Apartheid and peace and justice groups.

The ADL infiltrators took notes of the names and remarks of speakers and members of audiences at programs organized by such groups. ADL agents even recorded the license plates of persons attending such programs and then suborned corrupt motor vehicles department employees or renegade police officers to identify the owners.

Although one of the principal offenders fled the United States to escape prosecution, no significant penalties were assessed. ADL's Northern California office was ordered to comply with requests by persons upon whom dossiers had been prepared to see their own files, but no one went to jail and as yet no one has paid fines.

Not surprisingly, a defecting employee revealed in an article he published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that AIPAC, too, has such "enemies" files. They are compiled for use by pro-Israel journalists like Steven Emerson and other so-called "terrorism experts," and also by professional, academic or journalistic rivals of the persons described for use in black-listing, defaming, or denouncing them. What is never revealed is that AIPAC's "opposition research" department, under the supervision of Michael Lewis, son of famed Princeton University Orientalist Bernard Lewis, is the source of this defamatory material.

But this is not AIPAC's most controversial activity. In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).

Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.

An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.

Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.

There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?

Hiding AIPAC's Tracks

In fact, the congressmembers know it when they list the contributions they receive on the campaign statements they have to prepare for the Federal Election Commission. But their constituents don't know this when they read these statements. So just as no other special interest can put so much "hard money" into any candidate's election campaign as can the Israel lobby, no other special interest has gone to such elaborate lengths to hide its tracks.

Although AIPAC, Washington's most feared special-interest lobby, can hide how it uses both carrots and sticks to bribe or intimidate members of Congress, it can't hide all of the results.

Anyone can ask one of their representatives in Congress for a chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, that shows Israel received $62.5 billion in foreign aid from fiscal year 1949 through fiscal year 1996. People in the national capital area also can visit the library of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Rosslyn, Virginia, and obtain the same information, plus charts showing how much foreign aid the U.S. has given other countries as well.

Visitors will learn that in precisely the same 1949-1996 time frame, the total of U.S. foreign aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $62,497,800,000--almost exactly the amount given to tiny Israel.

According to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC, in mid-1995 the sub-Saharan countries had a combined population of 568 million. The $24,415,700,000 in foreign aid they had received by then amounted to $42.99 per sub-Saharan African.

Similarly, with a combined population of 486 million, all of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean together had received $38,254,400,000. This amounted to $79 per person.

The per capita U.S. foreign aid to Israel's 5.8 million people during the same period was $10,775.48. This meant that for every dollar the U.S. spent on an African, it spent $250.65 on an Israeli, and for every dollar it spent on someone from the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, it spent $214 on an Israeli.

Shocking Comparisons

These comparisons already seem shocking, but they are far from the whole truth. Using reports compiled by Clyde Mark of the Congressional Research Service and other sources, freelance writer Frank Collins tallied for theWashington Report all of the extra items for Israel buried in the budgets of the Pentagon and other federal agencies in fiscal year 1993.Washington Report news editor Shawn Twing did the same thing for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

They uncovered $1.271 billion in extras in FY 1993, $355.3 million in FY 1996 and $525.8 million in FY 1997. These represent an average increase of 12.2 percent over the officially recorded foreign aid totals for the same fiscal years, and they probably are not complete. It's reasonable to assume, therefore, that a similar 12.2 percent hidden increase has prevailed over all of the years Israel has received aid.

As of Oct. 31, 1997 Israel will have received $3.05 billion in U.S. foreign aid for fiscal year 1997 and $3.08 billion in foreign aid for fiscal year 1998. Adding the 1997 and 1998 totals to those of previous years since 1949 yields a total of $74,157,600,000 in foreign aid grants and loans. Assuming that the actual totals from other budgets average 12.2 percent of that amount, that brings the grand total to $83,204,827,200.

But that's not quite all. Receiving its annual foreign aid appropriation during the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in quarterly installments as do other recipients, is just another special privilege Congress has voted for Israel. It enables Israel to invest the money in U.S. Treasury notes. That means that the U.S., which has to borrow the money it gives to Israel, pays interest on the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money. That interest to Israel from advance payments adds another $1.650 billion to the total, making it $84,854,827,200.That's the number you should write down for total aid to Israel. And that's $14,346 each for each man, woman and child in Israel.

It's worth noting that that figure does not include U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel, of which Israel has drawn $9.8 billion to date. They greatly reduce the interest rate the Israeli government pays on commercial loans, and they place additional burdens on U.S. taxpayers, especially if the Israeli government should default on any of them. But since neither the savings to Israel nor the costs to U.S. taxpayers can be accurately quantified, they are excluded from consideration here.

Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer.

Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants. On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.

Israel enjoys other privileges. While most countries receiving U.S. military aid funds are expected to use them for U.S. arms, ammunition and training, Israel can spend part of these funds on weapons made by Israeli manufacturers. Also, when it spends its U.S. military aid money on U.S. products, Israel frequently requires the U.S. vendor to buy components or materials from Israeli manufacturers. Thus, though Israeli politicians say that their own manufacturers and exporters are making them progressively less dependent upon U.S. aid, in fact those Israeli manufacturers and exporters are heavily subsidized by U.S. aid.

Although it's beyond the parameters of this study, it's worth mentioning that Israel also receives foreign aid from some other countries. After the United States, the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel is Germany.

By far the largest component of German aid has been in the form of restitution payments to victims of Nazi attrocities. But there also has been extensive German military assistance to Israel during and since the Gulf war, and a variety of German educational and research grants go to Israeli institutions. The total of German assistance in all of these categories to the Israeli government, Israeli individuals and Israeli private institutions has been some $31 billion or $5,345 per capita, bringing the per capita total of U.S. and German assistance combined to almost $20,000 per Israeli. Since very little public money is spent on the more than 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian, the actual per capita benefits received by Israel's Jewish citizens would be considerably higher.

True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers

Generous as it is, what Israelis actually got in U.S. aid is considerably less than what it has cost U.S. taxpayers to provide it. The principal difference is that so long as the U.S. runs an annual budget deficit, every dollar of aid the U.S. gives Israel has to be raised through U.S. government borrowing.

In an article in the Washington Report for December 1991/January 1992, Frank Collins estimated the costs of this interest, based upon prevailing interest rates for every year since 1949. I have updated this by applying a very conservative 5 percent interest rate for subsequent years, and confined the amount upon which the interest is calculated to grants, not loans or loan guarantees.

On this basis the $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities Israel has received from the U.S. since 1949 cost the U.S. an additional $49,936,880,000 in interest.

There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year.

There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel's half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created.

Even excluding all of these extra costs, America's $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli.

It would be interesting to know how many of those American taxpayers believe they and their families have received as much from the U.S. Treasury as has everyone who has chosen to become a citizen of Israel. But it's a question that will never occur to the American public because, so long as America's mainstream media, Congress and president maintain their pact of silence, few Americans will ever know the true cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers.
Richard Curtiss, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

It is one thing to explain a case. It is a completely different thing to convince someone. You seem to feel no case has been made. I don't agree with that.

As I have said before, no matter how awful the Palestinians have it and unfair it is, that does not prove that any plan proposed by the supporters of the Palestinians will work. Cutting off funding for the Palestinians has been a dismal failure. Since Jimmy Carter has little electoral influence in the US and views almost all members of Congress as unfair to Israel, the chances that a Democratic Party president will cut off funding for Israel seem slim. Yet the Palestinians seem to be betting everything on that happening. Is that wise?

ok dave-

it wasnt fair-

i asked you to defend the indefensible

you cannot

thats fine

so what is the truth dave?

cut off funding would be a good start wouldnt it?

"angst comes when your soul is unsettled because youve stolen something or are living well off of others miseries and works-

also the ever present angst when you know that god told you the way to do something with his blessings- and you decide to do what you want anyway."

Is that how you view Jews? Justly ridden by existential angst?

"i notice you left out the comment about social justice being a part of israels pride in your copy-"

It is conservative Jews in America making the statement. I did not change it.

"sorry dave- but we live in an age where battlefield triumphs are recognized for what they are-"

I wish that was so. Surely you do not think that is true of Political Islam and its leaders?

"i bet if we gave new jersey (equivalent in size to israel) 300 billion dollars over 50 years they'd be filled with radical amazement at what they accomplished too."

Where does 300 come from? Arabs have received huge wealth selling oil.

I wonder what New Jersey's proportional share of the US defense budget is. The world would be a better place if nations did not need huge defense budgets. Self-righteously assigning blame does not help with that.

"no justification for what was and is done to the palestinians."

I think looking for justification is part of the problem in this matter. People should be searching for understanding and truth.

so the answer is no-

yeah dave- i was born in milwaukee- but i doubt i could chase people out of their homes-

muslims have bbe dispersed all over the world for more than a millenia- but they dont suffer from any angst-

angst comes when your soul is unsettled because youve stolen something or are living well off of others miseries and works-

also the ever present angst when you know that god told you the way to do something with his blessings- and you decide to do what you want anyway.

sorry dave- but we live in an age where battlefield triumphs are recognized for what they are-

i bet if we gave new jersey (equivalent in size to israel) 300 billion dollars over 50 years they'd be filled with radical amazement at what they accomplished too.

i notice you left out the comment about social justice being a part of israels pride in your copy-

ok dave thanks for the effort-

a little obscurantist- but it is what it is.

no justification for what was and is done to the palestinians.

peace dave

Not in the Torah in my view.

"The centrality of modern Israel heads our list of core values. For Conservative Jews, as for their ancestors, Israel is not only the birthplace of the Jewish people, but also its final destiny. Sacred texts, historical experience and liturgical memory have conspired to make it for them, in the words of Ezekiel, "the most desirable of all lands (20:6)." Its welfare is never out of mind.

Israeli accomplishments on the battlefield and in the laboratory, in literature and politics, fill them with pride. Their life is a dialectic between homeland and exile. No matter how prosperous or assimilated, they betray an existential angst about anti-Semitism that denies them a complete sense of at-homeness anywhere in the diaspora.

And their behavior reflects the dominant thrust of Conservative Judaism not to denationalize Judaism. Even in the era of emancipation, Zion remained the goal, as it was for the Torah, an arena in which to translate monotheism into social justice. A world governed by realpolitik needed a polity of a different order. The liturgy of the Conservative synagogue preserved the full text of the daily amida (the silent devotion) with its frequent pleas for the restoration of Zion. Heinrich Graetz, who taught at the movement's rabbinical seminary in Breslau and authored the most nationalistic history of the Jews ever written,inspired Moses Hess to pen one of the earliest Zionist tracts in 1862 and would not write of the biblical period until he had personally visited Palestine in early 1872.

This is not to say that Conservative Judaism divests the diaspora of all spiritual value or demands of all Jews to settle in Israel. Ironically, the state of Judaism is far healthier outside the Jewish state, where Judaism is indispensable for a resilient Jewish identity. Most Israelis have sadly been severed from any meaningful contact with Judaism by the absence of religious alternatives and by the erosion of sacred Jewish content in the secular school system where 75% of Israel's Jewish children are educated. And yet, the miracle and mystery of Israel's restoration after two millennia out of the ashes of the Holocaust continues to overwhelm Conservative Jews with radical amazement and deep joy."

http://www.jtsa.edu/about/cj/sacredcluster.shtml#1

This is out of date:

"Israeli accomplishments on the battlefield .... fill them with pride."

dave- the original question-

just one- direct-

without looking for others to distract by accusations or corrollaries-

from a religious perspective-

you are saying there is no religious perspective or basis then?

clearly dave- yes or no-

here is the question-

IS THERE ANY RELIGIOUS BASIS THAT CAN BE USED TO VALIDATE ISRAELS FORMATION?

no more slippy slidey

just yes or no

"Like racism and anti-Semitism, Islamophobia hurts all of us.

Let us today take a stand to end all kinds of fear and hatred of "the other.""

I agree.

"how from a religious standpoint only- is the formation of israel justified?"

I don't think the modern state is justified. I think it is allowed.

The world political reason is not to repay for what happened. It is to prevent what happened from happening again. Note that German Catholic bishops think what is happening in Ramallah is as bad as what happened in Warsaw. That is good reason to fear that it will happen again. When the lessons of history are ignored, they tend to be repeated.

oops- that was me-

anyway- the conversation has been completely derailed from the topic-

as the topic is israel- and not islamophobia-

i would be interested in hearing anyones opinion from a scriptural text point of view- (since the topic is israel- the forum is on faith)

how from a religious standpoint only- is the formation of israel justified?

since there are some jewish people in this thread- i assume youre familiar with your own texts-

excluding of course commentaries- (talmud-mishnah-gemara-) sticking strictly with scriptural text.

Since this is the subject the question seems more than appropriate.

i fully expect silence on this subject or more mudslinging to delfect the question-

please provide resources and copy so we can all easily follow.

a neo-con newspaper chose to commission artists to draw these images that depict the Prophet as a terrorist. These cartoons were not an ignorant mistake. The intent was to insult and inflame.

But well before these dramatic images that must have made editors salivate for their sensational qualities made the news, Muslims in the Muslim world and abroad launched peaceful, lawful protests for four months against the cartoons that would have made Martin Luther King Jr. proud.

ante. The torching of embassies is wrong. So is stepping on and burning the symbols of Danish pride, their flag. It is Haram and a sin in Islam.

Unfortunately, some Iranian newspapers have commissioned the drawing of anti-Semitic cartoons in protest. This is a disgusting form of retaliation that deserves absolute condemnation.

Would the media outlet which commissioned and printed these cartoons, as well as those which reprinted them, call for artists to develop grotesque anti-Semitic caricatures to prove that they have the freedom to do so? Of course not. The French even have laws to punish anti-Semitic "speech" and "writings."

That view of Muslims as bloodthirsty, misogynist and violent savages persists. It is furthered by Bernard Lewis, America's top Orientalist, and his NEOCONSERVATIVE students, a number of whom are the architects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

months, I have met a whole lot of very nice people. But I was surprised to find at almost each event I attended, one or two Islamophobic people who seemed to have a high dose of Fox News in their system. I listened to them and prayed for them instead of responding to them.

Like racism and anti-Semitism, Islamophobia hurts all of us. In America, it is eroding our civil liberties. In Europe, it is further isolating minority communities and inflaming latent xenophobia. It is perpetuating the neocon wish for a "clash of civilizations" at a time when no country in the world, Muslim or not, can afford it politically, economically or otherwise. Just ask the Danish dairy industry how Islamophobia has hurt its business.
Islamophobia is responsible for torture. Islamophobia is responsible for the grave misunderstandings that only serve to perpetuate hatred and demonization.

Perhaps we need to learn from Canada, where hate speech is banned despite the guarantee of free speech in the country's constitution.

Islamophobia is today's accepted form of racism. It will require Muslims to fight hard against it. Muslims are neither solely responsible for its creation, nor will they be able to fight it on their own. It is a collective responsibility for all bridge-builders of the world.

Let us today take a stand to end all kinds of fear and hatred of "the other."

"There is nothing wrong with Islam. The problem is with some leaders who use it as a tool for getting and keeping political power.

miriam:
There IS something wrong with Islam. Just read the core text, the Quran, and you will see what is wrong. Muhammed was a murdering warlord, with delusions of grandeur.

Harold:
So David and Mariam, you are Jews? Well it's certainly true that Jews are smart and perceptive and you've seen the truth. I do believe you were bending over backwards to accomadate the Islamic religion - just as Jews have been the target of paranoia and rule of mobs, so they feel for the Islami who is so treated."

I am not sure why Harold can not understand what Miriam wrote. I am sure neither of them understand Islam and the Qu'ran. You can not pick up a text, which deals with extremely complex topics, read it in a translation, search for sentences, and understand all of them.

Hurling silly insults at Mohammed stirs things up to provoke violence and anger, which is wrong action.

Harold:

"But the truth is that the irreducible core of Islam, the Qur'an can always be appealled to by rabble-rousers to justify their mistreatment of non-Muslims, for the imposition of barbaric cruelty. And so it has always happened in Islam."

That is the religious dilemma. Bad people can exploit any religion. Historically Islam is no worse than others in that respect. Today political Islam has taken the place of communism as a view of world order many people will kill for. But that is no more religious than communism is.

"Don't be fooled by a foe for whom lies (taqqiya) are a weapon of war"

You are referring to a Shiite concept which Sunnis hate. The idea is that if people ask you questions as part of an inquisition to root out heretics, you don't have to tell them the truth. It can be used for other purposes.

Harold- these conversations have been dealt with at length- i dont answer because you can easily access them if you want-

you dont want answers- you want to come and muslim bash-

racism and xenophobia are what they are-

and yes harold- i dont make distinctions between the value of people based on their pockets-
and i dont assume someone is lazy because theyre poor- soem of the most valuable people ive known have been poor- only ALLAH can judge-

im sorry harold- yo need something to replace your anger at islam-

something to believe in-

i really wish you peace harold
m sorry for the bad experiences you seem to have had with muslims

i hope your experience with me hasnt added to your disappointments.

So David and Mariam, you are Jews? Well it's certainly true that Jews are smart and perceptive and you've seen the truth. I do believe you were bending over backwards to accomadate the Islamic religion - just as Jews have been the target of paranoia and rule of mobs, so they feel for the Islami who is so treated.
But the truth is that the irreducible core of Islam, the Qur'an can always be appealled to by rabble-rousers to justify their mistreatment of non-Muslims, for the imposition of barbaric cruelty. And so it has always happened in Islam. The gorgeous Fatemid dynasty that ruled Spain and brought it to the highest ideals of human achievements was brought down by fanatics from Morrocco who didn't like all this high falutin stuff that made them feel inferior. And this will always be true in Islam. Yes, it's wonderful that Islam has a social concience. Though blacks were despised in the Arabic world and enslaved, it was a black who became the first muzzien. Rich and poor worship side by side, (except for extremely rich and powerful who have their own personal masjid), you might find that your neighbor bending for his raqats was a millionaire or a beggar. But the distinction between people that so appalls Victoria is a true distinction - a lazy stupid man, who contributes nothing is not as valuable as a hardworking intelligent man who bends his efforts to advancement. You don't like it - too bad. That's one reason that Islamic culture is produces nothing, there is no room for thinking apart from what has be ordained by the Qur'an and Hadiths. A sultan a thousand years ago, appalled by the "battles" between the four schools of jurisprudence wisely decided that arguments should stop and so died argument, ijtahid in the Mulsim world. There is no effort to improve the common good, other than by advancing Islam. What difference could it make that your life is impoverished - in the afterlife you have more than you can dream of.
Forgo sex, in the future "horis" (and I suppose these are plastic inflatable "people" who won't have to be attracted to you), will take care of your want's, even today Mullahs argue whether or not you'll be in a state of prepetual tumescence in Heaven, and more! - you'll have chicken everyday - and drink alcohol that won't give you a hangover! What a joy, for the first thousand years - but what of the next thousand thousand thousand? What kind of people is it that do what they do for the reward - where love of God is in payment for the rewards he'll give you?

And Victoria, you don't need proof of anything - Mohammed promises you heaven if you just follow what he says - that he is Mohammed is enough. The sly-minded Jews said to Mohammed as he stood upon the roof of a building in Mecca - "jump, if you are the Lord's emmissary he will support you". And Mohammed jumped and broke his leg. He spent the hijira limping to Yathrib (Medina). Do you suppose the perfidious Jews laughed? Wouldn't you?- but Mohammed had the last laugh, he had the Jews all killed (the men at least, and sold the women and children into slavery)and confiscated their property for Muslems. That is the "just guide" that one fifth of the world's population has faith in.
You know, at this stage of world history, with human populations living at the carrying capacity of the world's resources, it's a zero-sum game - when one group wins it is at the expense of another group that loses. So I tell you - Christians, Jews, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Bhuddists - protect your children and your children's children from the new world of darkness that the Islamacists (or fanatic Christians, Jews, Hindus etc.) want to impose on you. Don't be fooled by a foe for whom lies (taqqiya) are a weapon of war - we saw it in Iran when the Khomeni was just a caretaker until the people could rule themselves, we'll see it in Europe soon, in 30 years when sharia becomes the law of the land. Know your enemy, make your future - fight for it - you'll win!

There IS something wrong with Islam. Just read the core text, the Quran, and you will see what is wrong. Muhammed was a murdering warlord, with delusions of grandeur.

"advancement in the quality of life, in medicine, engineering etc."

How are these in Islamabad and Teheran? How about Turkey which is a Muslim country?

"So is stepping on and burning the symbols of Danish pride, their flag. It is Haram and a sin in Islam."

I am curious about this. They stomped on and burned a flag with a cross. How many did so knowing it was a symbol of Denmark and did not know the cross is a Christian symbol also?

"Unfortunately, some Iranian newspapers have commissioned the drawing of anti-Semitic cartoons in protest."

The Middle East has had plenty of anti-semitic cartoons before what happened in Denmark.

"call for artists to develop grotesque anti-Semitic caricatures"

Actually they called for cartoons showing Mohammed. None of them were labeled as such by the cartoonists. An editor at the newspaper wrote all of the headings.

They were not reprinted much in the United States. The editor of the University of Illinois student newspaper was fired for printing some of them as part of a discussion piece.

There is nothing wrong with Islam. The problem is with some leaders who use it as a tool for getting and keeping political power.

The Danish affair is exactly what I'm talking about. So Islamis honor the Prophet? So Danes attacked and vilified the Prophet - were Christians in Islamic land to do so, you can be certain they would be killed - but for Moslems to vilify Christianity - and tell how the Christian lies and vanities have distorted the message of Jesus - is not condemned in Muslem lands - it is part of the religion. It is freedom that you hate, the freedom to vilify in speech those things you find abhorent. You like Canada's restrictions on freedom of speech and respect Moslems bloody and senseless riots against the Danish actions. Whereas Christianity has implicit and explicit a message of peace, tolerance and brotherhood, Islam has the messages of war, intolerence and exclusivity. Only now that they are weak, can you consider Muslems as oppressed - but if they were to gain the advantage - any non-Muslem would be oppressed - this is seen in every Moslem country. Racist?

Victoria keeps on talking about how answers to the questions of apostasy and homosexuality have been answered time and time again - but never gives an answer. Why is that?
Islam is not a race, any Islami who converts to Christianity is no longer an Islami. Islam is death cult that want to bring the whole world under it deadly sway.

Imagine the racist conspiracy that imagines that the imam jome is saying vile and destructive things Christians and Jews - and then find that it's not paranoia - that the imam is really telling people to become active in destroying the country they live in? To fight against the infidel and destroy him?

So now Islamophobia is racism, huh - then why isn't the world posessed of Hindu - ophobia? They are the same people as the Pakistani Muslems - so why aren't they being attacked? Because they haven't attacked us, they haven't threatened to destroy us, they haven't talked about taking us over.
Yes, the agenda is to accept Islam as just another religion, opposition to it should be called racism and oppression - but when Muslems have control - oppression will be law, and "racism" (as denigrating people of other religions) will be the standard.
Now I hope I am wrong - I hope that Islam will evolve into a real religion of piece - but as history has shown us, it will not unless coerced by outside forces - and when such opposition ceases will become again what is was - a stultifying and oppressive religion, controlled by fanatics.

a respected friend speaks eloquently-

Racism
The only acceptable racism left: Islamophobia
Abdul Malik Mujahid

"So what do you do for a living?" the activist asked me. He was an American Christian, an ordained minister and leader of an interfaith peace organization. I was attending a conference organized by his group.

"I produce Islamic videos and programs, particularly for children," I replied.

"Oh. Doesn't Hamas produce programs for children, too?" he asked.

I was stunned. This exchange occurred shortly before the Hamas victory in the recent Palestinian elections. What floored me though was that this man associated what I do for a living with a group considered terrorist by the American government. It is clear that the ugly tentacles of Islamophobia have penetrated places where Muslims have normally felt safe from it. An interfaith gathering is the last venue I'd expect these comments.

I was representing the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago as it's chair, and he knew that pretty well. It's a federation of more than 55 mosques and Islamic organizations serving 400,000 Muslims from the region.

The Danish cartoon affair - Europe's latent Islamophobia comes to life
The latest example of Islamophobia comes from Denmark and Europe, not the United States. By now, we've all seen and read about the protests against 12 deeply offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him.

What is critical to know is that it was not some random cartoonist drawing one cartoon and an editor who decided to publish it. Rather, a neo-con newspaper chose to commission artists to draw these images that depict the Prophet as a terrorist. These cartoons were not an ignorant mistake. The intent was to insult and inflame. The concept of respect and honor among Muslims is well-known. So is the potential risk of incitement, especially after knowing what happened when the Muslim world came to know about some American soldiers disrespecting the Quran last year.

The Danish embassy in Lebanon has been torched, the country's flags burned, death threats have been issued and some protesters have been killed as a result of police firings.

But well before these dramatic images that must have made editors salivate for their sensational qualities made the news, Muslims in the Muslim world and abroad launched peaceful, lawful protests for four months against the cartoons that would have made Martin Luther King Jr. proud.

Danish Muslims wrote letters of protest. They were ignored. Eleven Muslim ambassadors in Denmark asked to meet with Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. He refused to do so. A grassroots boycott of Danish products was launched in the Middle East. That got some attention, but not much until Danish businesses realized how much of their $1 billion business in the region was at stake.

The cartoons were printed in September 2005. In September, October, November, December and almost all of January, the Muslim opposition to the cartoons was characterized by peaceful demonstrations of love for the Prophet and restrained protests of how he was being denigrated.

Arrogant Response to Peaceful Protests
When newspapers in Norway, Germany and France, in their Islamophobic frenzy, decided to republish the cartoons in the name of "freedom of expression," the scale of anger and protest widened. What started off as peaceful opposition spiraled out of control.

Now, the situation was out of the hands of Muslims who had made serious attempts to resolve the issue peacefully. They had tried their utmost, but to no avail. From this point onwards, all kinds of people, including those with little knowledge of Islamic rules that forbid harm to foreign emissaries in Muslim lands, had upped the ante. The torching of embassies is wrong. So is stepping on and burning the symbols of Danish pride, their flag. It is Haram and a sin in Islam.

Unfortunately, some Iranian newspapers have commissioned the drawing of anti-Semitic cartoons in protest. This is a disgusting form of retaliation that deserves absolute condemnation. It will neither help fight Islamophobia, nor elicit any understanding about why Muslims are upset about the Danish cartoons. The conflic has hit a new low with this move.

But the world media, always in search of dramatic images of death and destruction, lapped up the anger and violence with glee. There was little coverage of the peaceful response of the Muslim community to these cartoons in the initial days after their publication. There were no calls for death, there was no fire involved or images of screaming bearded and Hijabed Muslims. Just peaceful bearded and Hijabed Muslims. Yawn. The media was bored.

When it comes to Muslims, everything goes
Would the media outlet which commissioned and printed these cartoons, as well as those which reprinted them, call for artists to develop grotesque anti-Semitic caricatures to prove that they have the freedom to do so? Of course not. The French even have laws to punish anti-Semitic "speech" and "writings."

The current cartoon affair is not about freedom of expression, it's about Islamophobia.

Islamophobia is real
Islamophobia, or the fear and hatred of all things relating to Islam and Muslims, has become an acceptable form of racism. A sympathetic Jewish lawyer who was representing a Palestinian client in Chicago pre-9/11 said something telling to me in this regard: "Muslims are the new N…ers of America. If you will not fight for yourself, no one will."
He's right. But Muslim complaints about Islamophobia continue to be dismissed.

More than one fourth of all American Muslims surveyed by more than one public opinion organization stated that they have personally experienced Islamophobia or know someone who has. Over 200,000 American Muslims have been subjected to some kind of law enforcement activity since 9/11. At least 15,000 Muslims have been detained or arrested since that tragedy. Over 16,000 were either deported or are in the process of deportation. The Council on American-Islamic Relations annually issues reports about the state of Muslim civil rights in the United States. Harrowing tales of anti-Muslim discrimination on the job, at schools, stores, restaurants and on the streets fill these publications. The case of Capt. James Yee is a disturbing example of how American Muslims even in positions of authority and respect must endure Islamophobia publicly at the hands of our own government.

It is due to Islamophobia fanned by government policies and a media frenzy that a majority of Americans continue to hold negative opinions of Islam and Muslims. And a few thousand bin Laden terrorists contribute to authenticate this negative image. Forty-four percent of Americans queried in a Cornell national poll favor curtailing some liberties for Muslim Americans.
Over half of schoolchildren in the Australian city of Victoria view Muslims as terrorists, and two out of five agree that Muslims "are unclean", a survey has revealed.

Islamophobia is older than 9/11 and is based on ongoing ignorance
The fear and hatred of all things Islamic can be traced much farther back than 9/11. Edward Said's landmark book "Orientalism" outlined how European colonial masters viewed their Muslim subjects with disdain and disgust. This attitude continues to characterize the discipline today. That view of Muslims as bloodthirsty, misogynist and violent savages persists. It is furthered by Bernard Lewis, America's top Orientalist, and his neoconservative students, a number of whom are the architects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In the 1980s, funding was cut throughout the United States for programs that attempted to understand other peoples and nations. With the fall of the former Soviet Union in 1991 and the establishment of America as the world's sole superpower, a fair amount of arrogance towards the rest of the world pervaded America's dealings with other countries and continues to do so.
The barring of Yusuf Islam in 2004 and Tariq Ramadan in 2005 from the United States are examples of how we are not only closing our borders to Islam but opening them to Islamophobia. Even worse, we are closing our minds. As Diana Eck, President of the American Academy of Religion wrote in the Boston Globe on February 2, 2006 about the Ramadan case, "Denying us face-to-face access to scholars and theologians who contribute to critical reflection on the religious currents of our world is an intolerable impoverishment of the academic enterprise." The Academy is currently suing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff for barring Ramadan entry into the US.

Islamophobia harms all of us
In my four interfaith interactions in the last two months, I have met a whole lot of very nice people. But I was surprised to find at almost each event I attended, one or two Islamophobic people who seemed to have a high dose of Fox News in their system. I listened to them and prayed for them instead of responding to them.

Like racism and anti-Semitism, Islamophobia hurts all of us. In America, it is eroding our civil liberties. In Europe, it is further isolating minority communities and inflaming latent xenophobia. It is perpetuating the neocon wish for a "clash of civilizations" at a time when no country in the world, Muslim or not, can afford it politically, economically or otherwise. Just ask the Danish dairy industry how Islamophobia has hurt its business.
Islamophobia is responsible for torture. Islamophobia is responsible for the grave misunderstandings that only serve to perpetuate hatred and demonization.

Perhaps we need to learn from Canada, where hate speech is banned despite the guarantee of free speech in the country's constitution.

Islamophobia is today's accepted form of racism. It will require Muslims to fight hard against it. Muslims are neither solely responsible for its creation, nor will they be able to fight it on their own. It is a collective responsibility for all bridge-builders of the world.

Let us today take a stand to end all kinds of fear and hatred of "the other."

harold youre not the only person on these boards-

not religion harold- race- dont confuse the issue- the issue is israel-

its okay- youre one of many-

instead of any craftsmanship to your posts- they are an endless stream of derogation-

these are kind of pointless and really dont serve the conversation-

the questions youve asked have already been addressed at length-
ive told you where to easily go and find them-

actually you bring up a valid point that i certinly have an answer to as an american-

this land was stolen much the same as palestine was-

do i feel i have a right to be here on stolen land?
even though my parents were born here?
No, i dont.

what did i do about it?
i worked for 2 years teaching native americans (the indigenous peoples) art and english on their reservations- it was all volunteer and purely service-

for my efforts i was declared a walking tree and since i walked my talk with honor i have a right to be here.

i never expect from others sacrifices i havent made myself already.

whats your point harold?
do you have an opinion on topic or is that too much?

obviously you have no desire to learn from your questions- but pose them as a way to cast accusations- an old trick.

sorry about your hatred harold but youre adding nothing of value to the conversation.

since it escaped you before- i sent you to the article by armstrong BECAUSE THE ANSWERS TO YOUR SUPPOSED QUESTIONS WERE THERE IN VOLUME-

its not too hard- go to the post- go to edit- then find in this page and then type in my name at the bottom of the screen in the search box-

personally i think its pretty ill-mannered to go to a muslim panelist and post islamophobic views-

but to each his own.

David, I've actually lectured at one of the top Iranian universities - many of the students are top notch but you always have to careful what you say, everyone knows that some of the "students" (even in the medical school) are put their to make sure that nothing un-Islamic is said. No student will tell their true opinions to any group, knowing that amongst that group are spies - everyone lives a double life - in the streets women are covered in hijab, but come to a party in someone's house, the hijab disappears replaced by tons of makeup and short skirts - much more makeup and much shorter skirts then would ever be worn before the revolution. And everything is monitored by the hapless and talentless religious police - who seems to want to quelch any human happiness as un-Islamic probably wanting to bring everyone to their level.
How can you have innovation when you don't have freedom of thought, of discussion? How can you conduct business properly when a cleric (installed in your company by the government, tells you who to hire based on their Islamic credentials, not their competence (since the cleric knows one book, how could he have competence or recognize competence at anything else?

And Victoria - why do you send me (us) to some unnammed article by Karen Armstrong? Is she a Muslem cleric? Does she have a say in what happens to a homosexual in Saudi Arabia or Sudan of Iran? Why don't you just spit it out - what is the treatment given to homosexuals? What is the treatment given to apostates? We know very well that it wasn't but a few months ago that an apostate was to be executed in Afghanistan - and was only saved by world-wide protests (and probably the intercession of the US government who told the Afghanis that it would make for bad PR) when the man was finally exonerated by being declared insane. That's I guess what I'm trying to say - there is a world-wide movement, funded by oil money - to reestablish an Islamic khalifate - a dream of a return to a time when Islam was the glory of the world, a leader in science and culture. But it Islam that has changed has grown old, both ridgid and infirm. Prohibitions that made sense centuries ago and make none now have been fossilized into the corpus of Islam. When there was a Khalifate, under the Ottomans was it a time of Islamic world leadership, a happy time for Muslims? No, the khalifi were corrupt and venial - the were Turks who treated Arabs and subjects to be ordered around. Was there advancement under the rich and powerful rule of the Khalifs - no, Europe advance, Japan advanced, the world Moslem community feel further and further behind (yet still under the impression that they led the world). Islam as it stands now is a religion of death - all of life stands as nothing, except a test for where you'll go after you die. In such a world advancement in understanding is meaningless, advancement in the quality of life, in medicine, engineering etc. is all meangless unless these can help you to defeat your non-Muslem enemies (a duty you are born to). A static non-changing world - controlled by the "religiously correct". Maybe you would like to live in such a world (maybe most people would - where everything is set out for you, where you have no decisions to make, but I wouldn't - and I would fight to the death to make sure it didn't happen.
If the discussion is about Israel, there is no discussion about it in the Islamic world, apart from agreeing that it should be eliminated - or put under Muslem rule (maybe have the Jews pay jizya and have their land and priveledges removed. How would anyone who would either be killed or made a second-class citizen feel about that? They would fight to the death to prevent it - wouldn't you? You might say an Arab in Israel might feel the same way, I don't know, but that Arab could leave and enter an Arab world (of political repression, religious repression, sectarian violence, but at least Arab). (Though I know Arab Christians who feel the same way about the Arab world, having been the subject of discrimination all their lives). The Israeli has no where else to go that (s)he could think of as his/her own. Imagine yourself as an Israeli, (they are an abrasive bunch, but as human as yourself) and now imagine what choices you would make, Victoria. Would you bow in submission? Would you leave your home, drag your children into servitude, deny them the promise of being free and self-determined? And to go where?
Muslems have suggested that Israel could be made a country where religion or race have no place in determining an individual's rights. Where is this true in the Moslem world? Let's first see Lebanon made a place where religious sect is a non-issue, where, say, Jews are encouraged to emigrate and helped to establish themselves. There's a solution to the problem!
No, Islam is not the answer, it is the problem!

The issue was Islam. Are the Muslims in India less productive than the Hindus?

Is Iran as backward in terms of culture and innovation as you seem to think it is? How do their universities compare to those in comparable countries which have few Muslims?

Victoria and David
One, Victoria, I don't know where you got the idea that I am Jewish? Two David, I don't know what ideas you've got about what happens in Iran, but you are wrong. I'm very much part of the Iranian community and if you speak Farsi and watch any number of televison programs broadcast from California, the largest community of Iranian ex-pats, you'd find that control by government, and the complete dissafection of the youth who are much more inclined to Western values. In fact Iran has about the largest drug problem among youths in the world. The reason for that is dispair -controlled by a supreme leader, harrassed by special police designated to "promote good and prevent evil", enforce Salat, make sure that a young womans zanat is not showing; they're into everyone's business - and surely do more to encourage evil then prevent it. The clergy is kept paid by building many more masjid than people want and clerics without followers sit in their empty rooms. The people hate them, I've had cabbies tell me how the would pick up a mullah and drop him in the middle of the wrong side of town apologizing to the mullah for their mistake in that they heard him wrong and then drive off. Its now a big racket to have people drop money down a well in which the hidden Imam is purportedly hidding to ensure that prayers are answered.

Who cares about what someone, anyone says about whether or not you will go to Heaven. Do any of them have proof? Do you imagine a just God that would reward murders with heaven and saints with hell based on what religion they belong to? Whichever group you belong to is more a matter of what group your parents belonged to than anything else.
Those groups of believers represent a power source to people who want power. You've both seen how in our own country preachers, televangilist prey on the gullable to get money and power - were our country but a bit more religious, Pat Robertson would have been president. In coutries like Iran where 75% of the population is rural and illiterate, the power seekers rigthly use Islam as their road to power. This applies to Sunni countries as well.
Yes, Pakistan is modernizing its Madrassas, they can see (you'd have to be blind not to) how their big neighbor India has become a world power through education and technology - real knowledge of the world is useful in making a better life - reciting the Qur'an by memory leads nowhere, but knowing about electric circuits leads to a decent life.
Yes sometimes life seems pointless, especially to those who have nothing - and the best you can do is feed them "pie in the sky when you die" - that keeps them in their place. In the case of Islam, you can even have them kill and die for whatever you stipulate to be God's cause.

"I don't know much about Muslim dialectics and the great Muslim academies."

I would be interested in hearing more about this. I think it would be helpful.

It does not hurt to be careful, precise, and test assumptions.

dave - read what i wrote again-
i think you didnt get it-

my point supported your point exactly-

i KNOW you wrote about the quote- i was aying the exact same thing as you!

settle down

"in my experience jewish people can and do argue the minutest points ad infinitum-
the value of such discussions eludes me-"

You avoid people taking statements out of context and making much of them. You appreciate the complexity of these issues and how hard it is to talk about them.

"but just as the questionably sourced quote from dave was rejected as being a small minority opinion and not representative of the majority-"

I wrote about the quote. It was posted by someone else here.

"rejected as being a small minority opinion and not representative of the majority"

That implies a process based on the process by which the Talmud came about, which was well known and understood. In the Early Middle Ages, Muslim and Jewish scholars studied each others' works.

I don't know much about Muslim dialectics and the great Muslim academies.

"The world under a fundamentalist Islamic government would be an awful place (I've been to Iran) governed by self-righteous "protectors" of Islamic virtue, the same as a world governed by fanatic fundamentalist Christians or Jews."

That does not match what I hear about Iran. How about Turkey, Jordan, Indonesia, and the Muslim community in India.

A lot of interesting things come out of those and other Muslim countries.

What is your view of the world Sufi community?

Harold- go to the question on homosexuality and get an answer for that-
go to previous questions i think prayer question on karen armstrong or john esposito- one of the muslim friendly panelists- that issue was debated successfully ad nauseum 9the apostasy one)

your first ussueon the dhimmi- also deal with extensively-

actually harold we are TRYING to have a discussion about israel-

since everyone here but me is jewish- wouldnt it be nice to stick to the topic as dave and i are trying to?

a nice dialogue could ensue-

possibly you are not aware of the major overhaul of the madrasseh system in pakistan as we speak- it is a western approved curriculum- so far 90% of the schools are using these new texts- and everyone seems happy with it-

you really missed the point harold-
the point is that if one is looking to malign another they will always find ammunition-

personally- i find such conversations childish and emotion driven and ultimately pretty unedifying and boring-

the point is - as bizarre a quote that is- (about the toenail) it is a part of jewish writings-

in my experience jewish people can and do argue the minutest points ad infinitum-
the value of such discussions eludes me-

but just as the questionably sourced quote from dave was rejected as being a small minority opinion and not representative of the majority-

im wagering that the quote i posted is the same-

anyone wantto get back on topic or is this going to be hijacked into muslim bashing?

Victoria, you seem to be so concerned about the "oppresed" Muslims - why not talk to the Sura IX: 29, where in Mohammed demands that anyone who does not accept Islam should be "fought against and and forced to pay the jizya (poll tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued?" What if I were to tell you that in "Christian" lands all Islamis were to be specially taxed submissively and acknowledge that they subdued by the superior Christian religion. When Mohammed talks about killing one person - he is talking of wrongfully killing one person - killing a person who mocks Islam or the prophet is not wrongfull - Mohammed himself ordered such murders.

So far as your strange quote from the Talmud (and I would like to hear chapter and verse - I doubt that any Jew except the most narrow and xenophobic would subscribe to that. Respect for the oppressed, from black minority populations to homosexuals has always been part of the mainstream Jewish attitude. In Islam, what is the punishment for homosexuality (that even God can never forgive according to the Qur'an?
In the meantime, utter emnity towards non-Muslims, contempt of other religions has been the mainstream belief in Moslem countries, where, under Islamic rule, like Saudi Arabia, churches and synagogues are not permitted.
And what of killing anyone who has converted from Islam - isn't this the law? It's nice to be able to overlook these things - but those who raise the banner of Islam in the fight against Dar al Harb, don't overlook them.

Miriam - your quote from the Secular Islam Summit, were that a potential position taken by the Islamic community would certainly be a step in the direction that I think most of us believe in; in the Rights of Man - but making such statements public in most Muslim countries would incite lynch mobs and some goes directly agains the Qur'an (like, as I said, the rules allowing apostacy and separating religion from the state).
Yes, there can certainly be evolution of Islam, the old Testament prescribes death for homosexuality too, but we are largely dealing with a population among who the medieval mindset prevails, money spent for education is spent for Islamic education. Those Muslims with wide learning and open minds are no different from non-Muslims, and I know, love and respect many - but this is not the majority condition of world Islam.
And David Marshak - you tell me that a few people don't speak for 1.2 billion Muslems - and surely that is true - they need only speak for a majority . And my contention that Islam is presently making a negative contribution to human advancement is diregarded - I want to know what positive and significant contributions to human advancement are being made in Islamic countries? Where is the scientific research? Where are the medical breakthroughs? Where are the open-minded discussions - where is there freedom of thought, freedom of religion, of concience in the Islamic world?
I'm not saying they couldn't exist - but simply that they don't. The world under a fundamentalist Islamic government would be an awful place (I've been to Iran) governed by self-righteous "protectors" of Islamic virtue, the same as a world governed by fanatic fundamentalist Christians or Jews. A world in which all access to truth, apart from what the preachers or the Book" or the "Prophets" state would be denied (read about Galileo in the days of Roman Catholic world rule.

If you made the statement that the so-called "fundamentalist Christians" are not making any significant contributions to human well-being, I would have to disagree (though reluctantly); fundamentalist Christian charities are making such contributions to at least keeping children alive in war-torn parts of the world, (like Darfur), though perhaps with the ulterior motives. Islamic charities are given to people such as Hizbollah and Hamas with the intention that these funds be used to fight non-Muslems; or to create more Madrassas so that the youth can be educated in things that will give them no advantage in this world (and with respect to the murderous intolerence of the Shia, Jews and Christians taught by the Salafists) in the next either.
So I guess I'd have to say that Islam has potentially as much truth as other religions -but has been usurped by sick, hateful and violent people as their road to power.

The Mishnah is rabbinic sayings that had been passed on orally for generations, which were written down by Judah the Prince in 200 CE. The two Talmuds are collections of subsequent rabbinic commentaries on the commentaries in the Mishnah. There is a Talmud compiled by the rabbis in Babylon and a smaller one compiled by the rabbis in Jerusalem.

"10,000 gentiles"

The point of the Talmud is the discussions. It is not a collection of one liners to be followed blindly. I am not sure where the quote you refer to is. The discussion which accompanies it would be interesting to talk about. I am not sure there is any statement by a rabbi in the Talmud which is not challenged by at least one other rabbi in the Talmud.

Virgil said the descent to Hell is easy. Ascending from it is difficult. It is easy to hate and lead others to hate. Cultivating a mind of love is far more difficult. There are many brilliant Sufi teachings about how to do that.

No Dave- what the quran says is that if you kill one person unjustly it is as if you had killed the whole world-

it also says if you save thelife of one person it is as if youve saved the whole world-

there is no distinction in the faiths or race of those saved -

there are many many places in the quran that speak of the equality of all humans-

there are many places where muslims are commanded to respect people of other faiths-

for instance you hear people all the time talking about the disbelievers in the quran- even translating it into the word infidel (which is what the crusaders called the people of jerusalem)
the jews, muslims and even christians were killed unequivocally) its a word from the latin infidelis- meaning unfaithful-

the word often mistranslated as disbelievers is kafir-
kafir is one who conceals or covers up-(the same verb is used to describe a farmer covring up seed in the earth)

so a kafir is one who has been exposed fully to islam- knows it well- and consciously rejects it- or conceals the truth in their presentation to others-

of all the people who have posted on these boards who do you think is a kafir?
you? or miriam? because youre jewish?

no- we are commanded to respect you and your holy book- your place of worship- to protect you and your temples if you are in a muslim society-

out of all the people here there is only one who has proclaimed he is kafir- (and his knowledge of islam is pretty questionable- its a hindu guy who SAYS hes a kafir- but he doesnt really have the knowledge to reject in the first place)

id say its somewhat difficult to be a kafir if you havent already been a muslim- but thats a blanket generalization- not always true.

i appreciate that you dont hold muslim accountaboe for this statement (for all we know the fox news staff created it)

just like the mishnah? ( or talmudic) saying that

the lives of 10,000 gentiles are not worth one jewish toenail-

well thats pretty crass and not even an opinion but a part of an actual written book-
( i know- i read it there- i went to search it and apparently some others have found and abused this snippet)

do i believe that this is the core of most jewish peoples beliefs and attitudes?
most jewish people arent even aware of it-

i guess if what were looking for is an excuse to hate or be prejudiced against any certain group we will find justication if thats our goal-

its not my goal and i appreciate the egalitarian stance you take dave-

o as far as the long explanation i was starting to undertake there-

in reference and anticipation of the same ayat people focus on- '

also there is the very definite issue (that most arent aware of at all- even many muslims somehow) that the Qur'an itslef has 2 separate indices-

one is a historical and specific to that time- and the other is broader and applicable to all peoples-

ok peace now

I tried that. Can you explain how to find it from the main page?

I got this:

Focus
ADODB.Field error '80020009'

Either BOF or EOF is True, or the current record has been deleted. Requested operation requires a current record.

/#ArticleDatabase/issue_view.asp, line 0

http://www.hsf.org.za/%23ArticleDatabase/issue_view.asp?ID=412

you have to copy and paste both sections into the browser to make one long section

That does not work.

In terms of discriminationin Israel you might want to look at this:
http://www.hsf.org.za/%23
articledatabase/article_view.asp?id=412

"I say that at present Islamic societies are making a net deficit contribution to human advancement. I know that they don't believe in any sort of human advancement - a men's life is to follow the straight path to death and eternal Pleasure. "You Americans love life, we Muslims love death, that's why we will win" is a quote from a Jihadist (I don't remember the names of murders, forgive me)."

That is not realistic. A few people do not speak for 1.2 billion people all over the world.

"I ask you Victoria, is it any worse to kill a Moslem than a Hindu or a Jew or an Athiest, but the Koran teaches it should be."

Which Muslim commentaries on the Qu'ran say that?

"In fact with the Islamic desire to destroy representative art and idols like the Bhuddas of Afghanistan"

The Taliban did that. They had stood through centuries of Muslim rule. The world Muslim community strongly opposed it.

The Jews Have every right to fight for what they feel is theirs. Otherwise scrap land rights for blacks in Australia and South Africa. All is same issue. Amen

http://secularislam.org/
blog/post/SI_Blog/21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration

Released by the delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, St. Petersburg, Florida on March 5, 2007

"We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.

We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamaphobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.

We call on the governments of the world to

reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostacy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights;

eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women;

protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;

reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;

and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.

We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;

to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;

and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must chose for themselves."

harold - possibly you really dont have the self criticism to notice what you are writing-

I am well read in science and literature and follow somewhat the world of the arts and if the Muslim world were to disappear, the decrease in level of the world's output in these areas would hardly be noticeable-

i dont know harold- id be ashamed to make such a generalization of any group of people-

we clearly have very different ideas of what is worth-

well agree to disagree-

and for the record harold-

there was no pride expressed but it was prefaced with a disclaimer to that effect-

i believe the energies youre expending to disprove the value of something is better spent in more dialogue inducing activities-

even responding to such expenditures is a negative experience for me-

sorry you feel that way-

David Marshak, did I say nothing of worth was being done by the 1.2 billion people? No, I said that the contributions of that community to the world community ranked significantly under non-Islamic states with 1/200 th of that population. Considering its size and wealth and the intrinsic talents and intelligence of its people, the output in science, philosophy, literature and the arts is minscule. I believe the reason for this is Islam. Iran, which before the revolution had a thriving scientific community, many artists, writers, is now ruled by at best a second rate person- at the same level as his invitees, like David Duke, and fanatic Jewsish cultists who lyingly state that they don't believe in the Holocaust (in weasel words like "if they can lie about the Palastinians..", to his Jew-bashing conference. The sort of figure who might have risen to high rank in the Ku Klux Klan.
Did I say tnat no good was done - look to Bahgdad every day to see what Muslims are doing to Muslims in the name of Islam, no I say that at present Islamic societies are making a net deficit contribution to human advancement. I know that they don't believe in any sort of human advancement - a men's life is to follow the straight path to death and eternal Pleasure. "You Americans love life, we Muslims love death, that's why we will win" is a quote from a Jihadist (I don't remember the names of murders, forgive me).
But that's an attitude that leads mankind back into the caves instead of out into the stars.

And Victoria, so far as standing up for oppressed Muslims, as anyone who knows me knows, I would give my life to save any number of Muslim men and women who are my friends and family. Not because they are Muslim, but because they are people, wonderful people. Yet in Iran, right now under Sharia, you could kill a Hindu and not worry about repercutions. I am friends of Hindus, wonderful people. I ask you Victoria, is it any worse to kill a Moslem than a Hindu or a Jew or an Athiest, but the Koran teaches it should be. Should it be?

And so far as the "countless examples" you would give me if you had the time, I am well read in science and literature and follow somewhat the world of the arts and if the Muslim world were to disappear, the decrease in level of the world's output in these areas would hardly be noticible. In fact with the Islamic desire to destroy representative art and idols like the Bhuddas of Afghanistan, the Islamic world probably has a negative score on that. Right now in Iran, plans are underway to submerge the ancient city of Persopolis, the home of the Persian kings, Cyrus, and Cyrius etc. to buid a dam.

I am not denigrating people - I am sure that amongst them, the Arabs, Persians, Europeans, Indians and Malays have admist their vast numbers the usual percentages of people of great intelligence and any other good feature of which mankind is possessed - I am not denigrating the people at all - but the culture, which calls itself Islamic, that has stopped growing for centuries, that harms itself with an injust and barbaric set of laws. A civilization once the most advanced on Earth now declined to an usless parasitical state that produces nothing of worth (well there are figs, and baklava). They use the West's medicine, they use the West's techology - but haven't contributed to it, and don't tell me about Avicenna. They take without giving, and that is based on the distribution of a substance, oil that was discovered and made valuable for them by non-Muslims; were this not so the present Arab states would be among the poorest in the world - what do they produce? Oil, any thing else - do you want to call your lifeline!
Don't think that I'm denigrating the Arab people some of whom have been friends and lovers - no it is their Islamic religion with its aversion to innovation, to basic research, to freedom of thought, to freedom of religion.

You appear to think I denigrate people based on race, intelligence or other such features.
No, if I judge people at all, and I try not to, is I judge people by their character. You express your great pride in an act of courage and subscribe that to a Muslim person - yourself.

ok harold- you want specifics then-

personally i dont have any contributions to the world of science-

would over 30 years of selfless dervice to humanity satisfy you?

shall i list them?
i dont really have time right now im heading out- but id be happy to when i come back-

my volunteer resume far ouweighs my professonal one- it is a chore to write it out- but id be happy to.

it is indelicate and self glorifying to make references to ones personal service- but you really seem to imagine that all muslims are caricatures built out of some media imagination-

just for the record harold- in case you try AGAIN to introduce some xenophobic element into the conversation-
one of the things i did was i saw a man being shot 5 times in the stomach in long beach california by a policeman- instead of walking away and leaving it to someone else- i saw injustice and spoke out-

i was arrested on the spot- never charged, never charged harold!
and interrogated 36 hours hog-tied like an animal without water- just like on tv! (well- actually alot worse than on tv) you see- it was requested that i change my story of my witness-

it didnt end there- i was imprisoned for in sybil brandt (the worst womens prison in america)
and i was never charged with any charge-
i was told i would disappear within the system forever- the an who was shot was dead- and it was pointless for me to continue with my witness-

my faith remained secure and i prayed to ALLAH- apparently prayers were heard- a recluse neighbor of mine who id been kind to was some kind of eccentric millionaire who came and posted the substantial bail in cash-
did i mention i was never charged? it took a private eye for him to find me-
it wasnt that hard- i was the only white women in a dorm of 79 african american and hispanic women-

and i went on to witness in court- and the man (who had been in a coma for the time) had been charged with assaulting a police officer (to cover it up) but with my testimony the truth prevailed.

what do you think harold- the man who was shot was a jewish man-

would you spend 2 months in prison to stand up for justice for an oppressed muslim harold?
thinking you were never getting out?

do you consider that a valuable muslim contribution to society?
i know its not a nobel prize- some value the accolades of man- some value the refining of the inner character.

without sounding like a self advertisement of aggrandizement im happy to share the actual service of my life-

but it goes against my grain to do so- but just say the word-

do you have any real opinion about the subject at hand or did you want more reasons to arbitrarily muslim-bash?

now peace harold- i dont know what world you live in- i live in the real world where we all have contributions and its just bad form to denigrate anyone on the basis of intellectual arrogance or religion or race or-----

I thought you would raise that objection to Victoria's post.

""How much have the 1.2 billion Muslims have given to the world - apart from violence?"

That is an example of the way the media give a very unfair and incomplete view of the world."

It is foolish to imagine that nothing of worth is being done by the world's Muslims and states which are predominantly Muslim.

David and Victoria, I am not ignorant of history - I know about the medieval figures you mentioned - the Persian Al Kwarishimi invented algebra (the word Algorithm derives from his name, many inventions came out of the early days of Islam - but everything you're talking about occurred a thousand years ago (okay, algebra reached Europe in about 1145) what about recently?
If I tell you that the Greeks are the pre-eminant scholars in the world and mention Plato and Aristarchus as examples, I wouldn't expect you to except it. Same here. Look at the tiny country of Israel - their contribution to science and medicine in the past decade far outweigh those of all the Muslim countries together, both in terms of output and of quality. Here we have 5,000,000 people versus 1,200,000,000. You can name one noble-prize winning physicist who in an interview acknowledges that he could not have done his research in an Islamic country (Pakistan), apart from the fact that his collaborators were Jews . A writer of literature like Salman Rushdie is issued a death threat by Islamic authorities (not by all, but being killed even once is not conducive to health) etc.
We hear now of Muslin universities where clerics discuss matters of extreme importance such as whether homosexuality is permitted in heaven - what else have they produced recently! (say in the past 200 years)?
The Muslim intellectual world is bankrupt, Spain produced produced more new literature in the past decade than Islam in the past 600 years.
In Malasia, I went into a bookstore and look for a science section (as I'm a scientist)and found a book called "Islamic Astronomy" - it could have been written 1000 years ago - Ptolemy's Almagest was the only reference that I recognized. It's only concern was for astronomy in Islamic ritual. The hot topic in Indonesia is how can spacemen prey facing Mecca? Islam comes, exploits the resourcces of the people it subsumes in a blaze of glory - and then all intellectual life dies - because "ijtihad" (reasoning) and innovation are symptoms of a departure from Islam and are rigorously suppressed. So, don't tell me about 1000 years ago - tell me about now. Tell me about Islamic accomplishments in science, mathematics, literature in the past year, in the past decade. I don't mean by people with Islamic names - such people are as capable as any, I mean in Islamic countries. With about 1/5 of the world's population and large concentrations of wealth these contributions should have been significant-they weren't.
When a country like Saudi Arabia spends its huge revenues to education in thrid world countries it is spent on Madrassahs teaching the intolerant Wahabism sect or Islam that teaches that Shi'a are heretics who should be killed - we've seen what Iran teaches the world, there was no holocaust; lies and half truths are what you get - truth is too close to blasphemy.
The truth is that no one knows if there is an after-life, nor what it would be like. That Mohammed's "Night Journey" was a dream, that all human beings are just human beings and don't deserve to die for their beliefs but by their actions. The truth is that if God is just all the shahadis that died in the name of Islam after killing innocent civilians will go to Hell. The truth is that Mohammed was a human being and imperfect,the victim of follies, passions and ignorance just as the rest of us. Does that make you want to kill me? It would most of the Islamic world - and certainly not a world I would be part of.

Here are some examples of what muslims have given to the world harold-

the first hospital- the first university-
sociology as a scinece- opthamology- avicenna (one of the founders of modern medicine was actually a muslim named Ibn-Sina- is name was hellenized-
the number 0- algebra- trigonometry- the astrolabe-

even scientific experiment and obeservation-

heres a link with some basics
http://www.khwarzimic.org/contribution-muslim/facts.html

Actually- the CIA was formed in order to interfere in Iran and keep british petroleum profits fot the briotish- the iranians felt that they should keep their own profits-

mossadegh agreed- and made it happen- this all happened years and years beofre the 70s.

there are way too many contributions by muslims to the world to name here-

the european renaissance itself could never have happened without the muslim universites and sciences that preceded it and the education of the europeans by muslims-

newton himslef built his theories upon previous muslim scientists, as did galileo- and many others.

its a fascinating subject and easily searched-

PBS had a special called Empire of Faith whcih gave a history within it.
peace

"If you've converted to the "religion of peace" evidence indicates you've made a mistake."

That assumes Islam has made people who are naturally peaceful less so, which is wrong. Note that while Buddhism is very peaceful and the Japanese are very Buddhist, they managed a certain amount of violence in the course of their history.

And the Prince of Peace has not instilled peace in the hearts of most of the people who say they are devoted to his will.

Political people tend to be the face of a religion in the media. That does not mean they represent it.

"How much have the 1.2 billion Muslims have given to the world - apart from violence?"

That is an example of the way the media give a very unfair and incomplete view of the world.

Jimmy Carter is perhaps the man most responsible for the present Islamic revolution when he refused to back up the Shah (principles as opposed to power politics). Of course, you could say that our CIA is most responsible when they overthrew the Iranian leader Mosadegh, popularly elected, and installed a hereditary monarch (power politics instead of principles).

Its hard to know what the truth is - but what I fear is that the wave of religious consevatism will result in a new Dark Age, just when mankind is getting ready for the space age. Unfortunately Islam, as presently constituted, is against any sort of progress, innovation or discussion. Which aspects of that are part of Islam itself and which part of the Jihadists "philosophy"? Since the Jihadists have seized the popular leadership of the Umma, perhaps this "philosophy" should be discussed - but discussion of these topics does not seem to be an option in the Islamic community. Here wild-eyed preachers gain their audience through their desemination of hatred and lies - the more flagrant and unjustifiable their accusations (Jews are descendants of pigs and apes), the more devoted their audience (kind of like Ann Coulter). Although Mohammed said "Go and learn" - with the underlying assumption that knowledge is present elsewhere, learning Western technology seems to be only for using it as a weapon. How much have the 1.2 billion Muslims have given to the world - apart from violence?
If Pamela, you're a convert for the purpose of getting into heaven, I doubt an Islam that promises 72 virgins in Heaven, for killing thousands of innocent people, leaving children parentless and parents childless, is I'm sure, not the actions of a just God. If you've converted to the "religion of peace" evidence indicates you've made a mistake.

I am looking at what Jimmy Carter has said about the American Jewish community.

Carter is certainly trying to prove that the American Jewish community is biased about Israel and for the most part should be educated not heeded.

Ann Coulter's books sell very well.

Carter's books are not full of foolish lies. What they lack are realistic ideas about how to go forward. He is pretty much where he was when he was president and we have since learned much.

I have read things about the communities in India and Indonesia and talked with people from there.

Palestinians have it very bad.

I just had an argument with someone today about a personal matter. He used the technique of repeating the same things over and over with emphasis as if somehow I could not understand or believe them. Meanwhile he avoided the issues I was raising or obfuscated. That is what Carter is doing.

What we need are plans that have a reasonable chance of working. And we don't have them.

DAVE- actually- you cant find a roomful of people in agreement anywhere about anything- muslims in iran and indonesia and america will find commonalities according to their temperaments- not their geographical locations-

for instance mia and jihadist and i have had many symaptico moments- ive had this experience with people flung from the far corners of the globe and not neccesarily seen any great agreement from muslims just because they come from the same town- street- etc--

i dont think jimmy carter is foolish at all- i also dont think hes trying to convince the jewish community of anything- there are other people besides jewish people he was addressing- he was addressing the world at large and americans in particular-
its extreme arrogance to think it was directed specifically to one special group-

if his book were full of foolish lies- it would have died an ignominous death-

but there is much painful truth in it- if there werent- people wouldnt react to it-

palestinians zdO have it bad- the gaza strip is one of the most densely populated areas of the planet- and israel is guilty of doing bad things-

simply trying to kill the messenger isnt going to kill the message itself---

The world's Muslims are spread across the globe. Muslims in India and Indonesia do not think like those in Iraq or Iran and those two Asian countries have the largest Muslim populations in the world. Moreover it is obvious that Muslims in Iraq and Iran disagree about many things. There is no way to know what the ummah think. As with the United States, the most wild and newsworthy folk get most of the media's attention.

Jimmy Carter is foolish if he thinks that the American Jewish community needs to be convinced that Palestinians have it bad and Israel is doing bad things. Hammering at that ceaselessly will not convince folks that Carter's project plans for dealing with the problem will work. It is one thing to sell folks on the need for change and creativity. It is another thing to convince folk to buy into your projects to fix things. And you can't puff or bully creativity into existence.

One more thing - least I forget again. The extensive quote from the Koran about Islamic men chosing wives from he heathen kafir only applies to Islamic men taking non-Islamic wives - and as such appears a model of forebearane - exhorting Muslim men to marry these women, not take them as slaves, concubines or simply "take" them - but...
If an Islamic woman were to marry a non-Islamic man - the penalty (enforced in several Islamic countries) is death - death for the woman (I don't know about the man).
Now, since the offspring of the marriage of a Muslim man to an non-Muslim would be Muslim, this is of obvious advantage to the spread of Islam - the other situation would be disadvantageous.
This brings to my mind two questions:

1)Doesn't the Prophet care that the woman brought into marriage will not go to heaven - or is this non-compliance with Islam why she may be beaten?

2)Do women go to Heaven? In popular Islamic culture women do go to heaven and even have their own equivalents of Huri. But I don't think I've ever seen a clear statement that women go to heaven in either Koran or Haddith.

It is certainly true that the Bible and other religious texts contain passages that, to the modern ear, sound barbaric. Do Christians follow the injunction, "Thou shalt not allow a witch to live"? And surely the genocides of peoples committed by the Hebrew people in "liberating" the land now Israel would shock and appall modern Jews - but the question is, what is modern Islam? How is it practiced and what are its principles?

As with modern Christianity, when a particular group of people with an agenda seize control over the beliefs and practices of the majority of adherents, they can then say that they are the True Christians. This is the case with Pat Robertson and others of the so-called Christian Right. The belief that this is the end of time - that time when righteous Christians will be taken directly to heaven (leaving their clothes behind) and the rest of us left to Hell. With this world-view, why care about the environment or indeed anything else except following the laws as closely as you can.
Now many Christians would gainsay this but evangelical Christians throughout the US believe and act on it.
In the Islamic world several groups are vying for what they believe is world domination (just like the Christians)and the eventual end of the world. Their targets are Muslims, who are ignorant of any beliefs other and Islam and believe in the afterlife and are fearful of Hell. These people would do anything the achieve Heaven, even strapping dynamite to themselves in order to kill innocent civilians, who, by being members of a non-Muslem religious group can be made legitimate targets.
Now I said half my family is Muslim, and that's true - but I didn't say that these Islamic family members are liberated, intelligent, loving people who I have the greatest respect for - and they consider themselves good Muslims.
But what of the Ummah - the majority of Muslims? In Christianity and Judiasm, it does not matter what the majority feels (it only matters what church authorities feel) - but in Islam it is Mohammed's injunction that the will of the Ummah decides the interpretation of Islam.
So, the fact that the Ummah is ignorant (often) and that the religious scholars gain status from popularity is of concern.
When, at an earlier time, solutions other than Islam had priority (socialism in the Near East) the religious authorities had audience only among the less progressive parts of the culture - but now that the firebrands have adopted Islam as their banner, every potential passage which can legitimately be used to further their cause, a return to a strict version of Islam, preferably practiced world-wide under a Khalifa, without interpretation (which the Prophet expressly forbade)in which the un-modified Sharia is practiced. Omar bin Laudin, and Amadinejad are the "Pat Robertsons" of todays Islam, and the "Religion of Peace" is used as a pretext for war, killing innocent civilians, rape, mutilation etc.
And then the full import of acts like ordering the killing of a satirical poet by Mohammed become precedent for crowds of people burning down buildings and killing when cartoonists mock Islam.
The killing of the Jews of Yathrib (and the specifically anti-Jewish passages of the Koran in the latter Medina-recited Surahs)have particular urgency now when Israel is considered. These are not matter for scholars in must old rooms - these are the living parts of the Koran that are read to the faithful to exhort them to act - to strap dynamite to themselve, to kill as many "heretics" (Shi'i) as possible.
Also, Mohammed comments on that very passage you quote about beating women. Originally, he wanted to say that women should not be beaten at all, but he recieved a revelation - and though he states that it is better that a woman not be beaten, God commands that they should, under the circumstance given, but with a stick no thicker than a finger. So beating women, and the thought that they are like children (would you beat a man who disobeyed the Koran - no, you would probably kill him, but a woman...). Be sure this will be used to the limit of the law by the Taliband and others with similar attitudes. In many societies where women are already treated like this (many) the Koran serves to back up this position.

So, Pamela, you say that the average Muslim is not into theology - and that's true - but the fanatic salafist, Deobandist or Shi'i is - and very much into it.
So it is here where the fight must be taken, where the barbarity of the laws must be exposed and discussed by reasonable peoplem, brought up by non-Muslims, because they are not afraid to, and answered by Muslims with authority. Dear Pamela, though I wish it was otherwise, I fear that you don't have that authority - at least among the Ummah.
But what chance is there for any possible change when Islamis believe that life is short and worthless and only a test for getting into heaven? When the clerics and Jihadists tell them that murder, killing and suicide in the pursuit of killing are the only sure ways to get into heaven.
When the only possibilities of Islamic law are divided among the "four schools", and where "innovation" is a curse word?
We need you Pamela, we need women and people in general, with intelligence, learning, tolerance and vision, and yet with faith, to become an effective part of the Islamic community. You would be helping Islam to change, to become more just, merciful, benevolent and forgiving (the qualities of Allah), but I feel that your input is too little and too late. Things will progress under the leadership of the small, the narrow and the hateful on both sides.
Oh, and to the "concerned christian now liberated" since Jesus was recognized as a scholar by the rabbis, how could it be that Jesus was illiterate -that would have been very surprising in a literate culture - it would have made him an exception, a laughing-stock and surely not someone who would be allowed to preach publicly.

miriam- this was a post about the possiblity of criticizing israel without being accused of anti-semitism-

lets stay on point-

from the BBC-

Palestinian deaths rose in 2006
Palestinian militant killed by Israeli forces in wheeled into hospital in the West Bank
About half of those killed by Israeli forces were not involved in hostilities
Israeli security forces killed 660 Palestinians in 2006 - three times more than in 2005, according to an Israeli human rights group.

B'Tselem, which monitors human rights in the occupied territories, said the figure included 141 children.

At least 322 had taken no part in hostile acts, the group said.

In the same period, the number of deadly Palestinian attacks on Israelis has fallen - 23 Israelis were killed in 2006 compared with 50 last year.

The Israeli military renewed large scale ground operations in the Gaza Strip after militants captured an Israeli soldier in a cross border raid in June.

Throughout the year, the Israeli military has used air strikes and shelling in an attempt to stop Palestinian militants firing rockets into Israel.

Since June, Israeli troops have killed about 405 Palestinians in Gaza, including 88 children. More than half of the casualties were civilians, B'Tselem said.

As of November, 9,075 Palestinians were being held in Israeli jails. This number included 345 minors, it said.

Of these, 738 (22 minors) were being detained without trial and without knowing the charges against them, the group said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

should these actions be criticized?

the conclusion is clear-

israeli aggression - UP
palestinian aggression - DOWN

Miriam- nobody dismissed his credentials - we just said he has to get in the back of a very long line and is one of many many scholars- so to take one scholars opinions as the absolute standard is just not intellectually complete-

as for the rest-- what?

again good point daVE

"Why should people ignore what other people are doing and thinking, just because they don't belong to that group?"

The religious texts humans have carefully accumulated are the common property of all human beings. The mistake many people make is thinking that they can just look at translations of primary texts, without any understanding of the long traditions of commentary on those texts, and understand what they mean to people who practice the religion based on them. That is absurd.

Hence knowing a bit about what people like Ibn Arabi said or paying careful attention to what thoughtful Muslims say makes it far easier to get at how the Qu'ran is understood.

Jihadist - I don't think you can just dismiss Puin's credentials just because the information is on Wikipedia. He is a professor at Saarland U, and was commissioned by the Yemeni govenment to examine the fragments. Why would they have commissioned him, a non-Muslim, if they did not consider him an expert in his field? And even though you say you know the Koran, I am suggesting that maybe you don't know it as well as you think.

As for your argument that only people of a particular religion should examine the documents of that religion, it is not going to happen.That is not the way the world works, especially now when so much information is available to so many people. You can be sure that non-Muslims are going to stick their noses into Muslim holy scriptures, to try to understand why 19 Muslims blew up the WTC, and why Muslim suicide bombers blow up totally innocent civilians in Iraq. Why should people ignore what other people are doing and thinking, just because they don't belong to that group? As I said, sometimes it takes an outsider to be able to say that the emperor has no clothes(I am assuming you know the parable that I am referring to here). It took an outsider, an obsure Boston journalist with a lot of guts, to expose the enormous incidence of pedophilia within the Catholic church. Everyone within the church had hushed this up and ignored this problem for many, many years. If that one journalist had not written what he did, it would still be going on. So if you expect non-Muslims to only pay attention to what pious Muslims say about their religion, you are living in fairy land. It would be like expecting non-Americans to just listen to the words of George Bush and Pat Robertson to get a true picture of what the US is like. It would be like saying that people who are non-American don't have any idea about what is going on in the US and have no right or ability to criticize the US. And that Americans are taking care of their problems just fine, and just read the Constitution, and don't bother about anything else.

compelling points dave

"Further I can understand that it really wasn't their problem. They weren't the ones who displaced the Palestinians. It was/is Israel's job to take care of these people they displaced."

They were displaced during a war against Israel. Those who started it have responsibility for its consequences. And at this point, it is eccentric to still act as if that war happened a few years ago.

Here are excerpts from two posts in a row which answer the question of what is anti-semitic. Both of them are.

"Nasruldeen:

The Zionist mafia"

"Darkland:

The people in Europe say 'Never Again!' when they look back at WW-II and the 3rd Reich. But they also look away when they see the same horrors being commited again by the ancestors of the victims of the holocaust."

I do not choose to publicize them by quoting further.

personally i am a more tactile person and always prefer to have a physical book in my hand-
i find that whenever i do any internet searches often the first page or 2 directs me to anti-muslim sites and it gets tiring and boring-
also studying quran is a conscious effort for me- when we read we have to make ablutions first and there just seems that the effort put in yields a more thoughtful insight to me -
also its easy to get distracted and unfocused and there is too much , as they say, 'cherry picking' and i dont get the same holistic experience-

the internet to me is a source of information- like an encyclopedia- not so much a source of enlightenment-

o i just looked at your link- i remeber doing that for years as a young christian- the exact same thing- except that i was a believer at the time- i spent my late teens reading the bible in that manner- yes hes a funny guy.

however i dont read the quran with the intention of mocking it or making a living from selling articles-
as ive said repeatedly- it is all in the intention-

Miriam,

As a Muslim, I should hope I know the Qur'an:)

Info from Wikipedia is good for 101 on anything. Its content is posted by members of the public (can be anyone - scholar, informed reader) and can be edited too.

Thanks for the link on the Qur'an blogging, but there are already numerous Muslim websites on the Quran in Arabic, Turkish, Urdu, Iranian, Bangladeshi, Bahasa Indonesia, Malay. The sites also offers fatwas (religious/legal opinions) on matters raised by bloggers. It is really a lot of fun there already for when readers dispute and argued against the reasoning or rationale arrived at on the fatwas by the ulema/experts and among themselves:)

We really don't want to go into the scholarship of, say, the Bible. We may be prejudging it based on the Islamic notions that God did not create man in its image, God has no son, there is no original sin, there is concept of the Trinity etc.

Better for Christians themselves to do their own study of the Bible and for the likes of JD Crossan to go into it. The study of the Qur'an and Hadiths is already occupying us full time in the practical applications of the principles of Islam in our daily lives.

Best regards

Nobody called Puin the "foremost authority on Arabic or the Quran". He is, according to Wikipedia, "the world's foremost authority on Qur'anic paleography, the study and scholarly interpretation of ancient manuscripts." How can you be so sure that he can never know Arabic as well as Arabic scholars? Why couldn't a native Arabic speaker know as much about the ancient languages that the OT and NT are written in as a native English speaker? And besides sometimes it takes an outsider to see things and say things that no insider is willing to see and say, either because they are afraid or because of peer pressure. And is it possible that 1/5 of the Koran is unintelligible even to an Arabic speaker? Maybe that is something to investigate whether that is true or not, instead of just assuming that because a non-Muslim says it or no one ever told you that before, it cannot be true.

In any case, since Jihadist and Victoria seem to know so much about the Koran, I invite you two to blog the Koran as in "blogging the Bible". It might be a whole lot of fun:
http://www.slate.com/id/2141050/

Miriam:)

Miriam, I am never a scholar of English. It is only one of four other foreign languages I learned besides my mother tongue. Can't you tell from the many grammatical and spelling mistakes?

Who decides and calls Mr Gerd Puin as the world's foremost authority on Arabic and the Qur'an? Cerntainly not Arab scholars themselves. Must be other western scholars who don't know Arabic as well as Puin, and Puin who can never know Arabic as well as Arab scholars. In his works, he quoted extensively from Arab sources himself - selectively to support his premise or course.

Best regards

which again (in the interest of scholarly and intellectual objectivity) is why i am careful to always and ONLY post links or copy the opinions of people who speak for themselves-
hindus speak for hindus-etc...

ok peace

Sorry miriam- it kind of goes without saying that such practices are accompanied by study of the meaning also- of course mindless memorization would have no value as far as that goes-

but there is a 1400 year scholarship of the quran and hadeeth called tafseer- so to ignore this voluminous body of work in favor of a non-muslim scholar seems intellectually imbalanced-

there is also an issue of intention- which is the most basic-

i have read many differing translations ofthe bible- and translators note- and i dont recall seeing alot of translators who claimed to be atheists- most were of the faith- there are ususally generous translator notes in the appendixes of modern bibles-

the steady influx of turkish muslims into germany in the pasy century has created a strong anit-muslim sentiment- so one might question (and reasonably so- as scholarship should be impartial and objective) the motives behind undertaking such a project to begin with-

this is not at all an unreasonable request and is one that many exegetes and scholars must answer-

by that token- one could argue that muslim tafseer exegetes are not impartial- but they are not attemting to deconstruct or destroy the validity of the work they comment on-

when the end result is to discredit- the responsibility lies heavily on the shoulders of the discreditor to prove the scholarly objectivity-

so - negative exegete 1
positive exegetes 1000s

having said all this exactly what is your intention?

is it to publicly dsicredit the quran based on the work of ne scholars opinion?
by even the lowest of intelllectual standards- that does not proof make-

Memorizing and reciting the Koran has nothing to with understanding what it actually says.

I see no reason to exempt the Koran from the same modern linguistic and archaeological tools of scholarship with which scholars have examined the OT and NT, and countless other historical documents.The OT and NT have been gone over with a fine tooth comb with such tools, and many practitioners of Judaism and Christianity have found that intellectual exegesis has enriched their lives.

respectfully miriam there are thousands of muslims who become hafiz (memorize the entire quran by heart) at a very ealry age and untold arabic scholars raised in the rectiation and reading of the classical arabic written in the quran-
also as with any holy book- the state of the heart condition is of utmost importance-
and in all honesty- i truly DO beleive that ALLAH can put inspiration and insight into ones heart and mind and enlighten their interpertation and expertise in the matter- there are more criteria to be considered than intellectual exegesis-

jihadist wasnt equating her scholarship with mr or ms puin- she was making an analogy about the subtleties and nuances that persons not born speaking a language do nto have experience with incorporating into their scholarship-

i dont ve tink mr or ms puin would disagree with that from a purely scientific viewpoint-

it all comes down in the end to intent-

from my perspective - if your intent is to convince me that the quran is not a valid document- you will not succeed- period.

if your intent is to discredit the quran or diminish its validity - that is a destructive intent to me and i will counter what i consider unnecessary slander against it-

Jihadist - Gerd Puin is "the world's foremost authority on Qur'anic paleography, the study and scholarly interpretation of ancient manuscripts." So he might not be a native Arabic speaker, but unless you are the world's foremost authority on old English, and have spent the last 30 years of your life devoted to its study, you can't compare your knowledge of old English with his knowledge of Arabic, because ancient Arabic is his specialised area of study.

HUMANIST,

Well said, as always in all your posts.

MIRIAM,

Thanks for the link, but Muslims know that already, and are still having disources and interpretations on the Qur'an as I've said earlier.

I can understand the Qur'an not being intelligible to a contemporary German who is not a native speaker of Arabic, having learned it as a second or third language and one he may not internalize fully of the nuances.

For example, as a non-native speaker/user of English, I do have difficulties in comprehending fully medieval English and contemporary English. E.g. I have to hear, "a slim chance" and "fat chance" actually spoken by an American for the tone and context used to know what both exactly means.

The Qur'an is in classical Arabic, one which contemporary Arabs do not write and speak in. Even they have difficulties with classical Arabic as a contemporary Englishman would have with medieval English if they don't study it.

The German language is unitelligible to me too. You have to wait till the end of a whole sentence or whole paragraph before you can get what the Germans are saying. All the verbs are at the back.

And Miriam, there is Islamophobia and there are Islamophobes even here in On Faith threads.

Surely you know about Muslims being harassed or avoided for wearing beards, skullcaps, hijab etc. Surely you have read about mosques and Muslim homes being hurled with pork and painted with slurs. Surely you would see that in Concerned the Christian Now Liberated's call for us Muslims to stay out of his neighbourhood, to build walls in the On Faith thread. I can go on, and I do recognize anti-Jew, anti-blacks, anti-Mongoloid slurs.

And Miriam, when I want to know about Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism, I always read what is written by Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu scholars themselves. They have a feel for it that no scholars outside their faiths have.

Best regards.

Here is an article about Islamic German scholar,Gerd Puin, who has said that 1/5 of the Koran is unintelligible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_R._Puin

The entire article about the Koran from which his quote is taken is:
http://cremesti.com/amalid/Islam/
Yemeni_Ancient_Koranic_Texts.htm

Bringing the discussion (more) back to the article.
It seems to be as though the fundamental issue in play here is the use of the definite article "the". To proscribe actions or beliefs to "the Jews," "the Muslims,", "the Christians", "the Israelis," "the Palestinians", etc. is very problematic. These groups do not believe or do anything. Rather *members* of these groups may have shared beliefs and *individuals* take actions. These beliefs and actions may be facilitated by an organization i.e. a Church, Hamas, IDF, Peace Now!, ISM. They also could be driven in part by economic, political and cultural forces. But they are not a defined characteristic of one's ethnic or religious identity.

I believe that it is important to acknowledge everyone's humanity first and foremost. It is not morally acceptable to use the actions of certain Israelis as a justification for attacking and killing other Israelis or Jews on the part of groups such as Hamas. A wrong against you and your family cannot be righted by slighting another.

Likewise, the actions of Hezbollah in kidnapping and killing Israeli soldiers, while morally repugnant, is not a justification for killing innocent civilians, the vast majority of whom had nothing to do with the political and military decisions of Hezbollah.

This is especially true when it comes to children who do not chose what ethnic identity or religious background they identify with. This makes actions, such as blowing up a school bus in Tel Aviv, or deliberately saturating Southern Lebanon with cluster bombs after a ceasefire had been agreed to, whose unexploded bomblets vastly disproportionately kill children.

There is also the issue that is often raised of "moral equivalence." As I see it, the issue is not so much with the "intention," but rather with the ability to recognize each others basic humanity. The suicide bomber who deliberately kills innocents to make a political statement is not acknowledging his victims humanity and neither is someone who plans and uses a one ton bomb to kill one person, a political action, in an crowded apartment building which undoubtedly results in the death of innocents. They are both repugnant affronts to the concept of a shared humanity.

I was referring (in regards to islamophobia) to an article that miriam has been pushing no matter how inapplicable to the topic-

heres a review of said article by a muslim website-
it iwll explain what may have seemed like an overkill reaction- miriam and i have discussed this in depth-

The discursive assault on Islam in the last 30 years has been so virulent and consistent that its hostility and venom that it can only be compared to the actual hatred of Islam that prompted the Crusades. Yet, by the grace of Allah, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S., Canada, in Europe, in Asia, Australia and Africa. This phenomenalglobal growth of Islam, through conversions not migration, is indicative of two important facts, that Muslims should draw reassurance from:

1. One that Islam grows through an exchange of faith and ideas and not through the sword as many non-Muslim, secular, and Marxist historians imply.

2. Two, anti-Islamic propaganda does little to stem the Islamic tide, on the contrary it seems to invite more interests and conversions.

Not many of the readers of the Atlantic monthly are going to be Muslims with weak faith who will simply discard their faith based on this article.

feb 25th 5:14 pm is the first reference to this article- when it occurred a second time i had to respond

heres the link-

http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.html
following the link takes you to possibly the most hateful anti-muslim site ive ever seen
http://derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/

salaams it is what it is-

i just wanted to nip the hatefest in the bud

Miriam,

Muslim scholars and ulema have know it all along that there are Suras in the Qur'an they don't interpret well due to the peculiarities of written Arabic. Even the interpretion of the so-called virgins in heaven is disputed.

Not Islamophobic to say so, but those who said so in On Faith threads are just being jingoistic about it to prove their beliefs is more valid and true, especially the Catholics and the evangelicals. No real western scholars of religions do that.

Those who said so here are only just discovering Islam through their Islamic/Middle East studies or their own private initiatives to do so, from books from the Internet. Theological schools studied other religions not to understand them for what they are, but for purposes of evangelism. Getting more adherents for one's own church is a very competitive business now.

It is common knowledge that the more adherents a denomination has, the more money the church has from contributors. I see it from the West Indies to Africa to the Pacific Island states. Mormons did well in the Pacific island states as their school and church fees are among the lowest. In Fiji, with less than 500,000 Christians, there are over 50 Christian denominations fighting for adherents. It's a very competitive world out there in the marketplace of beliefs and faiths.

For me telling Christians that the Bible (OT or NT) may be overly edited and revised text when Christians know better of their faith would be uncalled for and pure disrespect and condescension of the believers. Christians knows better on their beliefs and better for them to deliberate and discuss on them.

We are busy discussing on sukuk, Shariah laws, human rights in Islam, women's rights in Islam terrorism etc. The issue for Muslims is not who was Prophet Muhammad PBUH, but as to how text of the Qur'anw is interpreted and possibly abused, and applying the core principles of Islam for justice, community peace social equity and individual dignity. A lot of work to be done there still considering many Muslims still do not have access to education, health and jobs.

The understanding and interpretation of the Qur'an is the continuing quest for Muslim scholars and ulema. I never understood the Sura on the Clatterer - what is the Clatterer? until I read the On Faith threads. Now I get a sense of what God is trying to tell us with that Sura. We are all clatterers here, but I could be wrong in my interpretation and understanding of that Sura:)

God is Allmighty and Allknowing. Beyond man to fully grasp God with our limited intellect and knowledge thus far, or to fully comprehend the power of God and creation. We have not ever wandered out of the Solar System, such is the limits of man and yet arrogant to assume he knows everything once he knows the world is round and every corner of the world. And yet, we still come across new plant and animal species we've never know before. Such is the wonder and mystery of God to perpetually challenge us that we do not know everything after all.

no miriam but it is islamophobic to make the same repeated comments no matter how little they have to do with the subject on every issue-

no matter what the topic you seguey into this same issue like concerned does-

and again and again it hijacks te conversation and ends reasonable dialogue

Crossan has written an article for today's On Faith. BTW, the scholars of the Jesus seminar are all well-respected scholars in the field of Christian studies. Go look at their credentials in terms of university affiliation and books written etc.

Also, I don't consider it Islamophobic for a scholar of Islam to point out that 1/5 of the Koran is ununderstandable even to Arabic speakers. But that fact does call into question whether the Koran is actually divine revelation. Why would God dictate a text that is 1/5 gobbleygook? Out of divine humor?

no the links dont work greg-

so we have concerned with his tired pushing of crossan-
and miriam withe her tired pushing of that atlantic article which when you follow the links goes to an islamophobic website-

can either of you answer any question as it is stated?
why do you both always have the sae answer for every question?

develop an answer to the actual issue- can you be critical of israle without being silenced with cries of anti-semitis?

it seems clear that it is not possible- any criticism no matter how valid- how substantiated- even when the whole world gets together and questions what israel is doing is deflected with cries of anti-semitism-

after 50 years these cries are seen for what they are-
an artless attempt to distract any further dialogue-

much like the tactics of iberated and miriam-

ps the links dont work -

Greg - you can google JD Crossan and find a lot of information. He is part of the Jesus seminar, a group of scholars of Christianity, who have tried, given the latest archaeological and linguistic evidence, to separate fact from fiction in the NT. I, for one, would like to see a group of scholars do the same thing for the Koran. There are scholars who are doing this, some of them Muslims themselves, some of them European scholars of Islamic studies. A lot of what they do has to be done quietly and secretly because of its potentially explosive political nature. Toby Lester, a writer for the Atlantic magazine, did an article in 1999 in the Atlantic, on these scholars, and what they have found out about the origins of the Koran. I think it is called: What is the Koran? One of the things that the article says is that 1/5 of the Koran is unintelligible even for Arabic speakers.

except the links don't work...

To crossanize the koran would be blasphemous to Jesus, may God's peace and blessings be upon him.

Greg,

You asked, "Does JD Crossan have any agenda with his book"? His only agenda with the referenced book and his other 20 plus books is to seek the truth about what actually happened in the first century Palestine.

For a list of his sources used to prepare The Historical Jesus, see http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf. For a list of his NT conclusions, see http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf.

Hopefully someday, he will "Crossanize" the Koran with the same vigilance that he used to "Crossanize" the NT.

Ah yes back to attack mode... Does Mr Crossan have any sort of agenda with his book?

Greg,

It is is the normal, illogical citation i.e. the Bible is true because it says it is. See JD Crossan's analyses of the NT in his book The Historical Jesus.

You and I are going to disagree on the bible then. And Conservative Jews are conservative in name only. Get back to me when the Orthodox Jews believe the same and the conservative ones. I've already posted twice on the New Testament and it's accuracy and I'm too tired to find the link for a third time.

Greg,

Greg,

I distrust the literal interpretation of anything in the OT, NT and Koran. I repeat:

And what has history, scriptural text reviews and archeology taught us about these religions?

1. Abraham is the reported founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Based on all we know now, Abraham was at best a combination of three separate individuals with 1.5 million Conservative Jews no longer believing he existed at all. (ditto for all the characters in the OT).
references: National Georgraphic review on Abraham and http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0401torah.asp

2. The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate. i.e. neither one proof read or approved the NT or the Koran so we are taking the word of scribes and embellishers with their own agendas.
references: NT exegetes from the last two hundred years, Karen Armstrong's reviews of Islam and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Christianity is based Jesus gossip, on the whim of Pilate, the false prophecy of the imminent second coming, and the sword of Constantine.
references: NT exegetes and their conclusions/books from the last two hundred years

Conclusion: The Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions are based on gossip and hearsay. Taking anything literal in their "good" books can cause significant suffering.

Victoria,

Again and again you find fault with everything except the Koran and its militaristic and demeaning passages. Will your husband beat you if you find fault with these passages? If you lived in an Islamic country not only would you be beat, you could end up in jail. Doesn't this bother you?

Sure you are against terrorism. What you are not against since you cannot ever say it, is the militaristic and demeaning passages of the Koran. Simply say "Yes, I renounce and condemn the militaristic and demeaning statements of the Koran. " Without that Yes, you support Islamic terror against nonbelievers and women.

Concerned,
Nice try but I'm not buying that one. I've read most of their posts since I started here and again have never heard them support terrorism and have renounced it in no uncertain terms. Action as they say is worth a thousand words.

Islam is like any other system of faith, people can and do twist something good into something evil. Chrstianty has it's own history of people in power who took something good and pure and perverted it into something that it's not. Where in the Bible did it say it was OK to force people to convert with torture or to burn them at the stake? You can cherry pick the bible and make it say things it does not if you read it in context, what makes you think the Quaran of Torah is any different? I've read the Bible many times and never found those passages, of course my Bibles don't have the Book of Second Opinions in them either, so maybe I'm missing something.

What is clear is your total distrust of anything Islamic in nature. Rmember to seperate the faith from the religion because all too often they are two different things.

LIBERATED you are pretty entrenched arent you-

do you see the two previous links?

go and read them-

THEY ARE CONDEMNATIONS OF TERRORISM IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS-

ALSO- ON THE MAIN BOARD IVE POSTED ALL QURAN AND NOTHING BUT QURAN-

in relation to renunciation of terrorism and exegesis on possibly the nebulous and unidentified verses of the quran-

you are becoming increasingly strange in your demands- especially since you are being specifically and repeatedly directed to answers-

i am flattered that you have such a high opinion of me that my denunciation of terorism matters so to you-

i am more suspicious that you just like to get attention-

i am never going to be mean to you lib- no matter how compulsive your demands-

perhaps you are my own personal little test of patience-

now GO READ THOSE LINKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Greg,

By not renouncing and condemning the militaristic and demeaning passages of the Koran, Victoria supports terrorism since it is these passages that mullahs use to convince suicide bombers to blow up infidels or Sunni car bombers to blow up Shiites or vice versa depending on what Mohammed offspring they happen to support. Until these passages and actions are deleted, Islam will continue to be a sham.

Concerned,
I've not seen once where Jihadist or Victoria have condoned terrorism, maybe you should go ask OBL and his ilk to renouce their ways. They are the ones perverting Islam to fit their ends and if you now fear all Muslims then OBL wins. No religion is perfect because people are imperfect, or as my pastor is fond of saying. "It's about relationship not religion!"

LIBERATED- I ALREADY DID- LOOK AT THE LINKS POSTED-

NOW I KNOW YOU NEVER LOOK AT MY LINKS

Victoria,

You should join your fellow Islamic brothers and sisters in denouncing terror by renouncing and condemning the militaristic and demeaning passages of the Koran which is the source of the terror.

GREG-some more terrorist denunciation by muslims

http://www.cair.com/html/911statements.html

GREG i hope this links-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3027558843506779651

Greg,

It seems like a nice, conciliatory gesture on the part of the Israeli government. I do find it rather distasteful that the seal of the Jordanian monarchy is going to be on the minaret, but I suppose it is not uncommon for benefactors to want to be recognized.

The implications of allowing Muslims to build on the Temple Mount (especially after an application to build a synagoge on the mount was disallowed, what, a year ago) will not go unnoticed, and should go a long way to allaying Muslim fears that if Israel consolidates its power over Jeruselem Muslims will be shut out of one of the holy sites of Islam. In the long run, it may well turn to Israel's advantage in the battle to make Jersulem a wholly Jewish city, and the capitol of Israel.

As for the Arab countries responsibility for the Palestinians. I have a lot of mixed feelings. On the one hand, I can sympathize with their feeling that taking the Palestinians in and letting them assimilate into their lands would be accepting something they did not want to accept -- that is, that Israel had succeeded in taking over that land. And also that by taking these people in, they would actually be facilitating Israel, because no longer would it be a problem that Israelis had displaced them.

Further I can understand that it really wasn't their problem. They weren't the ones who displaced the Palestinians. It was/is Israel's job to take care of these people they displaced.

I mean, can you imagine if the US in the late 1880s had decided that Canada should take care of the Native Americans that we displaced just because Canada has its own Native Canadian population which includes some of the same tribes? Or if Canada decided to kick out all the francophones and send them back to France, telling them that they spoke the same language, had the same bloodlines, etc. Or even more, decided to send them to Spain, because Spanish is pretty close to French, and they're all Europeans. We tend to think of Arabs as a unified group, but there are significant cultural differences between the various Arab countries as well as different variations on spoken Arabic.

At the same time, any humane person should try to alleviate human suffering. The Arab countries' adherence to principle has certainly perpetuated a lot of misery and suffering. At some level, you have to think, there must have been another way to pursue their ends without allowing such privation to continue. Certainly they could have claimed the moral high ground.

Pamela,

With respect to "divine revelation" I reiterate a very important observation made by Mommadona about your illiterate founder followed by a note of my own:

"After reading the Quran for the first time, I had this bizarre vision....
I saw Muhammed sitting in a room, whispering these words to another man, "I need a drink of water". Then THAT man whispered words to the next person...and so on and so on....out the door, down the street, up the hill.....
the person sitting on top of the hill was scribbling furiously. He jumps up and yells:
"ALLAH NEEDS TO DRINK THE OCEAN FOR US TO SURVIVE!"
It's an old game, called "Gossip".

POSTED FEBRUARY 20, 2007 5:02 PM
CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:
Mommadona,

"Priceless!!!

You could actually say the same thing about Jesus since he was also illiterate. It gives added credence to JD Crossan's conclusions that the NT passages are over 60% embellished. "

Conclusions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam were founded on the gossip and hearsay of the ancients!!!!

Pamela,
Thanks for your responses on this forum. I've seen a few times here where people are asserting that Muslims are standing up and denouncing terrorist acts. Finally it's nice to hear that. I wish that the news would start reporting it. But I guess that Anna Nicole Smith is more important...

Do you have an opinion on the construction of the new Minaret that is getting built on the temple of the mount grounds? How many does that make 4? 5? From afar it looks like a slap at the Jewish faith even though the PM of Israel is allowing the construction.

And how much responsibility does the Arab League hold for the plight of the Palestinians? I've heard conflicting reports and don't know what to believe...

Pam,

We can ostracize Iran from the global community as a start. Ditto for Israel until it honors UN Resolution 181.

Concerned/Liberated wrote: In the age of atomic weapons, we do not have time to wait for Muslims to renounce their militaristic ways.

What other choice do you have? Especially if you renounce militaristic ways?

Miriam, I would disagree about what it means to believe that a book is Divine Revelation. Historically, Muslims have accepted that certain sections of the Qur'an abrogate other sections, that certain parts apply to specific situations in the Prophet's community, and so on. The Qur'an itself tells us that some of its verses are allegorical and others are not. Given that, I think there is much more leeway in interpreting and implementing a text that one understands as Divine revelation.

Yes, I am going to defend my religion from bigoted attacks that distort the meaning of the text. No, I'm not going to defend every interpretation of the Qur'an, and very clearly said that Muslims can be and have been guilty of distorting the text as well.

thank you for advice on the path to spiritualmaturity liberated- your interest in the welfare of my soul is indeed overwhelming.

but i have no idea what it is you mean- how can i denounce what hasnt been defined?
i will invite you to examine the quran yourself and when you find it- let me know-
but please- imnot interested in one passage taken out of context-

i willnot denounce anything i the quran lib so give it up-

miriam- you seem to have taken as fact that one article you posted and woven it into your opinions about the quran-

and id say that no jews use the ot as a base- they use the torah- the mishnah- the talmud- and further developing commentaries-

as requested countless times miriam-

can we politley agree to disagree?

you to your beliefs and me to mine?

thinking that the quran takes precedence over concern for the human condition is not true-

so its not necessary for pam or myself to change our religion-

i believe the subject was if criticism of israel can be made without being anti-semitic.

peace

Victoria,

Do really know how to say "I renounce and condemn the militaristic and demeaning passages of the Koran"? Simply say Yes and you will finally reach religious maturity.

The problem is, Pamela, that most Jews, except a small number of fundamentalist Jews, don't think of the OT as divine revelation. They understand that it was written for people living a long time ago, that it was written by many different people over a long period of time, that it was a collection of sacred myths that had been handed down among a particular group of people over probably several thousand years. This gives modern Jews the opportunity to pick from the OT what is helpful, and forget the rest. But all Muslims regard the Koran as divine revelation. Once a written document, one fifth of which is ununderstandable even by an Arabic speaker, and which, according to much modern scholarship was put together over several hundred years and has a lot in common with myths circulating from that period, once that written document is regarded as divine revelation rather than a historical document put together by human beings, then we are dealing with fundamentalism. And you, Pamela, will spend the rest of your life, defending and explaining the meaning of certain verses, instead of getting to the root of the problem, and that is, that you hold on to the Koran and its, reciter, Muhammed, as somehow more than or beyond the human condition. If you want to do that, that is your business, and there is no point in any of us non-believers talking to you, because the fact is we do not believe that the Koran is divine revelation, in fact, we do not believe there is such a thing as divine revelation. Words of wisdom and good cheer, yes, divine revelation, no. I could be having the same conversation with a fundamentalist Jew or Christian.

sorry pam- the remark was on mr patels page-

here is the response that garnered my response-

Victoria,
Regarding segregation...
"its a matter of modesty ask any muslim woman..."

I wonder if Pamela Taylor would agree with you. She is a Muslim woman. Wonder how she feels about segregation of Muslim women from Muslim men at prayers -- "this leaves our posteriors ina vulnerable and potentially embarrassing position."

You should not assume that what you believe is what all Muslim women believe.... Perhaps you should speak only for yourself.

Posted February 23, 2007 7:13

i responded-

e point wasnt how we FEEL about the issue- but WHY it is so-

i cant imagine how ms taylor would disagree with that as its a matter of practice-

i put my own anecdotal feelings in to give it a personal perspective for anonymous-

not as a criteria for all of womankind-

and again- im sure she would respect the views of her sister as well as i respect her views as my sister- and all of my sisters- the ones who have prayed that way all their life and its al they know- and the ones who stick their necks out to effect change-

and then made a public apology if i missopke for muslimahs-

just so you wouldnt wonder what i was referring to-

salaams

well i guess since jihadist is gone its my turn to get liberateds attention again- welcome back liberated-

pamela- thank you- i assume you read my comments before and i hope i wasnt presumptive to assume youd respect anothers choice on how they perform their worship- of course theres nothing better than some gentle educationcand i tip my hijab to you.

salaams

hee hee so you think im funny liberated?

or at least trying? thats the nicest thing youve ever said to me-

Victoria,

Trying to be funny is simply more Islamic "wishy-wash". Renounce and condemn the militaristic and demeaning passages of the Koran.

Pamela,

You noted: "I have every confidence that as much as Jews and Christians have repudiated old opinions that now seem barbaric, so too Muslims will. "

In the age of atomic weapons, we do not have time to wait for Muslims to renounce their militaristic ways. The 24/7 butchering of Sunnis by Shiites and vice versa is contained but the idiocy could go global at anytime. We cannot afford to wait for Muslims and their mullahs to change their ways.

Harold,

You've got a mish-mash of century old commentary, modern (mal)practice, isolated quotes from the Qur'an taken out of context.

Rather than try to deal with each issue you raise (some of which I imagine will fit in with future On Faith topics a bit better than the one at hand), I'd like to address some issues in methodology.

1) century old commentary. I can pull up hair-raising commentary from the Mishnah, from Catholic priests (say during the Inquisition(, from Protestants (maybe during the puritan era, the Salem witch trials...) which rival anything you've brought up. Christians and Jews have moved beyond those commentaries. Islam is a bit behind, but I have every confidence that as much as Jews and Christians have repudiated old opinions that now seem barbaric, so too Muslims will.

2) Modern (mal)practice. Ditto with the above. Perhaps most important, none of the modern malpractices in Muslim lands are going unchallenged. Human rights groups exist (at much personal risk to their members) in every Muslim country. As does vocal opposition to misogynist, racist, oppressive, laws and to the concept of monarchy. And, it is important to note, this is from Muslim themselves, Muslims who are inspired by their understanding of Islam as a religion of justice and peace.

3) Citing isolated passages from the Qur'an, out of context. Again, this is something we can do with any religion.

Imagine if we just took Jesus's statement "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Sounds pretty warlike to me. You have to look at the whole tradition to get a realistic picture of Jesus's teaching. Christians have obviously understood this at times (like during the Crusades) to be taken quite literally. Nowadays, most Christians would either ignore it or explain that it is an allegory, not a command for followers to implement in their daily lives. Or perhaps they would say that it is outweighed by other sayings, such as "But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,"

So too for the Qur'an. For instance the infamous vierse about slaying infidels where ever you find them. The entire passage reads:

2:190 AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors.

2:191 And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away - for oppression is even worse than killing. And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first; but if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth.

2:192 But if they desist-behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

2:193 Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and worship is for God. But if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [wilfully] do wrong

So... yes, one isolated snippet of verse does say slay them wherever you find them, but the entire text makes it clear - you are to fight only those who are fighting you, the principle of pre-emptive war is rejected, if they stop fighting, then you are to stop fighting. It not a blanket, kill everyone who's not Muslim as some folks would like to paint it. Nor it is kill everyone till they become Muslim... yes there is a paart which suggests that, immediately followed by the injunction that if they stop fighting, then Muslims too must stop fighting. Isolating a small snippet clearly distorts the meaning of it.

Further, this whole passage is supplanted by other verses which came after it.

5:3 (...) Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion. As for him, however, who is driven by dire necessity and not by an inclination to sinning - behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

5:4 They will ask thee as to what is lawful to them. Say: "Lawful to you are all the good things of life." And as for those hunting animals which you train by imparting to them something of the knowledge that God has imparted to yourselves-eat of what they seize for you, but mention God's name over it. and remain conscious of God: verily, God is swift in reckoning.

5:5 Today, all the good things of life have been made lawful to you. And the food of those who have been given revelation aforetime is lawful to you, and your food is lawful to them. And [lawful to you are], women from among those who believe [in the Qur'an], and, in wedlock, women from among those who have been vouchsafed revelation before your time - provided that you give them their dowers, taking them in honest wedlock, not in fornication, nor as secret love-companions.

The verses about warfare clearly no longer apply. The time of fighting, clearly, had ended. When the fighting ceased, had every Arab become a Muslim? No. Were they required to become Muslims? No. Rather we were told they were like brothers -- people we could marry and share food with.

Have some Muslims been guilty of taking these verses out of context, absolutely. And Muslims must deal with this. We must say, no, this is a bastardization of our Holy Book (and we *have* said this and we continue to say this). But for people to suggest that those snippets represent the real meaning of Islam is to be as abuse of the text as those Muslims who use them to justify their political aims.

4)Problematical verses. There are problematical verses in the Qur'an. No doubt.

Again, the same could be said for pretty much any book. "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," is not much better than cut the hand of the thief. The story of Dinah, where her brothers massacred all the male members of her new husband's tribe because they did not approve of the liaison, is pretty horrific.

But just as modern Jews would blanche at the thought of massacring half a tribe because a Jewish woman fell in love with and married a non-Jew, nor do they apply "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," literally, so too verses in the Qur'an do not have to be taken literally, or may be seen as relating to a specific time, but no longer applicable.

To suggest otherwise, is nothing short of biogtry.

hi liberated- jihadist isnt available right now but if you leave a message at the beep she will get back to you as soon as possible-

beeeep

now what? liberated you were being so reasonable there for awhile- have you gotten bored already?

Victoria and Jihadist (aka Crusader),

And the Islamic "wishy wash" continues. First things first!!! Renounce and condemn the militaristic and demeaning passages of the Koran then what you say might have some meaning.

well ill miss you and your shenanigans miss hanumaniac- i know your re-entrance will be timely as always- (usually when i let myself get grouchy you swoop in with a good barb)

Hi again Pam! glad to see you here-
Well- there are a variety of internet sources- many of them downright perverse. faithfreedom - jihadwatch- daniel pipes and bin warraq are particularly noxious and hateful-
there are also many many sites with islam in the name- answering islam- the religion of peace- islam review- all run by christian groups-

very often when i google an islamic term- i have to go to the second or third page to come to a site run by muslims- sometimes i have to read a bit to realize that it is an anit-muslim site-

take harolds post- there is so very much misinformation that almost every line contains some fallacy or misinterpertation- to refute it would take a paragraph or two for each line and wouldnt change his mind anyway- sometimes i respond just so other people understand that they are not representing islam at all-

the long abused text is 4:34 i the quran-

"Men are (meant to be righteous and kind) guardians of women because God has favored some more than others and because they (i.e. men) spend out of their wealth. (In their turn) righteous women are (meant to be) devoted and to guard what God has (willed to be) guarded even though out of sight (of the husband). As for those (women) on whose part you fear ill-will and nasty conduct, admonish them (first), (next) separate them in beds (and last) beat them.

well- this english translation is the same as most- but when you come to the term "beat them" doesnt the gorge of disgust rise within you?

it certainly does with me! what kind of horrific and abusive god would make such a repulsive claim?

well, not ALLAH- the arabic word actually means to remove yourself from their presence or separate yourself for a time- and the ill will or nasty conduct isnt "disobeying" a power wielding husband as a child cowering before an anry parent- but a woman who deliberately and repeatedly disobeys one of ALLAHs laws- it would take a few pages to deconstruct but its a favorite of critics-

so not only is it misinterperted- it is interperted in a literal fundamentalist way- that evangelicals use to interpert their own scripture-

usually you will see one line blown up without any other text around it- ive seen many many sites that expound endlessly even on one word- but people have their own agendas-

this is one tiny example- so yes- many who have no familiarity with islam except fox news go on to become experts on specific lines ofthe wuran having never read any of it-

then there are ex-muslis who have agendas one can only guess at-
then there are christian rights writing under muslim sounding names (we have a few here)

so yes- there are many people who spend all of their excessive and compulsive energies debunking and defaming islam-

what a way to spend your time, huh?

arabic is an incredibly rich and nuanced language- for example the verb "daraba" translated as "to beat' has 10 different forms (as ive been told- i beg forgiveness if i am giving information that is incorrect) and within the muslim community over history youll have misogynist patriarchal mentalities interperting verse to justify any array of questionable or downright unjustifiable actions-

that is why pamela taylor is such a reasonable voice- now women have the power financial and societal to decide for themselves the meanings (as in all of western society- a woman couldnt own property in the west until the beginning of the 20th century)

you know as old bob says the times they are achanging-

peace pam i hope i started to address some of the questions you had with my limited scholarship and i am still learning-

Pam Meloy:

You said -"I know very little about the Christian bible but realize that there are many things in that text that is misinterpreted or shall we say is there but not actually practiced. Is it the same with the Koran? Do these things actually appear in it but are not practiced by most Muslims?"

Well, I will give you the perspective of a Muslim living outside the US.

Turkey and Central Asian Muslim states do not force women to put on hijab or to wear scarves. Neither in Indonesia or Malaysia. Likewise for Turkey and Tunisia. Ingrid Mattson, Pamela Taylor wear scarves. I don't. Modesty in dressing is the main point. You don't want your tits to be hanging out at work or in a business meeting.

Like all adherents of other faiths, Muslims may or may not comply with what is required in the Qur'an and Sunnah. It is still a matter of interpretation by ulema of the Muslim countries. It differs from Muslim state to Muslim state. For example, a Muslim may remind another Muslim who don't fast during Ramadan to fast. If the recalcitrant Muslim still don't fast, he is left alone be to be accountable for it to God.

Muslim governments are increasingly only applying Shariah laws only to matters of marraiges, divorces etc in what is called the Islamic Family Law. On crimes, it is charged in civil courts, including for murder, rape etc. Look up the civil court systems of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Morrocco etc. But of course, it is more fun to read about the poor, semi-educated Pakistanis or Afghans living beyond the reach of their governments in remote areas that mete out the kind of justice they know for hundreds of years.

The Muslim equivalent of the Christian inerrantists are the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Deobandi-trained Muslims in Pakistan, and the Wahhabis (or they prefered to be called as Salafists) in Saudi Arabia. They are related. Saudi government is trying to rein their influence in public life, but not at a pace hoped for. It may surprise you, but women owned half the properties in Jeddah.

Iran is a theocratic led or guided government. The Shiites are the Catholics of Islam in the sense that it has a clergy-like hierachy. Unlike the Catholic Church, the ayatollahs, equilavent of bishops, have more independence in making their own intepretations and reasoning and may differ from ayatollah to ayatollah. Iranian Shiites are free to chose which ayatollah they seek religious guidance and advise from. The ayatollahs have professional respect and do not denigrate the opinions of another ayatollah, but to give his own opinion.

They have no quivalent of a Papal Bull. Even when Ayatollah Khomeini was alive, his fatwa against Salman Rushdie was dissented by other senior ayatollahs. The closest secular equivalent I can think of is the Supreme Court justices. They develop a consensus, but does not precludes further alternate views or other opinions.

Are all Muslims following the Qur'an and Sunnah to the letter? Never in its history. Is there one Islamic standard Islamic practice. No. A Sunni Muslim would be puzzled by some Shiite practices in prayers and the Ashura. An Indonesian Muslim would also be puzzled by the Muslims in Morroco making visits to the tombs of a "holy" person for prayers and favours, like a Catholic making visits to specific sites associated with saints.

Muslims have been interpreting the Qur'an again and again since the Prophet died. They continue to do so now, and will in the future. It is a living, dynamic faith that move millions towards God and for God in their everyday lives.

Victoria:)
Over to you please. This is my last post here in any On Faith threads for a while. My short leave is over

regards

Haloztel:)

It is not "riba" but "sukuk". Look it up yourself.

Oh yes. I believe the world is flat and the sun revolves around the world too.

Have fun memorizing and keeping on standby all those Hadiths and keep making new ones too:)

Women in Pakistan,Iran,Saudi etc are living under HORRIBLE RULES.What you call Horrible Laws are ISLAMIC LAWS indeed.Dear Islamic Banker,Islam forbids reeba.reeba equals interest is wrong translation.When the world was flat they used to have golden and silver coins,and then reeba could be spoken.At present time,the world is round and Money is the piece of paper not golden and silver coins.Money has no religion.Without golden coins,so called islamic banking is empty word.Hadiths.Sunni view Bukhari(810-870) as their most trusted collection.Bukhari collected over 300.000 and transmitted only 2602 that he believed to be Sahih,less then one per cent.Such as Bible of Christians.There were at least 100 gospels and 300 years after the Ascension only four of them canonized as Real Gospels.Islamic Banker,nobody knows which hadith is canonic and which one made up.Let me write a controversial hadith,Woman is Vile.

Jihadist (aka Crusader),

With your beliefs and attitudes, please stay out of my neighborhood and off public transportation.

And as a repeat about your founder, the comment by Mommadona captures it well: (with added notation)

"After reading the Quran for the first time, I had this bizarre vision....
I saw Muhammed sitting in a room, whispering these words to another man, "I need a drink of water". Then THAT man whispered words to the next person...and so on and so on....out the door, down the street, up the hill.....
the person sitting on top of the hill was scribbling furiously. He jumps up and yells:
"ALLAH NEEDS TO DRINK THE OCEAN FOR US TO SURVIVE!"
It's an old game, called "Gossip".

POSTED FEBRUARY 20, 2007 5:02 PM

"CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:
Mommadona,

Priceless!!!

You could actually say the same thing about Jesus since he was also illiterate. It gives added credence to JD Crossan's conclusions that the NT passages are over 60% embellished."

Hi Victoria,

I would very much like to know where these people get this information they type here and say it is in the Koran? Is it truly part of the Koran? Your comment was "long abused text". What does that mean?

I know very little about the Christian bible but realize that there are many things in that text that is misinterpreted or shall we say is there but not actually practiced. Is it the same with the Koran? Do these things actually appear in it but are not practiced by most Muslims?

I would appreciate your insite on this. Thanks

Harold- there is a multitude of accusations levied there- some of the information you are using i recognize form faith freedom-
if you would put one at a time your reasons for believing these things to be true- and teir source so they are easily accessed by us-
we could address them ad nauseum if you like-

going from your last statement up- you can see a post on the way women are to be treated kindly and beating a woman is repeatedly forbidden by Muhammad(pbuh) himself- its at the bottom of the page as this misuse of quran doesnt go away- by non-muslim and muslim alike.

feb 24 1:09 pm
it is the last post on the bottom of the page-

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/pamela_k_taylor/2007/02/god_made_me_do_it.html

there we go couldnt be easier

now if you arent satisfied with direct forbidding of beating women- we can go into deconstructing the long abused text that you are referring to
peace

Harold :)

Another one of the "Muslim truth squad" member now going to Phase III ?:)

I find it extraordinary that all the self proclaimed former Muslims, or those who's family are half Moslim (sic) really got into the nitty gritty of Hadiths and Shariah laws.

Most Sunni Muslims in the really don't know nor care care about the differences between the four schools of jurisrudence. It's fact. All Muslims really care about are the 5 Pillars of Islam. The rest, as debated and discussed by you here, is something that would bemuse most Muslims. We are really not into theology.

That is why I suspect all entries on the On Faith thread getting into the nitty gritty of Suras, Hadiths and Sunnahs as Christian trained theologists. And to what end?

Islam is scary is it not, to people like you. Darn, the Prophet is a pedopile, has wives and slaves, allow for husbands to beat their wives, to cut off hands of thieves, stone people for adultery, all those hundred lashes for rape, is a violent religion, kill apostates and these delusional and in denial Muslims still believe in Islam!!!!???

Let me say this here:

I will never allow any Suras in the Quran to be be banned, deleted or revised

I will never call for any Hadiths to be banned, deleted or revised

I will never cease to be a Muslim even when drawn and quartered, or burned at the stake or given the water boarding treatment at Gitmo.

As to how Islam should be and is to be, it is for me and other Muslims. In the meantime, please feel free to give your thoughts and feelings about the Prophet, the Qur'an, Hadith, Shariah laws.

Thank God for people like you memorizing
everything about Islam. We can always go back to you to remind us if all the Qur'an and Hadiths in the world are burned so there will always be Islam.

As to why I am still a Muslim after all the "proof" that there is no God, or that Islam is based on gossips, that it is mere restewing or restlying of Judaism and Christianity, Almighty God knows best. That is the beauty and mystery of God, is it not:)

Peace be with you and best regards

Pamela, I know where you are coming from, half of my family are Moslim - but you take the specific case of rape and deal with it as though it were the bulk of Sharia law. Even so, you invoke the Prophet's decision 1300 years ago to show that the current "take" on these laws violates the spirit of Islam.
We no longer have a prophet to judge, we must go by the Q'uran and Hadith and the opinions of the Umma, the greater Moslim community to decide what it right. The greater Mulim community is generally uneducated, "third world" peoples with tribal mindsets - does their opinion count for more than yours? Yes, because it is the will of the Umma that must prevail in Islam. These are people who know little of anything but Koran which many millions can recite without understanding a word of it). By these standards and the tribal practices of many Islamic peoples a woman who is raped is somehow guilty of fornication and must be dealt with as a harlot and a shame to her family while she lives (which should not be too long).

But what of the other laws? What of the division of the world in Dar al Islam (The House of Islam) and Dar al Harb (the House of War). What about the injunction to fight all non-Muslim and make them subordinate (if people of the book, Jews and Christian) or kill them outright (if not "People of the Book")if they don't convert? What about the injunction to jihad - and don't quote to us about the "Greater Jihad being the fight against our own weakness. We know the principle that the later Surahs of the Koran supercede and replace earlier ones. For example Surahs 5 and 9 (the order of Surahs is based merely on their length not on the time of their origin)- that Muslim men are enjoined to kill and die for the propagation of Islam and the subjugation of non-Muslims? This is not debatable.

Islam was originally promulgated in Mecca as a synthesis of Judiasm and Christianity, and as such was tolerant and forgiving - but by the time Mohammed went to Yathrib (Medina) the religion turned intolerant, especially for Jews who were massacred for supposed treachery and had their belongs confiscated. What about the poet that mocked Mohammed, and who Mohammed ordered killed? This has not changed - though muslims mock Christianity and the Jews (they don't mock Judiasm - but the Jewish people that are characterized as hooked nose seducers of everything pure and noble - the descendants of monkeys and pigs. It was that signal, the massacre of the Jews of Yathrib, that inspired people with the belief in the invincibilty of Islam. What about now, is there perhaps another signal? Oh and by the way, which Islam is it? Can you say that only the Sunni path is correct - or shall we join the Shia, and await the Mehdi, how riding a horse and carryng a sword will kill all Jews and Christians, such that blood with flow in the streets so that the belly of that horse will be soaked in blood? What an inspiring picture that is!

Also, do you believe that mutilation is the proper punishment for theft? Do you believe, as do all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence , that someone who licks his finger before turning the pages of the Koran should be punished by death? Ditto for homosexuals - it is stated explicitly that homosexuals should die and can never be forgiven? And atheists - wasn't it the fourth Imam that burned atheists alive, but that some Hadithists felt was wrong because fire belonged to God? Perhaps we could invent some better means of killing atheists.
It is Sharia law that Jews and Christians living in Moslem lands may keep their churches and synagogues - but may never build new ones or repair the ones they have. Is that wrong is that un-Islamic? No, it is a correct interpretation of Sharia law.
What about slavery - Mohammed justified this practice telling Muslims that many a slave has been brought into heaven at the end of a rope. We see this policy inforced in the Sudan - isn't that true Islam, or do you know better than the Prophet. You talk about women who are fighting for justice - but in fact are fighting the Umma, the Hadiths and the Koran itself (in this case the Koran is merciful - Mohammed tells us that we should not beat our wives with a stick thicker than our fingers) - these woman are heretics and should be killed (and many would like to do just that). I think that if you want to remake Islam then you should think about converting to another religions - but, oops, you'll be killed (or should be according to the Koran) if you do.

Miriam,

I agree with you very much when you say the pursuit of "perfect" justice can destroy us. Often, there is no such thing as "perfect" justice to begin with. And I think that Israel is very much one of those cases where justice for one may well be injustice for another (or at least injustice on some scale -- is it just to be forced to sell land you do not want to sell? No, but it may be the right thing to do anyway, much as farmers in my old stomping grounds of Indiana may not want to sell their land, but it may be the best thing over all because otherwise the state can't build a better highway which would help the economy of large swaths of the state.)

Even more so, what was just back in 1922 or 1948 may not have a whole lot of bearing on what is just now. Holding onto past greivances seems to me to be a very poor way for a people to live. Especially when those grievances date back decades and centuries. Imagine if Italy got into the fray saying, well, we ruled that area two thousand years ago, so rightfully it belongs to us! I don't have any easy way to decide when it is time to let go of a past grievance, but clearly there is a time to say, this has happened. I don't like it, it was in some ways very tragic, but I have to move forward with my life.

And in order to move forward, I think we have to recognize that there is no ideal solution, but only a series of compromises which will likely leaving everyone feeling they did not get all they deserved.

As for the Jewish character of Israel. I've already said I have issues with any state being exclusivist for one sort of person, even if that is the reason for which is was created.

My own ideal is a world in which Jews (and all other individuals) are safe everywhere. That to me ought to be the long-term goal. In that case, there would be no need for a particularly Jewish homeland in order for Jewish people to feel secure. However, I can sympathize with the desire for living with people who think and practice as you do, for a community of like minded souls. In an increasingly interconnected world, I think the possibility of surrounding oneself with like minded people is shrinking, and even if it is possible I think self-imposed ghettoization has some real problems to it (in terms of the cost for dissident voices and such), and it certainly makes the task of creating a world in which members of that isolated community are safe more difficult.

Fred,

1) Yes. I believe people of any religion should be allowed to live in any state, including Saudi Arabia. I oppose restrictions on non-Muslims living in Muslim lands.

2) I have several thoughts about the Qur'an's statements regarding the Jews and the Holy Land.

I should preface these comments with the acknowledgement that I haven't particularly delved into those verses. I know they exist, but I haven't really thought very deeply about them, so this will be a bit of a preliminary exploration.

Generally, I believe that it is not valid to claim a right to a particular land based upon scripture. I mean, there are many people who do not accept the existence of God at all, or who do not accept the validity of those scriptures. To then impose upon them one people's understanding of God's will seems wrong-headed. As a Muslim, I take very seriously God's statement that there should be no compulsion in religion. Even if I believe God has promised something, I have to acknowledge that other people are not going to believe in that promise. So saying, God gave Israel to the Jews seems an invalid basis for establishing the right/need of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. I would say the same to anyone who claimed God had given them rights to a certain portion of the world... yes, but what of those who do not believe in your God?

Further, I wonder if God's promise is exclusive? Certainly the Qur'an views the Jews, Christians and Muslims as part and parcel of the same religious tradition. Does that promise then extend to all Jews, Christians and Muslims? (Even if it does, I still think the above applies, so it's rather a moot point.)

Also, one of the verses talks about other people living in the land already. When the people of Moses ask him to throw those people out before they will travel there, he describes his followers as rebellious,and says to God, "I can only control myself and my brother, so separate me from these rebellious people." And God makes them wander in the wilderness for 40 years before they enter the Holy Land. That would seem to imply that God had not intended exclusivity.

I also wonder if it is still valid. Was a promise for all of eternity? Or in response to the terrible conditions they were lived in under Pharoah.

I would really have to study the issue quite a bit more to come up with a definitive answer to some of those questions, but I keep returning to the first point that my understanding of God's promise can't be imposed upon those who do not share that understanding.

3)I abide by the rule of law. At the same time, I recognize that laws can and are repealed all the time. Similarly, I don't think any country has an apriori right to existence. Countries exist, they want to perpetuate their existence, but there is moral principle that says this one country has to remain for ever in the borders that it currently holds.

Do I think the imposition of Israel on the people who lived there is just? That depends on the conduct of Israel. If the rule of Israel is just then I have no problem supporting it. I am inspired by the ideals listed in Israel's laws which make no distinction between all the citizens of Israel. I am, however, troubled by the few laws that do favor one religious group over others, and I'm very troubled by their conduct in the West Bank and Gaza. The latter is the most problematical, being a terribly brutal occupation. Some palestinians make matters worse, and have committed their own attrocities, but Israel's conduct in this dispute certainly leave it very open to criticism.

And finally, Harold,

Certain modern implementations of shariah are excessively offensive and wrong headed, whether in terms of human sensibilities, or in terms of holding true both to the spirit and the letter of the Qur'an and the Prophet's example. I find that when people criticize Islam, there is more often than not a huge conflagration between the worst that some Muslims do and what the relgious ideals are.

Take the case of rape. Women in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc are living under horrible laws (and, thank God, people within those countries such as Shirin Ebadi and Asma Jehangir are fighting tooth and nail against those laws). Those countries proclaim their laws to be according to the shariah, but they distort and make a mockery of Qur'anic notions of justice, and Qur'anic injunctions that were intended to protect women from false accusation.

The prophet himself in dealing with rape exhibited a completely different approach. A woman was raped early in the morning, as she headed to the mosque for the pre-dawn prayers. She testified to the prophet that she had been raped. There were no direct witnesses to the rape, although some had heard her screaming. The prophet accepted her testimony, and acted upon it, punishing the man. (And letting the woman go free.) How then can Saudi Arabia and Iran justify their laws as shariah? They cannot.

Obviously, we can't expect non-Muslims to know these details of the Prophet's life, or the extent to which these misogynist laws deviate from the scriptural teaching. Indeed, many Muslims do not know it. But we can hope that they will listen to the debate within Muslim communities, and that they will stop portraying everything Saudi Arabia and Iran do as the highest expression of Islamic piety. I understand that sometimes it is hard to find the debate within the Muslim community. Horrific abuses make for better television clips than reasoned debate. So too, recovering Muslims, like recovering Catholics, make for a better soundbite than those of us who are trying to reform from within, or who are trying to expose where modernist interpretations have gone badly astray from decent teachings of Islam.

I HAVE FOUND TIS ARTICLE EXPRESSES THE ISSUE ELOQUENTLY AND WITHOUT BIAS

As an idea, a Jewish homeland was always controversial. As a reality, Israel still is - and it is not anti-Jewish to say so

Brian Klug
Wednesday December 3, 2003
The Guardian

From the beginning, political Zionism was a controversial movement even among Jews. So strong was the opposition of German orthodox and reform rabbis to the Zionist idea in the name of Judaism that Theodor Herzl changed the venue of the First Zionist Congress in 1897 from Munich to Basle in Switzerland.

Twenty years later, when the British foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour (sponsor of the 1905 Aliens Act to restrict Jewish immigration to the UK), wanted the government to commit itself to a Jewish homeland in Palestine, his declaration was delayed - not by anti-semites but by leading figures in the British Jewish community. They included a Jewish member of the cabinet who called Balfour's pro-Zionism "anti-semitic in result".

The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 has not put an end to the debate, though the issue has changed. Today, the question is about Israel's future. Should it become a "post-Zionist" state, one that defines itself in terms of the sum of its citizens, rather than seeing itself as belonging to the entire Jewish people? This is a perfectly legitimate question and not anti-semitic in the least. When people suggest otherwise - as Emanuele Ottolenghi did on these pages last Saturday - they simply add to the growing confusion.

Ottolenghi contends that "Zionism comprises a belief that Jews are a nation, and as such are entitled to self-determination as all other nations are". This is doubly confused. First, the ideology of Jewish nationalism was irrelevant to many of the Jews, as well as non-Jewish sympathisers, who were drawn to the Zionist goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine. They saw Israel in purely humanitarian or practical terms: as a safe haven where Jews could live as Jews after centuries of being marginalised and persecuted.

This motive was strengthened by the Nazi murder of one-third of the world's Jewish population, the wholesale destruction of Jewish communities in Europe, and the plight of masses of Jewish refugees with nowhere to go.

Second, you do not have to be an anti-semite to reject the belief that Jews constitute a separate nation in the modern sense of the word or that Israel is the Jewish nation state. There is an irony here: it is a staple of anti-semitic discourse that Jews are a people apart, who form "a state within a state". Partly for this reason, some European anti-semites thought that the solution to "the Jewish question" might be for Jews to have a state of their own. Herzl certainly thought he could count on the support of anti-semites.

What is anti-semitism? Although the word only goes back to the 1870s, anti-semitism is an old European fantasy about Jews. The composer Richard Wagner exemplified it when he said: "I hold the Jewish race to be the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble in it." An anti-semite sees Jews this way: they are an alien presence, a parasite that preys on humanity and seeks to dominate the world. Across the globe, their hidden hand controls the banks, the markets and the media. Even governments are under their sway. And when revolutions occur or nations go to war, it is the Jews - clever, ruthless and cohesive - who invariably pull the strings and reap the rewards.

When this fantasy is projected on to Israel because it is a Jewish state, then anti-Zionism is anti-semitic. And when zealous critics of Israel, without themselves being anti-semitic, carelessly use language, such as "Jewish influence", that conjures up this fantasy, they are fuelling an anti-semitic current in the wider culture.

But Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is no fantasy. Nor is the spread of Jewish settlements in these territories. Nor the unequal treatment of Jewish colonisers and Palestinian inhabitants. Nor the institutionalised discrimination against Israeli Arab citizens in various spheres of life. These are realities. It is one thing to oppose Israel or Zionism on the basis of an anti-semitic fantasy; quite another to do so on the basis of reality. The latter is not anti-semitism.

But isn't excessive criticism of Israel or Zionism evidence of an anti-semitic bias? In his book, The Case for Israel, Alan Dershowitz argues that when criticism of Israel "crosses the line from fair to foul" it goes "from acceptable to anti-semitic".

People who take this view say the line is crossed when critics single Israel out unfairly; when they apply a double standard and judge Israel by harsher criteria than they use for other states; when they misrepresent the facts so as to put Israel in a bad light; when they vilify the Jewish state; and so on. All of which undoubtedly is foul. But is it necessarily anti-semitic?

No, it is not. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a bitter political struggle. The issues are complex, passions are inflamed, and the suffering is great. In such circumstances, people on both sides are liable to be partisan and to "cross the line from fair to foul". When people who side with Israel cross that line, they are not necessarily anti-Muslim. And when others cross the line on behalf of the Palestinian cause, this does not make them anti-Jewish. It cuts both ways.

There is something else that cuts both ways: racism. Both anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim feeling appear to be growing. Each has its own peculiarities, but both are exacerbated by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the invasion of Iraq, the "war against terror", and other conflicts.

We should unite in rejecting racism in all its forms: the Islamophobia that demonises Muslims, as well as the anti-semitic discourse that can infect anti-Zionism and poison the political debate. However, people of goodwill can disagree politically - even to the extent of arguing over Israel's future as a Jewish state. Equating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism can also, in its own way, poison the political debate.

· Brian Klug is senior research fellow in philosophy at St Benet's Hall, Oxford, and a founder member of the Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights

comment@guardian.co.uk

SALAAMS

"If you oppose some Israeli policies, that’s one thing. If you oppose the existence of Israel or the existence of a Jewish Israel or the right of Jews (of which I’m one) to have a homeland, then you may be an anti-Semite."

The above quote is from another On Faith panelist, Allan Sloan.
By opposing the Right of Return, and calling it discrimnatory, I would say then that you are opposing "the existence of a Jewish Israel or the right of Jews to have a homeland", because the Right of Return is the basis for a Jewish Israel. If you got rid of the Right of Return, and a large number of Palestinians returned to Israel, Israel would become a minority again, which is what the creation of Israel sought to avoid. Yes, an injustice was done to those Palestinians who felt like they had to flee, and in recognition of that hardship, Israel has agreed many times to financial compensation for their lands in return for recognition of its existence and an end to hostilities. Furthermore, there has never been an offer of financial compensation from other nations in the MIddle East, from which Jews had to flee in the last century.

The reason I brought up the film Walk on Water, which I consider an excellent film and much more deserving of a higher rating than it got on Rotten Tomatoes, is because one of the main themes of the film is how long and how far should an individual go in the search for justice. In the film a Mossad agent is forced to answer that question for himself while hunting for a very old Nazi who has hidden in Argentina and escaped justice. At some point the Mossad agent realizes that the search for perfect justice is destroying him as a human being.

So I would say that the Palestinians have suffered injustice, although I am in no way comparing that injustice to what the Jews of Europe suffered at the hands of the Nazis. And yes, the Palestinians have a right to demand justice for what they lost. But at some point the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. And in my opinion, the Palestinians are destroying themselves in their search for perfect justice.

Pamela, you seem a rational beacon in a sea of hate. You state that Jews in America seem to be able to express themselves and live as a minority in security. That's now, in the past however this was not the case - people like Henry Ford and Father Coughlin publicly spouted anti-Semetic propaganda (the nonesense that Arabs are also semites, thus it is impossible for them to be anti-Semetic is based on a false distinction - call it anti-Jewish"ism" if that makes you anti-Jewish bigots happy)- Jews were (and still are in many communities - find out how many Jews live in Bronxville or Darien) subject to discrimination. Though the leaders of the US knew the fate of European Jews, they were not let into the United States. That Jews consider non-Jews as "cattle" is completely false; between one half and two-thirds of Jews marry non-Jews. Anti-Semites like to quote the Talmud because this is a little-known document - they can say what they like with little fear of contradiction. Unlike Moslems, Jews in Diaspora have always lived under the maxim that "The Law of the Land is the Law". There is no desire to make people live under an unfair and barbaric set of codes that punish common theft by mutilation, rape by murder of the raped. A code where freedom of religion a crime punishable by death and Christians and Jews are to publicly humiliated, [I'm referring to Sharia, of course]). If it were true that some Jews believed themselves better that others, and if some Jews compared Arabs to cockroaches (individual opinions which I'm sure exist - would that be worse than the state televisions of several Arab countries stating that Jews are the descendents of monkeys and pigs, and invoking the blood libel that Jews use Islamic blood to make their matzohs? Of course not.
All peoples have an image of themselves as somehow better than their neighbors, this certainly includes every nation, tribe and religion, not to mention such groups as skin-head white supremacists and other Nazi fellow-travellers. The only problem with Jews having the same sort of jingoistic belief in their superiority is that the evidence makes others fear that maybe it's true. The very successes and contributions of Jews to every field of human endeavor drives small and fragile people to fits of rage, envy and a desire to show they are better by invoking libels and paranoid conspiracy theories. If they can't show they are equal by their accomplishments, they can then try to show the Jews to be devils, capitalists, communists, destroyers of the World Trade Center, Nazis, whatever. If some tribe of Hotentots were to declare themselves better than anyone else - everyone else would just laugh, (nothing against Hottentots they're just people of small stature and few accomplishment in the modern world) - if Jews were to do it (constituting just two tenths of one percent of the world's population and shrinking - but winning between a quarter and a third of all Nobel Prizes)there would be pandaemonium.
If Muslims really believed that there was a God who determined the outcomes of battles - wouldn't they accept that God favored the Jews? Are the Jews more powerful than God? (Recently Hizbullah considered themselves victorious against the Jews because they didn't lose too badly - but, unless I'm mistaken, the images were of Israelis walking across Lebanon - not Hizbullah soldiers walking across Israel).

Yes, perhaps the Jews make Arabs feel inferior, then let the Arabs prove their superiority by accomplishment in the science, arts, by moral superiority and other accomplishments that exalt mankind - not by brutality and surly ad hominim arguments.

Pamela,

With respect, in your reply to me, you did not address any of the points I made.

1. Do you support Jewish and Christian immigration and citizenship to Saudi Arabia and settlement in Mecca? If so, then I withdraw my statement that your views were hypocritical and apologize.

2. Do you support the Koran's view that the Jews should settle in the promised land?

3. Do you support the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, 1922, (carried forward when the UN replaced the League of Nations) which recognizes the historical relationship of the Jews with Palestine and established a Jewish National home there (respecting the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities who lived in Palestine)? The Mandate was to establish a Jewish homeland, not one for any other group. Obviously allowing arbitrary non-Jewish immigration would destroy the Jewish homeland and violate the Mandate.

Indeed pamela rocks!
i have never seen any other panelist in this forum be so responsive and care so much about the individuals opinions- realy shes a voice of reason and i welcome future comments from her-

its really an emotionally inflammatory issue-

it is difficult to have a strong opinion about a political issue and separate it from religion-
(as the politics and religion both are clearly delineated in oppsition)

heres another story- when i reverted to islam 8 years ago- my group of friends were about half jewish and half christian/pagan-

we were all committed anti-zionists- also pretty left of just about everything- alot of vegetarians and no fundamentalists of any kind-

i went to a party with my hijab and it was the first time some of my jewish friends of my jewish friends had seen it- the response was so harsh and paranoid that i felt it better to leave- but one or two of my trusted friends for years did not defend me and it hurt me considerably-

we made up- but i realized that someones upbringing and the emotional attachments there can trigger some pretty explosive feelings and prejudices they may even have thought they didnt have-
some of my friends were appalled and wanted me to stay but i felt that my presence was upsetting-

even the perception (deserved or not) of racism or anti-semitism is a highly volatile issue with jewish people- theyve been chased all over the world for a long time and it is surely understandable-

however everyone there had a great deal more of financial and societal security than i had ever experienced so it was an imagined threat-
especially since i was the mother hen that everyone came to almost literally every day to cook for them- (*my house was the center of our group)
we all have our little fears and their triggers- and fears have to be recognized and dealt with gently-

ok- enough of that
salaams all

Victoria,
It's nice to see you again. I think my tolerance for that kind of horsepucky has reached it's limit. I love a good discussion but no taste for that kind of.... well you get the idea...

I hope Pamela becomes a regular on this forum.

some very thought provoking posts here...

Miriam... no, I haven't seen that movie, but I'll try to get my hands on a copy of it.

Joe... you ask when Muslims are going to denounce terrorism. I suggest you google that phrase. Along with the people asking why Muslims don't you will find dozens and dozens of reference of Muslims that do so, loudly and unequivocally. Seems we need to find a way to get these two groups talking to one another.

Greg... the wrongs of one group do not justify the wrongs of another group. Just because my neighbor steals from the store, it doesn't mean I should also. The wrong of Muslim states (and the list is greviously long) cannot be used to justify other wrongs.

Ann, Bobster and others... we certainly are in a mess and have been for a long time. I can only hope that diversity education, increased contact between cultures will help alleviate some of this. It is not a slow process, of course, and I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime even, but we have seen seachanges in attitudes toward race and gender within the past fifty years. I believe, with committed people pushing that momentem along, we will continue to see improvement. Economic parity, or at least, the ability of every human to live a decent life, dignified life, free from privation or opression would go a long way to making that dream come true as well.

Harold... I very strongly object to people saying Israelis are the next Nazis, or comparing Zionism to Nazism. It is offensive beyond the pale and an outrageous distortion. The Nazi agenda was to wipe out certain peoples -- Jews, homosexuals, Catholics, anyone they deemed "genetically inferior." The Israeli agenda is to secure a certain piece of land. Have some Zionists made very disturbing remarks about Arabs, comparing them to cockroaches and all. Yes. Does the Israeli agenda include wiping out all Arabs. No.

If we are going to criticize actions, policies, even debate basic principles, we have to do so without resort to this kind of high-flung rhetoric which only hurts and impairs our ability to compromise and reach solutions.

Fred... I don't know why you would say it is a hypocritical article. Surely you don't mean that just because a person is Muslim, he or she must necessarily agree with repressive laws in Saudi Arabia, or whatever country? And I don't think you mean that 1.5 billion Muslims have only one opinion on these issues. I understand that you aren't familiar with my opinions on many matters as I've just begun writing for this forum, however it might be worth checking before you accuse someone of hypocricy. As for immigration...I have advocated for open immigration in the US, (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/191/story_19139_1.html) so advocating it elsewhere is hardly hypocrical.

Darin... this I think is an extremely important issue to deal with... can Jewish people feel secure living as minorities elsewhere. The bulk of history would suggest no. The Jewish experience in America suggests yes. Either way, I think we need to ask ourselves serious questions about how to combat trends which would endanger peoples lives because they are Jewish (or gay, or Tutsi or "black Sudanese"). I believe strongly in the power of consciousness raising, diversity education, increased communication. I think when people are shut off from one another, it facilitates hatreds rather than mitigates them. I don't have any good answers. I can certainly symphathize with people being unwilling to put themselves, and their children, in dangerous situations just to see if one solution or the other might work.

The opinion peice misses the big picture of anti-semitism. Sometimes a statement in terms of content may not be anti-semitic, but the intent is anti-semitic. A critic who singles out Israel for human rights abuses, but ignores Arab human rights abuses and/or Western human rights abuses, only serves to demonize Israel, presumably because of its primary ethnic makeup. A critic who focuses on Israeli reaction to terrorism, but ignores the terrorism itself, is guilty of the same biases and implication of anti-semitism.

The article also ignores the premises of Zionism. There is no historical or rational basis to conclude that Israel as a nation could survive as a true egalitarian multi-cultural entity. As a whole, in virtually every nation in the history of mankind, where Jews have been a minority, they have been mistreated and often the victims of genocide. To ignore this, and claim that some small level of government sanctioned discrimination is unwarranted, is turning the whole nature of true discrimination on its head. I don't need to point out that no Islamic nation treats minorities equally and most treat Jews much worse than Israel treats non-Jews.

I am not by any means saying that there is no valid criticisms to be levelled against Israel. They are as to any nation. But just as those who single out Muslim countries based on pre-conceived biases against Islam, those that single out Israel based on biases against the Jewish people are not entitled to the "benefit of a doubt".

Abdel, what's your point? Wouldn't it be better to provide the URL reference to the article along with your personal thoughts?

Israel is by it's OWN admission a "jewish state" and it does, by it's nature show the distinct character of "jewishness." And what are the teachings of the talmud about the "goyim"..."cattle"...non-jews...?

THE TRUTH ABOUT
THE TALMUD
Judaism's Holiest Book
by Michael A. Hoffman II and Alan R. Critchley

Introduction

The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book. Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament)."

The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also be seen in the case of the Black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians have more knowledge of the Old Testament than the Israelis.

However, their religion is so ancient it pre-dates the Scribes Talmud, of which they have no knowledge. According to the N.Y. Times of Sept. 29, 1992, p.4: "The problem is that Ethiopian Jewish tradition goes no further than the Bible or Torah; the later Talmud and other commentaries that form the basis of modern traditions never came their way." Because they don't traffic in Talmudic traditions, the Black Ethiopians are discriminated against and have been forbidden to perform marriages, funerals and other services in the Israeli state.

Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik is regarded as one of the most influential rabbis of the 20th century, the "unchallenged leader" of Orthodox Judaism and the top international authority on halakha (Jewish religious law). Soloveitchik was responsible for instructing and ordaining more than 2,000 rabbis, "an entire generation" of Jewish leadership.

N.Y. Times religion reporter Ari Goldman described the basis of the rabbi's authority: "Soloveitchik came from a long line of distinguished Talmudic scholars...Until his early 20s, he devoted himself almost exclusively to the study of the Talmud...He came to Yeshiva University's Elchanan Theological Seminary where he remained the pre-eminent teacher in the Talmud...He held the title of Leib Merkin professor of Talmud...sitting with his feet crossed in front of a table bearing an open volume of the Talmud." (N.Y. Times, April 10, 1993, p. 38).

Nowhere does Goldman refer to Soloveitchik's knowledge of the Bible as the basis for being one of the top world authorities on Jewish law. The rabbi's credentials are predicated upon his mastery of the Talmud. All other studies are clearly secondary. Britain*s Jewish Chronicle of March 26, 1993 states that in religious school (yeshiva), Jews are "devoted to the Talmud to the exclusion of everything else."

The Scribes claim the Talmud is partly a collection of traditions Moses gave them in oral form. These had not yet been written down in Jesus' time. Christ condemned the traditions of the Mishnah (early Talmud) and those who taught it (Scribes and Pharisees), because it nullified Biblical teachings.

The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition that voids Scripture (cf. Mark 7:13), which is regularly used against Catholicism by Protestants, is actually a direct reference to the Talmud or more properly, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ's lifetime, before being committed to writing. All of Mark chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen, represents Our Lord's pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.

Unfortunately, due to the abysmal ignorance of our day, the widespread Christian notion is that the Old Testament is the supreme book of Judaism. But this is not so. The Pharisees teach for doctrine the commandments of rabbis, not God; the Talmudic commentary on the Bible is their supreme law and not the Bible itself. That commentary does indeed, as Jesus said, void the laws of God, not uphold them. As readers of Talmud (in the rabbinically authorized Soncino version), we know this to be true.

There is a small Jewish sect which makes considerable effort to eschew Talmud and adhere to the Old Testament alone. These are the Karaites, a most hated and severely persecuted group within Judaism.

To the Mishnah the rabbis later added the Gemara (rabbinical commentaries). Together these comprise the Talmud. There are two versions, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud is regarded as the authoritative version: "The authority of the Babylonian Talmud is also greater than that of the Jerusalem Talmud. In cases of doubt the former is decisive." (R.C. Musaph-Andriesse, From Torah to Kabbalah: A Basic Introduction to the Writings of Judaism, p. 40).

This study is based on the Jewish-authorized, English translation of the Babylonian Talmud: the Soncino edition. Unless otherwise indicated, every selection we cite is documented from the text of the authoritative Soncino Talmud. We have published herein the authenticated sayings of the Jewish Talmud. Look them up for yourself. To verify the Talmud passages cited, refer to the Soncino edition Talmud, which may be found in large university and seminary libraries. The Soncino Talmud may also be purchased from book dealers.

Translations: The translators of the Talmud sometimes translate the Hebrew word goyim (Gentiles) under any number of terms such as heathen, Cuthean, Egyptian, idolater etc. But these are actually references to Gentiles (all non-Jews). See for example footnote 5 of the Soncino edition Talmud: >>Cuthean (Samaritan) was here substituted for the original goy...take the excrement of a white dog and knead it with balsam, but if he can possibly avoid it he should not eat the dog's excrement as it loosens the limbs.>Rabbi Akiba said to him, "Give me some water to wash my hands."

"It will not suffice for drinking," the other complained, "will it suffice for washing your hands?"

"What can I do?' the former replied, "when for neglecting the words of the Rabbis one deserves death? It is better that I myself should die than that I transgress against the opinion of my colleagues." [This is the ritual hand washing condemned by Jesus in Matthew 15: 1-9].

Great Rabbi Deceives A Woman

Kallah 51a (Soncino Minor Tractates). Teaches that God approves of rabbis who lie:

"The elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman's menstrual period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a niddah.

"They said, 'What induced you to contradict the opinion of your colleagues?' He replied, "I will prove it concerning him." He went to the lad's mother and found her sitting in the market selling beans.

"He said to her, 'My daughter, if you will answer the question I will put to you, I will bring you to the world to come.' (eternal life). She said to him, 'Swear it to me.' Rabbi Akiba, taking the oath with his lips but annulling it in his heart, said to her, 'What is the status of your son?' She replied, 'When I entered the bridal chamber I was niddah (menstruating) and my husband kept away from me; but my best man had intercourse with me and this son was born to me.' Consequently the child was both a bastard and the son of a niddah.

It was declared, '..Blessed be the God of Israel Who Revealed His Secret to Rabbi Akiba..."

In addition to the theme that God rewards clever liars the preceding discussion is actually about Christ (the lad who 'uncovered his head'). The reference to the lad's mother is of course to the mother of Jesus, Blessed Mary (called Miriam and sometimes, Miriam the hairdresser, in Talmud).

Genocide Advocated by Talmud

Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ("Even the best of the Gentiles should all be killed").

This passage is not from the Soncino edition but is from the original Hebrew of the Babylonian Talmud as quoted by the 1907 Jewish Encyclopedia, published by Funk and Wagnalls and compiled by Isidore Singer, under the entry, "Gentile," (p. 617).

This original Talmud passage has been concealed in translation. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that, "...in the various versions the reading has been altered, 'The best among the Egyptians' being generally substituted." In the Soncino version: "the best of the heathens" (Minor Tractates, Soferim 41a-b].

Israelis annually take part in a national pilgrimage to the grave of Simon ben Yohai, to honor this rabbi who advocated the extermination of non-Jews. (Jewish Press of June 9, 1989, p. 56B).

On Purim, Feb. 25, 1994, Israeli army officer Baruch Goldstein, an orthodox Khazar from Brooklyn, massacred 40 Palestinian civilians, including children, while they knelt in prayer in a mosque. Goldstein was a disciple of the late Rabbi Kahane who has stated that his view of Arabs as "dogs" is "from the Talmud." (Cf. CBS 60 Minutes, "Kahane").

Univ. of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldstein's philosophy: "They believe it's God's will that they commit violence against 'goyim,' a Hebrew term for non-Jews." (NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p. 5).

Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing." (NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5). Rabbi Yaacov Perrin says, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6).

Judeo-Christian Response to Talmud

Neither the modern popes or the modern preachers of Protestantism, have ever insisted that the rabbis of Judaism repudiate or condemn the Talmud. On the contrary, the heads of Churchianity have urged the followers of Christ to obey, honor and support the followers of the Talmud. Therefore, it should be obvious that these Catholic and Protestant leaders are the worst betrayers of Jesus Christ on earth today.

Published By Warrant of John 18:37; Matthew 23:13-15 I Thess. 2:14-16; Titus 1:14; Luke 3:8-9; Rev. 3:9.

"Pray for the Conversion of the Pharisees as Christ converted Nicodemus"

Researched and authenticated by Alan R. Critchley and Michael A. Hoffman II

Copyright ©1994. All Rights Reserved. http//:www.hoffman-info.com

Mr. Bryant,
I wish you were in the crowd when the Palestinian suicide bomber (the boy 15 years old who was sent by his mother/family to destroy innocent civilians) killed/injured numerous people, the same people as you and me, not the politicians, not the solders, and not the Zionists. Maybe then you would re-think about what you would like to do in order to protect yourself, your family, and your people from fanatics who don't follow the normal moral accepted among civilized people.

I suggest you learning more about the Arab nation around the Israel. Maybe then you will find that the neighbors don't care about the Palestinians, absolutely don't care! You also forgot that there is more than 1 mln Arabs living inside of Israel, and Israel is taking care about them! I mean the job, I mean they are protected by the law, I mean they have the chance to be educated in the best universities. And what about neighbors? They care to destroy this tiny nation that lives on a tiny piece of the land in a middle of desert. Poor Palestinians! I am crying... Ask them what Arafat did with the millions of dollars given to Palestinians! Ask them why they don't do anything to make their own life better (as Israelis did in a middle of the desert many years ago). Ask them why they teach the hate in the schools instead of promoting the piece? Ask them why they still fight each other striving for the power? Are you crying with me...?

And you are talking about Nazis? What do you know about it?! Such a nonsense.

The real argument is, what's to be done about Israel? The jihadists proposal is to destroy the state of Israel and possibly the five million inhabitants thereof (the Islamic inhabitants would be matyrs then, no problem). Or perhaps all of the surrounding Arab states would inact secular laws prohibiting discrimination based on religion - but this would be against the laws of Islam, it is required that non-Muslims pay Jizya - in humility and acknowledging the superiority of Islam (for Hindu, Bhuddhists etc. only death or conversion to Islam are permitted). So that wouldn't work. At present Islamis are killing each other over differences in faith, Sunni vs Shi'i - certainly the presence of Jews in their midst would put an end to that conflict until the Jewish presence was eliminated; so there's a peace plan, but only temporary.
The new Nazi line is to call Israelis Nazis - but do the Israelis declare Arabs to be inferior by law? Islamis declare Jews to be inferior by law. The Nazis declared Jews to be enemies of the state - the Jews said they were not, the Arabs affirm that they are mortal enemies of Israel. Can Arabs become Jews - yes, could Jews become Nazis - no, so the analogy does not hold. Could Arabs become Jews and gain all of the "priveleges" of Jews? Yes; the major hurdle that would prevent Arabs from becoming Jews is Islam - which requires the death penalty for conversion.
And what of the agnostics, athiests etc.? Don't they have the right to live? By Israeli law - Yes, by Islamic law- No!
So, so the solution: let's set aside some small part of the Middle East, (because that's where Jews come from and where, for 2000 years, they been yearning to return)-(though if Germany were to give the Jewish people a comparable area, as recompense, that could be discussed), where Jews, secular or religious (because Jews are not a religion or a race, they are a nationality) can feel they have the right to exist - and let's make it the only place on earth where this obtains - and hey, let's call it Israel!

When we look at the overall pictiure it is easy to criticize Israel for their policies, granted they were persecuted relentlessly over the years prior to the formation of Israel. My question is; does that give them the right to do the same if not worse to the Palestinians ? Removing them from their land without compensation or relocation ,assasinations,movement restrictions, the Palestinians are one of the poorest peoples on the planet while Israel thrives. But the minute anyone mentions this they are branded anti semetic. It seem as if Israel has become this generations Nazi's

Ms. Taylor,

Excellent Article, and very informative. Also, among other things a magnificent discription of the vicious cycle of discrimination. Be it religious, and or racial discrimination. I only wish it were so simple as you described it. I just don't see all the religions living in peace though. Not the hate and violence ever going away that is associated with the conflict between religions. I think it boils down to human nature. Each party is fearful that they will lose something and the other side will gain something at the losers expense. And then we have the politicians who use those fears to manipulate their followers. So each side keeps their own side whipped into a state of fear and distrust of the other side. A secondary benefit of this manipulation is that the politicain maintains his/her position by always pointing out how inferior the other side is, and how bad they treat people. Religion and Politics are joined at the hip, for better or worse. I have to agree with LKT's Post. Each side will will distort any issue to their advantage, then cry " anti-this, or anti-that!" This type of behavior has become the norm for political and religious leaders in my opinion.

The us/them mentality is mainly fueled by International money lending powers, also called "the transparent governments" who constantly get richer by conflict and war and BOTH us AND them are too stupid to understand this and keep arguing just like little children do. In the meantime this will go on and on and they will get richer and richer on blood money. When are we going to wake up?

Paul Cohn,

Unbelievable!! You are trying to use the Koran to prove that Israelites can historically claim Palestine!!!! What signficant stupidity.

The following commentary about the Koran was recently posted on the On Faith blog. It puts the Koran in proper perspective:

"As per a recent On Faith commentary about the militaristic, demeaning and outdated Koran written in the name of the illiterate "prophet" Muhammed:

"After reading the Quran for the first time, I had this bizarre vision....
I saw Muhammed sitting in a room, whispering these words to another man, "I need a drink of water". Then THAT man whispered words to the next person...and so on and so on....out the door, down the street, up the hill.....
the person sitting on top of the hill was scribbling furiously. He jumps up and yells:
"ALLAH NEEDS TO DRINK THE OCEAN FOR US TO SURVIVE!"
It's an old game, called "Gossip".

Hypocritical article coming from a Muslim. Regarding law of return: Every nation has restrictions on immigration, and the right to define their country. There is no universal human right to immigrate into another country.

The League of Nations (and subsequently the UN) made it a sacred trust that a Jewish homeland would be created in the area to the west of the Jordan where Israel now stands. No sacred right was established for an Arab homeland in this area (they had east of Jordan out of the British Mandate).

Mecca is a closed city, with non-Muslims excluded. Open this and all the Arab countries for non-Muslim immigration and then talk about Israel.

"And thereafter We said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd,'" the Koran says in 17:104, The Night Journey.

PAMELA tells us: I have been a vocal opponent to discriminatory laws in various Muslim countries and will continue to be. Not only are they against basic decency, international human rights standards, but also, I believe, against the teachings of Islam.

Ann O. responds: Thank you, Pamela for your excellent post. ISTM that in your statement above you hit on what is truly the basic issue: international human rights, the absolute necessity for respect by all people for all other human beings simply because they are human, not just respect for "us".

The world cannot support the us-them mentality which, unfortunately, our common humanity inclines us when we feel threatened. The Lord God of Israel whom Jews, Christians and Muslims worship is called in the Old Testament "the God of all nations", even as the Jewish people had a special covenant with Him. He is also the God of the Buddhists, the Wiccans, the Mormons, the atheists (whether they know it or not :-), the Daoists, etc., etc., etc. Unless we take that unpopular article of faith seriously, there is no hope for lasting peace anywhere.

Ann O.

You cannot compare secular societies with non secular societies. I have met many Christian citizens of Musleum countries and their lives are outrageously difficult compared to non-jews in Isreal.

When you can list one effective deterent for the attacks on the soverign country of Isreal, I will be more sympathetic to your comments

No surprise this is written by a Muslim. When are the "righteous muslims" going to stand up to the terrorists and the homicide bombers and those who continue to murder innocent people. Each attempt to make peace by Israel has been rebuffed by one Muslim faction or another. No one objects to fair criticism of Israel, in fact all you need to do is read the Jerusalem Post to see that Jews are the ones often most critical of their own government.
What we do object to is those who are truly ani-Jewish, those who support the annihilation of Israel and the Jews, attempting to hide behind a "red herring" by claiming they are 'just anti-Israel' and freedom -seeking for all peoples'.
Joe

To Paul,

Why should any piece of land belong exclusively to one group? I don't care where or how many times it is written. I could write a million times that Hawii is only for native Hawaiians, but would that make it right, or even possible. We live in a small world where tolerance and acceptance is needed everywhere, not everywhere except Israel.

Politics muddies these waters even more. It seems that it is politically incorrect to denounce actions of Israel here in the U.S. We are too afraid that we may offend a large segement of voters. Play along with Israel and doing nothing about our presence in Iraq is how our politicians hope to get re-elected. It is more important to appease everyone than stand up for what is right.

The same mistake made deliberately or not.Islam recpects all prophets,unfortunately not correct.What Islam recpects Moses was a good muslim(whatever it means).Islam respects name of Christ.Islam rejects The Law.Islam rejects Son of God,Bible,Trinity,Crucifixion and Second Coming.Is this respect?The struggle is Arab/Israel,you should name it correctly.Although present palestinians have turkic and caucasian blood,they are ethnically arabs.Ashkenazi Jews have turkic blood as well.There is only One jewish state with 5 million people,but there are 23 arabic states with 300 millions population.Please lets be justiceful and lets not forget Promised Land

"The right of return is a fundemental right"

A nations laws should relate to all of its citizens, not just a particlular religious group.

The same mistake made deliberately or not.Islam recpect all Prophets,unfortunately not correct.What Islam recpects is Moses was a good muslim(whatever it means).Islam respect muslim Christ not Jesus Christ.Islam rejects The Law.Islam rejects Son of God,Bible,Trinity,Crucifixion and Second Coming.Is this respect?The struggle is Arab/Israel,you should name it corectly.Although present palestinians have turkic and caucasian blood they are ethnically are arabs.Ashkenazi Jews have turkic blood as well.There is only One jewish state with 5 million people but there are 23 arabic states with 300 millions population.Please,lets be justiceful and lets not forget Promised Land.

Paul Ley and Victoria

You respective post reminds me of the creation of Pakistan as a seperate state for Muslims in the Indian subcontinent due to fears of religious discrimination and marginalization in Hindu majority and dominated India. To the great dismay and sorrow of Mahatma Gandhi to have Pakistan carved out of India, and leading to his murder for agreeing to it.

Ali Jinnah, who made the existence of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan possible, was, a "secular Muslim". Just as the founding fathers of Zionism leading to the existence of the Israel based on specific religious premises and promises were "secular Jews".

Ironic is it not, that secular Jews and Muslims created states that are so religiously specific and charged in many ways nowadays.

Let us all go after the atheists, agnostics and secular humanists then, for exploiting religion to get what they want and creating current messes in such states and to their neighbours too:)

Could Paul Cohn please post the three refrences in the Koran that he refers to? I've never heard of this notion, and I have my doubts.

PAUL COHN: The Nazi's said in the 1930's that Greater Germany/Northern Europe is exclusively a Germanic/Arian land for 1000's of years. This is even written THOUSANDS of times is ancient and medieval writings all over Europe. They told the Jews they could leave without their belongings whenever they wanted (just as expelled Palistinians). After that they treated the ones that stayed the same way the Jews treat the Palistinian people today. I don't see any difference?

People who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it... Alas.

Pamela-unfortunately You,like many others,dilligently forget that the Land of Israel is exclusively a Hebrew/Jewish land,and it is even written so THREE TIMES in Koran.I can provide You if You wish the precise quotations. It is nowhere written that it is Arab land.
So the Law of Return is only for Jews-the Arabs may freely return any time they wish to their own homeland where they came from,namely the Arabian peninsula.That is precisely the reason why they are called Arabs.
The Arabs conquered in the year 632 C.E. the Land of Israel and they are still illegally occupying it;it was never their land and it will never be.

Even before the crusades tore it completely apart, the part of the middle-east that is called 'Israel' nowadays, was, throughout the ages, contested over so much that any race claiming it as their 'rightful homeland' is making a false claim.
The jews claim it is their promised land because their holy book say's so. It was promised to them by a god only they believe in.
The muslims say it was theirs to take because their 'allah' should rule the whole world anyway.
Reading the book 'The Crusades (Wordsworth Military Library)' by Richard Payne may help anyone interested to understand the situation a 1000 years ago a little better and see nothing has changed ever since (it also shows the extreme violent nature of islam and christianity).
As for the jews, they are creating their own nazi/sovjet terror-state, including separation walls, road-blocks, their ubermensch/untermensch relation with the palestinians, disappearances of people, murder and theft by the military and terror bombardments on civilians.

The people in Europe say 'Never Again!' when they look back at WW-II and the 3rd Reich. But they also look away when they see the same horrors being commited again by the ancestors of the victims of the holocaust.

People who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it... Alas.

You have tackled this problem very naively and superficially. Either it was intended or not.
The problem is with Israel and Zionist it is not with Judaism, Islam respect all celestial religions. Moreover, respects all prophets.
The Zionist mafia they are trying to protect them selves behind anti-whatever. They do not believe truly that they did the right thing in occupying some one else land by force and with no legitimate reason except religion. Though it lacks any minute atom of truth. So living on lies and deception will lead to more lies and deceptions, they have to put barriers and hurdles for others to criticize them or to find the truth. Same what is happening with the holocaust, which nobody have the right to open his mouth about it, or he is put in jail!
These practices have been enforced deliberately; it has nothing to do with religion. It merely is protecting lies and very big lies.
Israelis occupied Palestine by terror and with “Zionist groups such as Irgun or the Stern Gang before the creation of Israel.” As you rightly said, not for religious reasons but to establish a country in the middle of a deferent atmosphere to protect the interest of the imperialist interest, that is why you do not see any of the Zionist mafia members are livening in Israel! i.e. Rockefellers Rothschild Sorosh etc. land means nothing to them, power and control of politics and economy is the main thing.

In response to LKT, you're right about being discredited when labeled "anti-anything," especially when the viewpoint has really nothing to do with someone's religion or political beliefs.

For instance, recently my cousin had his artwork altered by some poser in MySpace, and it turned out the guy was Jewish. So when my cousin confronted this guy, with the evidence proving his claim, the guy immediately blasted him for being Anti-Semetic or Anti-Jew. All because my cousin produced evidence to the contrary, and it's sad because my cousin and myself are open-minded to everyone's race, gender and religion. And yet, this guy has the gall to commit something dastardly and hide behind his faith to do it.

Fortunately my cousin was better than the guy, rather than stoop to this guy's level, he just blocked him and stop going to the guy's site altogether.

Meanwhile this guy will probably be going all over MySpace slandering my cousin every chance he gets. But that's okay, at least we're open-minded and take the human route.

You're right, LKT, it's a crying shame what our world has become and it seems it's better to steal items from the innocent and legalize it, rather than fess up to your crimes and be a better person for it. And most of all, respect others for their viewpoints and beliefs without being falsely accused for it.

I think many miss the point, Judaism and the existence of theState of Israel are intertwined. You may disagree with politicis, but the Covenant of God with the Jewish people includes Israel.
Jacobs name was changed to Israel, Jews in Arab Lands faced apartheid conditions before the creation of Israel and then were summarily expelled by many states.
The right of return is a fundemental right, non-jews of all political persuasions have shown that they cannot control anti-jewishness and as as long as Israel exists there will always be that insurance policy.

actually i agree with that greg- are you aware doson that the post previous to yours statd that ahteists started zionism and the formation of the state of israel?- and now you come in with so much anger-

there are many fine and reasonable atheists and secularists on these boards and you do them a great disservice-

i only point it out because others might make the connection you seem to have missed or you wouldnt do your own cause such a bad presentation.

MP that is a powerful statement-

I'm technically a holocaust survivor, love many aspects of Jewish culture and many Jewish people. The state of Israel?
A weird doppelganger for a nazi state.

Impressive Doson. You actually made all that bile and venom sound intelligent. You do realize that posts like this do nothing to further the cause of atheism don't you? If you have nothing intelligent to add to this discussion do us all a favor and go troll someplace else so the reasonable among us can have a civilized discussion?

All you biblical monotheists (Jews, Christians, Moslems) speak with such authority on behalf of your pre-fabricated god that it makes any free thinking human being fall on the floor laughing. Billions of humans have perished in the name of this deity of yours, during "holy" wars and campaigns of forced proselytization; entire cultures have been annihilated or forcibly changed beyond recognition during your campaings and the funny thing after two thousand years of backwardness is that you all profess peace and love. Sure, peace and love on your own terms after everyone has been won over to your own narrowminded view of the world. How you feel about other people is evident by how you speak of those who do not subscribe to your abrahamic deity in your own, various "holy" doctrines. "Heathens," "idolaters," "pagans," "atheists" and on and on. Your time though is coming to an end as the blossom of humanity can see through your motives and realizes the rediculousness of your beliefs; it is breaking the bonds of your sickly world-view, shedding off the yoke of your narrowmindedness and for the first time it dares to face the reality of its solitude in the cosmos and accept the boundless power of its own intellect--the true god.
Happy last throes as your god lays dying together with the short future of your way of life.

Most people are used to getting thei information about the formation of israel from public sentiment expressed through the media-

as pamela rightly expresses- it is a thorny issue because so many people have been raised to believe that the formation of israel is a religious return of a people to their spiritual homeland.

If this were the case- there would obviously not be any problem- being religiously based- it would have followed its own very judicial premises to deal with the existing population.

I lived and worked in a pretty strictly jewish community for many years- (im not jewish, but there was a small university community there).
It was my home and as a iworked for a prominent and politically active lawyer i had many opportunities to socialize and engage in discussions on the issue of israel-

i was even taken to a clandestine israeli symaptico meeting where i was shown a map of israel and it was explained to me that the 'arabs' were trying to push the israelis into the sea.

I was horrified at those rotten arabs. How dare they when god had clearly meant for the jewish people to live there forever.

At the time i also spent many many hours in the company of old scholarly jewish men who stayed n the synagogues arguing scripture- since it was a universtiy community also- they had no problem with a gentile woman truly interested in learning judaism from the horses mouth as it were.(There were never any young people around so they were happy to have someone to teach, even if a woman and a gentile)

However- the lessons i learned about judaism sharply contrasted with the political conversations i heard heatedly and emotionally debated elsewhere. As a matter of fact- they were diametrically opposite.

From a religious point of view these men made some very valid points.

1) The diaspora could only be reconciled to the homeland at the direct command of g-d himself- and this has not occurred yet.

2) there is also the issue of the jubilee year- which occurs every 60 years in the jewish calender and at this time debts are to be forgiven, and land taken to be returned. The last Jubilee and first that happened after Israel was formed in 1947 was in the year 2000.
That could have been the time for religious jewish people to reconcile and recompense any spiritual inequities. Clearly that opportunity to act as a truly religious entity slipped through their fingers.

There are other important issues but those are basic and inarguable.

So since i had been indoctrinated socially and politically to be irael friendly- i went to meetings to hear what each side had to say.

The Israel first meetings were usually pretty party line and an orgy of agreement.

When i ventured onto the other side- (where i first heard the word Zionism) it was quite another story. Whenever there would be a meeting, masses of jewish people would show up and heckle and drown out the speakers so loudly that it was difficult to hear what was being said.

I wondered,(as i always do in these cases)Why are these people trying to silence those people?

I discovered that Zionism was created by a group of atheists manipulating the world sympathy and collective guilt over the disgusting and repulsive genocide of the jewish (and homosexual, mentally disabled, jehovahs witnesses and roma-gypsies) during world war II.

As i delved further into the subject ive learned a great deal more and ny conscience could only lead me to be unapologeticlly anti-zionist in the coming years.

This was a decision i made some 20 or so years ago- based on thorough research- and it took alot to turn my inculcated sympathies to israel away.

As i am a muslim these past 8 years ( a conscious and active decision- i didnt marry into it or any such thing- which is a fine way to come to islam- however ALLAH want to lead someone is valid- the point is i struggled and decided unaided through Qur'an and study)

i find that i have to be very solicitous of the sensibilities of those who dont agree with this as there are of course always the predictable accusations that my decision is based on my chosen religion. But my political decision to be anti-zionist far predated my decision to be a muslim by over 12 years-

and it came through exposure to the truth of the nature of zionism and research and more research.
And the words of jewish people themselves who practiced their faith with devotion.

the subject is Israel- and as far as anti-semitism goes- arabic people are also semites so by that token israelis could be considered heinously guilty of anti-semitic behavior.
but thats semantics- wich shows how thoroughly an idea can be pressed into someones brain-
most people have come to understand anti-semitism to mean anti-jewishness- see how completely the identity of a people can become subsumed and negated.

Zionism is a political movement and always has been- started by self-defined atheists.

Judaism is a religion.

Zionism doesnt equal judaism-

I find that the only truly fair thing to do is to let people speak for and define themselves- here are some links to anti-zionist religious jewish people-

since screams of anti-semitism invariably follow any slight criticism of israel (evidenced by the implication in the question itslef) i would say that npo matter how much proof or how reasonable and unemotionally or factually one speaks on the subject- the anti-semitic accusations will probably follow soon.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

here is just one link- there are many more.

i have never defined myself as anti-anything in my life- only anti-zionism.

peace

How much blame to the arab countries get for this mess? I read somewhere that they won't allow Palestians to settle in their countries etc etc... It takes two to tango and all that. Pamela, two great posts in two weeks in a row...

JS,

It applies across the board. I have been a vocal opponent to discriminatory laws in various Muslim countries and will continue to be. Not only are they against basic decency, international human rights standards, but also, I believe, against the teachings of Islam.

Does freedom of association create the "right" to belong to an exclusively male club? The answer, in a pluralistic, liberal society appears to be "Yes." But, as long as any stake holder in that society objects to such exclusivity, the answer can be "yes" only so long as no direct or indirect governmental support is extended to such a club.

The problem becomes intractable when the club becomes itself, through networking and internal loyalty patterns, a part of the governance or economy of the society. Then question then becomes one of balancing various individual and group rights and seems to be incapable of resolution without some contradiction or incompleteness arising.

The Boy Scouts of America have policies and practices that are intended to protect their membership from sexually predatory adults. Those policies and practices are in part based on a few unhappy instances of sexual abuse of boys by volunteer scout leaders. The policies and practices, unfortunately, are based on and feed the latent or active homophobia of many American parents and youth leaders. How is this to be resolved. Again, the problem is to find a generally appicable rule that neither contradicts its own intent or leaves lacunae that can undermine its results.

I have no answers but Ms. Taylor's suggestion that the starting point may be to apply the same tests to all similar institutions, be they states or clubs, seems to be the only sound and consistent approach. Applying a "categorical imperative" to all state action creates a mechanism for evaluating state action without being forced to evaluate the underlying theological considerations or group identifications.

"This of course is one of the great debates... did/do the events in Europe and the terrible actions of other countries that turned Jews away, knowing they were going to die, justify disenfranchising the people who were living in the land that became Israel? Does the need for a safe place for Jews justify the continued disenfranchisement of them?"

My answer to both those questions is "yes".

Have you seen the film Walk on Water?

The author says:these kinds of laws are an anathema, as are any laws of any nation that discriminate against people purely on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, orientation, religion, or creed.

They would be an anathema whether enacted by Israel or any other country, whether they favored Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus or whatever group. Criticism of these laws, thus, is not anti-Semitic, especially when that criticism is leveled even-handedly at all countries that have discriminatory laws on the books.

I ask: How does the author square this with laws in places like Saudi Arabia where people are discriminated against if they are Christians or have bibles? And as far as I can tell, all of Islam inherently discriminate against women. And against every other reiglion and especially against the non religious. Can she expound on these obviously more dangerous discriminatory practices?

Miriam,

This of course is one of the great debates... did/do the events in Europe and the terrible actions of other countries that turned Jews away, knowing they were going to die, justify disenfranchising the people who were living in the land that became Israel? Does the need for a safe place for Jews justify the continued disenfranchisement of them?

These are very, very thorny issues, and my general take is there is no right answer. Sometimes life presents us with a buffet of unpalatable choices and we must pick the lesser of a variety of evils.

When racial, religious or other prejudices color our thought process then dealing with those thorny issues becomes a morass. A morass not only of hatred, but also of fear. I think we need to be able to honestly own up to our fears, and try to move beyond them, or at least not let them completely rule us, in order to deal with the problems humanely and to search for the best solutions.

By comparing the Law of Return to other forms of discrimination such as apartheid in South Africa, or pre-civil rights in the US, you are making the waters even murkier.

I suggest you read the following sentence from Jonathan Sarna, another On Faith panelist in answer to the same question:

"One would never know, reading them(critics of Israel), that millions of persecuted Jewish refugees from around the world, including hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from Arab lands, found refuge in Israel, and that Israel transformed them into productive citizens."

In other words, you cannot ignore the historical and political context in which the Law of Return came about, and why it continues to this day. The Law of Return exists, so that if the need should ever again arise, Jews will find a place that will accept them.

From the little that I have read about Israel, I do think there is serious discrimination, whether codified in other laws or more informally. But I would never classify the Law of Return as inherently discriminatory. Israel was the last resort for Jews fleeing for their lives. It was the one place that would accept them, when all other doors were closed. And may there always be such a place, if the need is there.

It often seems that accusations are made of someone being "anti-anything" merely to discredit the viewpoint of another, for example, a candidate in our own national elections, other nations, other ethnic groups, or other religions. I would hate to think that is truly human nature.

Wonder what happened to the good ole' days of "love thy neighbor," and "if you can't say something good about somebody, don't say anything," or "live and let live." In my lifetime we have come a long distance from those principles which I was taught to live by. Not sure I like the world we live in now.

Great thoughts, Pamela. You've managed to tackle highly controversial ground very eloquently.