Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 103

Thread: Jeremiah Wright: 'Jesus was a Palestinian'

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by njtom View Post
    I think it's important to note that criticizing the conduct of the Israeli government is not an anti-semitic action.
    Actually it is

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to BAP For This Useful Post:

    CatchyUsername (10-13-2015)

  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by njtom View Post
    I think the analogy that Rev. Wright is driving at is that Jesus was to the Roman Empire as today's Palestinians are to Europeans. In both cases, the weaker of the two was abused by the stronger.

    The analogy falls a bit short as Jesus taught his followers not to resist their oppressors, whereas today's Palestinians actively do so.
    Isnt that what Leftists always do ? Leftists define morality by Weak Vs Strong or Rich V Poor ... They never view it in Right or Wrong terms

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BAP For This Useful Post:

    CatchyUsername (10-13-2015), Quest (10-13-2015)

  5. #23
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by BAP View Post
    Actually it is
    How is that ?

    Webster's dictionary :

    anti-semitism

    hatred of Jewish people
    hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

  6. #24
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by BAP View Post
    Isnt that what Leftists always do ? Leftists define morality by Weak Vs Strong or Rich V Poor ... They never view it in Right or Wrong terms
    I think there is a tendency to side with a clear underdog irrespective of the morality of the actions involved.

  7. #25
    I was hoping you'd show up! You stole some points I was going to make.

    I would also add that the narrative that Israel is "building illegal settlements on Palestinian territories", is a complete fabrication.

    (This is long, but worth the read. Facts and "legalities" about settlements are in this article:

    History of the Settlement Movement

    Following Israel's resounding defeat of the invading Arab armies in the Six-Day War, strategic concerns led both of Israel's major political parties - the Labor and Likud - to support and establish settlements at various times. The first settlements were built by Labor governments from 1968 to 1977, with the explicit objective to secure a Jewish majority in key strategic regions of the West Bank - such as the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor - that were the scene of heavy fighting in several of the Arab-Israeli wars.

    The second wave of settlement construction began with the1968 occupation of the Park Hotel in Hebron, a city with a long, rich Jewish history dating back to biblical times that had only been interrupted by a massacre of Jewish residents by Arabs in 1929. Those who came to Hebron in 1968 were the first of the ideological settlers who believed that Israel's victory the prior year was an act of G-d which indicated divine providence that the historic Land of Israel should be restored to the Jewish people. Very few such settlements were established until Menachem Begin was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1977. Begin's government, as well assubsequent Likud-led governments, provided financial incentives for Jews to move to parts of Judea and Samaria that did not necessarily have any strategic value. Their purpose was to solidify Israel's hold on territory that was part of biblical and historical Israel and preempt the creation of a Palestinian state.

    A third group of Jews who are today considered "settlers," moved to the West Bank primarily for economic reasons; that is, the government provided financial incentives to live there, and the towns were close to their jobs.

    As of July 2012, the estimated Jewish population of the nearly 130 officially recognized West Bank settlements was 350,150. Critics suggest these figures imply territorial compromise with the Palestinians is impossible; however, the distribution of the Jewish population is such that a solution is not only conceivable but also very plausible and practical.

    When Arab-Israeli peace talks began in late 1991, more than 80 percent of the West Bank contained no settlements or only sparsely populated ones. Currently, more than 60 percent of Israelis living in the West Bank live in just five settlement blocs - Ma'ale Adumim, Modiin Ilit, Ariel, Gush Etzion, Givat Ze'ev - which all lie within only a few miles of the 1967 border, otherwise known as the "Green Line." These settlement blocs could be brought within Israel's borders so as to retain an Arab population (from the West Bank) of less than 50,000. It is inconceivable that Israel would evacuate large cities such as Ma'ale Adumim, with a population of approximately 35,000, even after a peace agreement with the Palestinians, and even Yasser Arafat grudgingly accepted at Camp David the idea that the large settelement blocs would be part of Israel.

    The area in dispute is also very small. According to one organization critical of settlements, the built-up areas constitute only 1.7% of the West Bank. That is less than 40 square miles. Even if you add the unbuilt areas falling with the municipal boundaries of the settlements, the total area is only 152 square miles.

    Legalities

    Another charge is that settlements are "illegal." The United States has never adopted this position and legal scholars have noted that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Moreover, the occupying power may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.

    According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution "allows Israel to administer the territories" it won in 1967 "until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved," Rostow wrote in The New Republic (10/21/91). During the debate on the resolution, he added, "speaker after speaker made it clear that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile' and 'vulnerable' [1949] Armistice Demarcation Lines."

    Obstacles?

    Israel's adversaries, and even some friends, assert that settlements are an obstacle to peace. The evidence points to the opposite conclusion. From 1949-67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel. From 1967-77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs showed no interest in making peace with Israel. In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat went to Jerusalem. One year later, Israel froze settlements, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process. But none would. In another Camp David summit in 2000, Ehud Barak offered to dismantle most settlements and create a Palestinian state in exchange for peace, and Yasser Arafat rejected the plan.

    Israel also proved willing to dismantle settlements in the interest of peace. During the Camp David negotiations with Egypt, all of the issues had been resolved, but one remained, Sadat's insistence that all settlements in the Sinai be removed. Begin didn't want to remove them, but he called Ariel Sharon for advice. Sharon said that in the interest of peace, the settlements should be dismantled. Israel did just that in 1982, providing compensation to residents for the loss of their homes, farms and businesses that ranged from $100,000 to $500,000 (Jerusalem Post, January 8, 2004). Nevertheless, a small group of settlers in the town of Yamit refused to leave and Sharon had the army literally drag them out of their homes to comply with the terms of the agreement with Egypt.

    In short, the historical record shows that with the exception of Egypt, and Jordan, the Arab states and Palestinians have been intransigent regardless of the scope of settlement activity. One reason is the conviction that time is on their side. References are frequently made in Arabic writings to how long it took to expel the Crusaders and how it might take a similar length of time to do the same to the Zionists.

    Settlement activity may be a stimulus to peace because it forces Arabs to question this tenet. "The Palestinians now realize," said Bethlehem Mayor Elias Freij, a member of the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid talks, "that time is now on the side of Israel, which can build settlements and create facts, and that the only way out of this dilemma is face-to-face negotiations." Consequently, the Arabs went to Madrid and Washington for peace talks despite continued settlement activity. Similarly, the Palestinians negotiated with Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, even though he also allowed the number of settlers to grow.
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ttlements.html


    Quote Originally Posted by Tehilah Ba'Aretz View Post
    Wait just a minute! njtom? You are seriously wrong on nearly every point! Israel did not force out the vast majority of the so called refugees. There is no land that was designated as Palestinian by the UN in 1947. The Arabs who left in 1948 did not own the land they left, it was owned by absentee landlords or by the Turkish government. The illegal occupation of land designated for a Jewish homeland took place in 1948 when Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon attacked and occupied. The Jordanians retained control of the illegally occupied land until 1967. They even went so far as to annex the land to Jordan but their annexation was not ratified or recognized except by Great Britain and Pakistan. Even so, Jordan did not allow private ownership of any of the land they occupied. Let's get some of the basic facts straight here.

  8. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by BAP View Post
    Isnt that what Leftists always do ? Leftists define morality by Weak Vs Strong or Rich V Poor ... They never view it in Right or Wrong terms
    Exactly. Well said.

  9. #27
    Super Moderator Quest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Ashville, Alabama
    Posts
    5,920
    Thanked: 3402
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by BAP View Post
    Isnt that what Leftists always do ? Leftists define morality by Weak Vs Strong or Rich V Poor ... They never view it in Right or Wrong terms
    True..I didn't see Jesus addressing the issue of Roman oppression at all..
    To read the NT one would tend to get the sense that to Him they were irrelevant..seems to me

  10. #28
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by Quest View Post
    True..I didn't see Jesus addressing the issue of Roman oppression at all..
    To read the NT one would tend to get the sense that to Him they were irrelevant..seems to me
    He told the disciples that he would send the holy spirit who would lead them into all truth, which includes Paul and the other epistle authors. When Paul wrote, he wrote in the spirit of Jesus which means that he continued on his words. There is no contradiction. Dividing the NT into the words of Jesus vs the words of the rest is a very secular idea. The SUM of the Word is truth.

  11. #29
    A good book on the origins of the Palestinian refugee situation is Benny Morris's: The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. -- http://www.amazon.com/Palestinian-Re.../dp/0521009677

    Mr. Morris is an Israeli historian, born on a kibbutz.

    From a review of this book:

    In the opening pages of "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.

    By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. "There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons)." ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with "severe punishment". As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda. -- http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine


    But don't just read the review, read the book; it's great!

  12. #30
    Senior Member Cardinal TT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    7,640
    Thanked: 5995
    Blog Entries
    2
    We cant allow our support of Israel to blind us. I believe in the state of Israel and support the majority of what they do but some Palestinians were treated badly and forced to remove. I know a very decent Palestinian Christian whose family was pressured to leave their property which was quite large.

    This person is not anti Israel but a godly person and is not lying....We cant put our heads in the sand and believe everything Israel did was pure as snow.

    Even if it was only a minority who were treated badly that still amounts to a large number of people who didn't deserve what happened to them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Stop worrying about expensive repair bills costs with an extended warranty for your Saturn. Many vehicle repairs can cost thousands of dollars in unexpected expense, now may be the time to consider an extended service plan for your vehicle.