GameBanshee Forums

I personally support Palestine, but I won't get into a argument mainly because I am too lazy.

But one factoid with regard to US support of Israel, it isn't only a strong Jewish minority but a significant Fundamentalist Christian group which supports Israel solely for the purpose of the End times, and perhaps orchestrating events which would lead up to that, I would like to hear what people think of this, especially since a significant portion of Bush's support comes from that group, birds of a feather flock together, one motive behind Bush's support for Israel would be to orchestrate the apocalypse, actually that could be taken to any conflict, not the sole motive but a influencing motive all the same.

I wonder if the Israelis really know what they are getting into by allying with this particular group?

Here are a few links on the subject.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/north7.html

Here is something partly dealing with the subject on Jewish Bulletin News.

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk021011/usp28a.shtml

A Christian biblical interpretation of the whole thing.

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/judeochr/biblical.html

Some Conservative post which describes the reasons for Christian support.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/733584/posts

Here is one from the National Catholic reporter.

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archi ... 01102a.htm

Here is one from another conservative, its a pdf.

http://www.huntsvillehelp.com/adobe/conservative.pdf

Here is one from the Israel insider Israel's daily newsmagazine:


http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp ... ho=Article^l1530&enZone=Views&enVersion=0&

Anyway what do you all think about all this, I have attempted to get as diverse a view as possible on the subject, from a variety of sources, To those proIsrael or Jewish isn't it rather scary having a group which just views you as a pawn in fulfilling their end times scenario.

Like I said it makes you wonder, if the whole point is to deliberately destablize the region, not for oil, nor for water, but for forcing the fulfillment of some end times prophecy, incidently Bush has gotten a significant amount of support from this group, it would be foolish to think that he didn't at least share some similarities in beliefs.

Anyway this is related to the whole Israel Palestine thing, though not dealing explicitly with the source, so I just thought I would bring it up.

Originally posted by VoodooDali
@Scayde: actually a lot of research is being done on the genetic origins of Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, and Palestinians.Study finds genetic links between Arabs and Jews

Great info Voo, Very interesting. I look forward to having time to really digest this info...Thanks for the link

At any rate, we Americans have no right to talk about genetic claims to a land - it's the pot calling the kettle, IMO.

LOL.That is an understatement. I was merely addressing differences in the respective arguments used by both sides. It is not in any way what I base my opinions on. But I do find the history of the area very fascinating. And note the colorful reinterpretations of the same data according to the designs of each respective side.

One thing that I notice to be glaringly lacking in this discussion is the factor that the Judao/Christian heritage of both England and the US has played in this. I think that beside the political and economic reasons for the support of Israel by the West, There is also the idea that "God willed it" The Christians have always had a love/hate relationship with the Jewish people, and to a large degree I think many Judao/Christian Americans have an almost familial patronage to what they perceive as 'Zion". I do not think it can be overstated the degree to which this influenced the events in Israel's favor, and away from the needs of the Arab-Palestinians who were also settleing in the area, and were counting on the support of England in formation of their state.


edit: I see IN has already addressed this point while I was working

You raise a good point, @Scayde. The Pentecostals who were trying to convert us all shortly before they buried my wife's grandfather made a point that Israel's return to the Jews was the first step before the destruction of the world. The second, to follow very shortly, is the conversion of all the Jews to Christianity. (Well, Pentecostalism, which is the only true Christianity.)

So Jews going to Israel is apparently part of The Master Plan. I don't see anywhere any Muslims in it, and I suspect that most Pentecostals hold them in as much regard as they hold Buddhists, Pagans, Animists, and the dozens of Hindu sects.

Originally posted by C Elegans

[color=CC00CC]Scayde, do you understand why I have reason to believe the website you linked do not provide "comprehensive and accurate" information even if they claim to do so? [/color]

@CE: Again, I was merely trying to demonstrate the way in which history can be interpreted and reinterpreted to support which ever argument a person wants to make. The quotes you posted were not in the article you linked to. I simply showed the same story with a different spin. Rather you find credibility in the article I referenced is up to the individual. Which one a person chooses to believe, I do not care. I am not defending my opinion. I said I had no interest in gaining anyone's agreement. It does not require anone's support to be valid.
I simply sated my views. As far as the UN? it seems to me, and I may be wrong, that you put great stock in them. I do not

@fable: I have visited many fundamentalist chrches who say that Israel's fate is the fate of the world. They voice it with such enthusiasm. They pray for the comming of the 'Messiah', which would in effect mean war in the Middle East, yet they are afraid at the same time, and hold on to the idea of Isreal's security with such tenacity. It is almost as if the are praying for the boat to come, but afraid they don't hold the right ticket. Interestingly, there was a huge contingent of orthodox Jews in America who were fiercely opposed to the Zionist movement. They saw it as contrived interferance by Man into the affairs of God.

THIS POST IS NOT VALID FOR MY SUPPORT OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A HOMELAND, THIS IS MERELY A TANGIENTAL DISCUSSION WHERE I OPPOSE SCAYDE'S PERSONAL FEELINGS REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

Originally posted by Scayde
@CE: Again, I was merely trying to demonstrate the way in which history can be interpreted and reinterpreted to support which ever argument a person wants to make.

Scayde, your way of discussion is far too evasive for me. Whereas I am discussing the Palestinians rights to their homeland, you have now choosen to state that you merely try to show how history can be interpreted different ways. It is a total mystery to me how we got there.

In you first post you stated:

Do the Palestinians have a 'right' to a state of their own? IMO, no. The "Palestinians were not even a people until the creation of Israel. They are Arab immigrants into the area. There was no Palestinian nation, nor are the Palestinians a nationality.

I then stated that I wasn't going to discuss your personal feelings, but I stated you made one factual error: Both Jews and Palestinians are semite people, their common ancestor is the Caanite people who came to the area around 3000 BC. I asked if you referred to the 7 AD Arab immigration to the area (an immigration which led to a mix of the old and new population though intermarriage and conversion.)

You replied:

No, actually I am refering to the Arab influx of transient workers during the construction boom of the early 20th century.

I stated there were a lot of people living in the area before that, people who were forced to flee in 1948. You then went on to claim that:

just calling them "Palestinians does not make them more ethnically connected to the land than the Hebiru. They are Arabs. Not Caananites, not Philistines, not Habiru. They have a homeland. It is called Saudi Arabia. In the article you cited above, you made heavy reference to the Caananites.

Do you believe that the term "Arab", as used when referring to North Africa, Middle East and Arabian Penisula, means all these people have their home in Saudi Arabia? If so, where on earth did you get this idea from? You seem to have missed that the Palestine people were the people who lived in Palestine: that name of the region appeared in 135 AD.

It is obviously so that we are not talking about the same thing any longer. Palestines, as in "people living in Palestine", ie the people who lived in the are before it became a British mandate were both Jewish and Muslim, or Arabic and Muslim. Some of there people were Jewish Palestines and got the state Israel. Some were Arabs, and were allowed to live in Israel but with less rights than Jews (for instance, they could not own property). Nowadays, most people use the term "Palestines" to refer the stateless group of people who formely lived in the area called Palestine but became refugees after the conflicts.

You say the Palestine people have a homeland: Saudi Arabia. I think this comment reveals a lack of understanding about the central points in Middle East history. What Palestinian people are you talking about and what Arab people? Why do you think that people who lived in the area for hundreds of years should go to Saudi Arabia? By the same reasoning you should view Europe as you homeland Scayde. Calling you "American" does not make you ethically connected to the land that belonged to the natives.

I hope yOu realise that this reasoning is absurd. Let us go back to 640 AD when the muslim Arabs conquered the area. You seem to have missed the fact that people intermarried and mixed over the centuries, up to the Zionist immigration by turn of the last century. Do you believe the region lived in total ethnic segregation for 1300 years?

Don't you realise that Jewish and Muslim Palestines both lived in the area for thousands of years? Why should one group suddenly go to Saudi?

I stated that the Jews and Palestines have equal rights to the land based on history. I posted an article by the American organisation Jews for Justice and BBC's timeline. You said:

That is history seen through one perspective. A perspective sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Here is another which includes facts left out by that article.

Ok, so you thought BBC was sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and posted a link to a site with links to articles who use wordings such as "phony Palestinian agenda", "self-righteous Arabs". Do you realise that the quote from the third link actually contains racist comments? That was the reason why I linked to that article and not the others.

Then you say you are merely "trying to demonstrate the way in which history can be interpreted and reinterpreted to support which ever argument a person wants to make".

The quotes you posted were not in the article you linked to.

I only provided the third link I clicked on, which should be obvious by the structure of the post. I do not use such cheap shots as posting false links.

I do not care. I am not defending my opinion. I said I had no interest in gaining anyone's agreement. It does not require anone's support to be valid.

No, but IMO an opionion cannot be based on a row of factual errors and still be valid. That is when I start calling it belief, or feeling. From you posts I conclude that you feel the Palestines are a people who came to the area during the early 20th century, but their homeland is Saudi Arabia.

Since I have little interest in discussing loaded questions like this in terms of people's personal feelings, I will not post more to you in this particular thread. (I will however gladly continue the general discussion in this thread.)

Originally posted by Littiz
@Dottie:
My point was that, despite the incredible facts that happened to them, the victims of the holocaust -or their
relatives- never used senseless violence (to my knowledge).
Does the killing of Israeli civilians or kids save someone from an actual, immediate threat?
No. Yet many people over the world support or justify those acts, out of pure hatred towards Israel.

It's late here and i don't feel like getting the exact names, but Israel did go on a Nazi hunt and publicly execute them following the war. (not saying it wasn't justified, but it did happen)

People support a country's right not to be invaded and settled. yes, I see the irony of an american saying this. i don't think people's views on attacks on the settlements have hardly anythign to do with "hatred towards israel". If Palestine had the muscle and started developing in Israel, bulldozing israeli homes- where would you stand?

@Voodoo: Sorry I missed your post previously...

Originally posted by VoodooDali
I hope CE comments on this. Y-chromosome research is revealing, but will not be definitive until the Human Genome Project is completed, from what I understand.

The HGP is completed However, what the exact conclusions are that can be drawn from Y-chromosome research is difficult to say anyway, but as far as I know, the study you refer to is solid.

I am totally braindead right now, far too little sleep and too much work...I will expand as much as I can on the PNAS-paper later...

@Dottie:
Of course, you're free to distribute deaths as you wish in your judgements.
My position about "guilty" settlers (assuming they are):
Even if they were totally aware of their guilt, that punishment would be higher than the guilt itself.
And many, due to their environment, education or misguided information may even think they have full right
to occupy those lands.
What if one day one wakes up and judges *you* to be perfectly wrong, thus making arbitrary assumptions about
your right to prosecute life?

Of course this argument of comprehension applies even to Palestianians and *their* wrongs.
Except in the extreme case of suicide bombers (and their supporters) who hit unguilty civilians or kids,
'cause that is simply unhuman, the intent is very clear and there's very little that I'd wish to understand.

@CE:

No country should give unconditional financial and/or military aid to a country or actor who is constantly violating human rights and UN conventions with this same aid.

Then I figure no country should give money to any country at all
And no poor country in the third world would ever receive a cent

@nael:
Are you talking about isolated cases, or about a vast campaign, orchestrated by religious leaders who
actively and openly promoted the slaughter of german civilians? 'Cause I've never heard about such a
thing... And you spoke about Nazis, BTW, not german civilians...
I understand you don't notice a general "hatred towards Israel". You're in the US, there the thing
should be less evident. It's not the same where I live, and I think in Europe in general, that's why
I started the thread, much in line with Gruntboy's post.

Excellent points Littiz.

Originally posted by C Elegans
THIS POST IS NOT VALID FOR MY SUPPORT OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A HOMELAND, THIS IS MERELY A TANGIENTAL DISCUSSION WHERE I OPPOSE SCAYDE'S PERSONAL FEELINGS REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE
<snip.>
No, but IMO an opionion cannot be based on a row of factual errors and still be valid. That is when I start calling it belief, or feeling. <snip>

I agree. I do not base my opinions on factual errors. I will concede however that different sources interpret facts differently, and often conflict each other.

<snip>
Since I have little interest in discussing loaded questions like this in terms of people's personal feelings, I will not post more to you in this particular thread. (I will however gladly continue the general discussion in this thread.) <snip>[/b]

@CE: I do not think I asked a loaded question. I have reread my statements, and did not find where I had asked a question at all, other than rhetorically, which I answered myself.
I read the way you have posted pieces of my comments and addressed them and they hardly resemble what I was trying to convey. I chalk this up to my poor communication skills. I am no debater. I never have been. I do not argue well, nor do I do well at defending my views. I was not hoping to convince anyone, sway anyone, or turn anyone from their view to mine. I respect the differences of opinion many of us have. I respect yours. I see no reason to try to invalidate any one's point of view. I hope we can simply agree to disagree.

@Littiz: You missunderstand me, I do not propose this as a punishment. I think punishments and revenge are irrelevant for the current situation, and also an obstacle for any solution. This is millitary action to stop an unjust occupation, not the arbitrary distribution of death sentances.

But you are right that if I am ignorantly taking part in an assault similar to the settlers, then yes, I could be held to the same standards.

Im aware of that some media sources is very biased though, and if I did think that they caused a significant problem in obtaining information then I would not make this statement. However, Israel have a relatively free press, atleast for Israeli jews, so searching information shouldnt be very hard.

It would also be different if the settlers faced serious consequences (like imprisonment, execution) If they did choose to move back, but they dont.

Originally posted by Littiz
Then I figure no country should give money to any country at all
And no poor country in the third world would ever receive a cent

Not at all, there are many countries who do not consistantly violate human rights and UN conventions. A majority, actually. Also, you don't need to be rich to have a good human rights record (even though it helps a lot), Senegal for instance have an excellent record. Check Human rights violations here:

http://www.hrw.org

Also, note that I said unconditional. That means you demand something in return for the aid, such as compliance with international agreements.

Gee not many people answered my post, so I guess everyone is just okay with it all.

Oh yes I found some interesting quotes while looking for something else entirely, but here they be.

http://www.al-awda.org/famous_quotes.htm

@InfiniteNature, my apologies if I missed your point before I read Scayde, who said something rather similar. But as I replied to her:

The Pentecostals who were trying to convert us all shortly before they buried my wife's grandfather made a point that Israel's return to the Jews was the first step before the destruction of the world. The second, to follow very shortly, is the conversion of all the Jews to Christianity. (Well, Pentecostalism, which is the only true Christianity.)

So Jews going to Israel is apparently part of The Master Plan. I don't see anywhere any Muslims in it, and I suspect that most Pentecostals hold them in as much regard as they hold Buddhists, Pagans, Animists, and the dozens of Hindu sects.

Oh no I wasn't really referring to you fable or scayde, just to some of the other people who didn't post.

"edit: I see IN has already addressed this point while I was working"

Sorry I stole your post scayde.

Yeah, one persons opinion/freedom arse whatever. I am completely biased, want Iraqi kids to die etc. Ho ho. Enjoy yourselves on the high horse. Nice vantage point?

Originally posted by InfiniteNature
Oh yes I found some interesting quotes while looking for something else entirely, but here they be.

Many of the posts are pretty horrifying, but there are two points to remember.

First, in a parliamentary democracy (especially one with televised debates), politiians usually pander to their constituencies' lowest common denominator. Frequently, that involves hate and fear. If you're going to get elected, you press those buttons repeatedly. I find it disgusting, but it's often a commonplace. The same politicians who say such things fortunately are two-faced, and don't believe the rhetoric they use to keep their voters happy.

Second, several of those quotes frankly look suspicious to me. I have to wonder about sources, and context. Ben Gurion is quoted as saying "We must expel Arabs and take their places," but it's never mentioned *when* and under what provocation he uttered that remark. Was it by chance when he was fighting the Six Day War, as Israel was invaded by its neighbors? If so, that remark would be perfectly acceptable. Ben Gurion was typically a force for peace and moderation, so that quote just doesn't sound right.

Several of the other quotes have a similar air about them. For example, one quote of Aba Eban begins with the following, added by the site owner: "Aba Eban (the Israeli Foreign Minister) stated arrogantly:" Now, if this is blatantly trying to control our emotional responses, I don't know what is. The supposedly "arrogant" quote is "If the General Assembly were to vote by 121 votes to 1 in favor of "Israel" returning to the armistice lines-- (pre June 1967 borders) "Israel" would refuse to comply with the decision." Which sounds hostile, but the date given is in fact directly after the Six Day War--at which point, it makes perfect emotional sense, whatever one may think of it, later.

I'm inclined to write everything on that site off, as a result. There is too much of an agenda clearly at work for which the site owner is willing to employ unacceptable tactics for persuasion's sake. I am willing to be convinced of a particular POV. But not when facts are deliberately taken out of context, or comments from doubtful sources used to do the convincing.

And that goes for pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli sources.

Originally posted by Lazarus
I couldn’t disagree more with this fabulously broad statement. A death is not a death. A person who serves honorably in the armed services is not a terrorist, and cannot be held to the same standards, regardless of how many people he has killed. Is every man who served in WWII a war criminal?

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Hooah, Lazarus.

In fact, I'd argue that some men's death free mankind. Mr Hussein's for example. He will not be missed when it is confirmed.

Stalin, Frogus? Are you prepared for mortality, for any deaths?

Sorry for coming and going - but here is an answer to these old replies:

Stalin, Hussein?

You think that their deaths are a good thing - I know we will never agree on this, but I hate death. I hate killing. I think that the death of Saddam will not free mankind.

Removing Saddam from power will free mankind, of course, but I think that killing a man is never a positive action.

Many people have the opinion that a person should be killed instantly if they killed someone else first, so I do not expect to pursuade anybody that not even Saddam deserves death - but that is my opinion. I do not think that a death can ever really accomplish anything on its own.

Of course, killing Saddam may be the only possible way of removing him from power. I don't know.

Then just to finish off our little discussion ...

Yes, frogus, you are right to say we will not agree on this one. There have been, are, and will probably always be people who, IMO, have by their actions forfeited their life, and the world would be a better place without them.

Quote"Many of the posts are pretty horrifying, but there are two points to remember.

First, in a parliamentary democracy (especially one with televised debates), politiians usually pander to their constituencies' lowest common denominator. Frequently, that involves hate and fear. If you're going to get elected, you press those buttons repeatedly. I find it disgusting, but it's often a commonplace. The same politicians who say such things fortunately are two-faced, and don't believe the rhetoric they use to keep their voters happy.

Second, several of those quotes frankly look suspicious to me. I have to wonder about sources, and context. Ben Gurion is quoted as saying "We must expel Arabs and take their places," but it's never mentioned *when* and under what provocation he uttered that remark. Was it by chance when he was fighting the Six Day War, as Israel was invaded by its neighbors? If so, that remark would be perfectly acceptable. Ben Gurion was typically a force for peace and moderation, so that quote just doesn't sound right.

Several of the other quotes have a similar air about them. For example, one quote of Aba Eban begins with the following, added by the site owner: "Aba Eban (the Israeli Foreign Minister) stated arrogantly:" Now, if this is blatantly trying to control our emotional responses, I don't know what is. The supposedly "arrogant" quote is "If the General Assembly were to vote by 121 votes to 1 in favor of "Israel" returning to the armistice lines-- (pre June 1967 borders) "Israel" would refuse to comply with the decision." Which sounds hostile, but the date given is in fact directly after the Six Day War--at which point, it makes perfect emotional sense, whatever one may think of it, later.

I'm inclined to write everything on that site off, as a result. There is too much of an agenda clearly at work for which the site owner is willing to employ unacceptable tactics for persuasion's sake. I am willing to be convinced of a particular POV. But not when facts are deliberately taken out of context, or comments from doubtful sources used to do the convincing.

And that goes for pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli sources."Quote

What can I say I posess a abundance of laziness, and these quotes were what I found when looking for another quote entirely, specifically the one from the Pastor, so what can I say I ain't surprised it was taken out of context.

@Fable: I looked into the Ben Gurion thing.

The following article, by Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons (an Israeli) seems to be fairly balanced, and is fascinating.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Se ... ansf5.html

At the end of the article, it discusses the controversy surrounding that quote, but, if you have the time to read the whole article, it clarifies a lot of Ben Gurion's thinking regarding compulsory transfer of Palestinians.