The proposed Palestinian National Anthem

[Gamblor]

The Israeli national anthem - HaTikva - "the Hope"
As long as deep in the heart,
The soul of a Jew yearns,
And forward to the East [Toward Jerusalem]
To Zion, an eye looks
Our hope will not be lost,
The hope of two thousand years,
To be a free nation in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.


The proposed Palestinian National Anthem
Palestine History (http://www.palestinehistory.com/anthem.htm)

My country, my country
My country, the land of my grandfathers
My country, my country
My country, my nation, the nation of eternity
With my determination, my fire and the volcano of my revenge
The longing of my blood to my land and home
I have climbed the mountains and fought the wars
I have conquered the impossible, and crossed the borders
My country, my country, the nation of eternity
With the resolve of the winds and the fire of the guns
And the determination of my nation in the land of struggle
Palestine is my home, Palestine is my fire, Palestine is my revenge and the land of eternal
My country, my country, the nation of eternity
I swear under the shade of the flag
To my land and nation, and the fire of pain
I will live as a guerrilla, I will go on as guerrilla,
I will expire as guerrilla until I will be back
My country, my country, the nation of eternity

You're right guys, they've got "peace on the brain".

I can hear Chris foaming at the mouth already; Propaganda, Zionazi, racist, blah blah blah.

How does one defend against this kind of foe?

[MMMMMM]

That's some pretty sick stuff there.

By the way, I cancelled my Atlantic City trip, so I guess I'll have to wait to take ACPlayer's money some other time;-)

[daryn]

i don't get this at all. you highlight certain phrases in the national anthem that can be considered violent. what does that prove really? what about "the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air" etc.?

[Gamblor]

I'm contrasting the two anthems to show that the Israelis are fundamentally more peace-oriented; that peace is a systematic part of the culture from the government on down. Yet they have been dragged, against their will, into a perpetual war of survival since 1948 - not multiple wars, but one war that has run on-and-off for as long as there has been Jewish self-determination in the region. It is the mere presence of Jews that has the Arabs up in arms; they consider the entire land west of the Jordan as "occupied", and will not rest until the entire land is Arab-controlled.

Sounds romantic from an Israeli point of view, no? It's still the reality.

I didn't say a word about the United States' anthem;

But nowhere in there does it talk about revenge, [i]guerillas until death (in other words, martyrdom), spilling blood, etc. etc.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet they have been dragged, against their will, into a perpetual war of survival since 1948

[/ QUOTE ]

True, however, Palestinians were forced out of their own homeland because of the creation of Isreal. They've been trying to survive too.

About the anthem part...
They love their country so much that they'd be willing to die for it, etc. etc. It really is no different than America's national anthem, which is really an account of a a battle in the Revolutionary War, which they fought for their freedom.

Also, I would want to able to speak Arabic and listen to this proposed anthem before I trust an English translation. It may not be as intense as it seems in English.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
It really is no different than America's national anthem, which is really an account of a a battle in the Revolutionary War

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was during the war of 1812

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
thought it was during the war of 1812

[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
It really is no different than America's national anthem...

[/ QUOTE ]

No different, huh?

[Chris Daddy Cool]

Ok, poor choice of words. Similiar to.

[Gamblor]

Hehe 1812?

There wasn't much to sing about for the Americans after that one.

If you'll recall, your invasion of Canada at Fort York and Lundy's Lane didn't go very well.

After all, I'm a Canadian, not an American.

[MMMMMM]

Similar and dissimilar--and both are important.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
But nowhere in there does it talk about revenge, guerillas until death (in other words, martyrdom), spilling blood, etc. etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
From the American National Anthem:

"Their [the enemy's] blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave"

...

"may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'"

In short, our God-sanctioned cause compels us to "conquer," giving our enemies "no refuge" from "terror" or "the grave," as we spill so much of their blood that we wipe out even their "footsteps." No wonder why no one ever wants to sing past the first stanza.

Certainly the most awkward and least singable of the popular ditties, the National Anthem may be the ugliest song ever written by a lawyer.

It takes a lawyer, after all, to manufacture a tale of high victory over a British force that had, weeks before, sacked and burned the U.S. capitol, showing the first family a thing or two about "the terror of flight."

It is perhaps not surprising that our stupidest song commemorates our stupidest war. It started with a dispute over British seizures of U.S. vessels on the grounds that they might be trading with Napoleon, which the testy Americans viewed as an intolerable "insult to the flag." Then-President Jefferson certainly could have averted war with diplomacy or even modest military action. Instead, he chose to embargo English trade, which bankrupted New England, whose economy Jefferson wasn't too keen on anyway. The resulting economic crisis helped fuel election-year cries of bloodthirsty "war-hawks" (the term began here), mostly land speculators (like Jackson, Crockett, and other heroes), eager to use the pretext of British "interference" to steal land from Indians, drive the Spanish from Florida, "liberate" Canada, etc. The upshot was Canada soundly repelling U.S. aggression, Indians being massacred, the British growing weary and having bigger fish to fry, and the U.S. winning its greatest victory only after the war was over, the gory and still-cherished Battle of New Orleans. That battle in turn launched the political career of genocidal maniac Andrew Jackson, "a barbarian and savage who can scarcely spell his own name" (J.Q. Adams), who we still honor as one of few Americans worthy of placement on the currency.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

As I have said before, the entire middle east will not be happy unless they have someone to hate.

al

[andyfox]

"the Israelis are fundamentally more peace-oriented; that peace is a systematic part of the culture from the government on down."

Surely you jest. Israel has constitutued itself as a garrison state from its founding. By the mid-1930s, the Zionists realized they could never win Israel without resort to force, and they have never strayed from that course.

One can argue about whether Israel's or the Palestinians' cause is more just, but that the Israelis are fundamentally more peace-loving, on the evidence that Hatikvah has nice words in it, is ludicrous.

[ACPlayer]

Sorry, MMMMMM, but I am busy travelling so would have missed you anyway. I am sure you would have made the games even better.

Oh and BTW next week or so I will be at My Lai (remember that little aberration by the US military.) I was reminded about it by events of the last 10 days or so. As I recall after lots of investigation one officer was given life imprisonment as a sentence but served no jail time. Lets hope this investigation is a little more transparent.

For now I will enjoy the Mekong Delta and the offerings of Ho Chi Minh City. I do need someplace to spend my winnings.

[ACPlayer]

Perhaps the Israeli Anthem is peaceloving in its words. Unfortunately the actions have been consistently just the opposite in continually destroying any chances for peace.

It is really too bad that a whole people have been subjected to such intense ethnic cleansing by outsiders who have moved into their homes and then relocated them into ghettos with violent force if needed, that their anthem must reflect their anger.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet they (the Israeli's) have been dragged, against their will, into a perpetual war of survival since 1948

[/ QUOTE ]

against their will? I thought it was the Zionists that wanted to create the state of Israel, which is what started all this. against their will?

[ QUOTE ]
not multiple wars, but one war that has run on-and-off for as long as there has been Jewish self-determination in the region

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad the Palestinians never got a chance for this racial "self-determination". Perhaps if all the people who have relocated to Israel in the past 50 years go back to their homelands the war will end.

None of the above BTW, for the weak minded, condones terrorism as a tactic (whether state sponsored or not). To quote Mason - Do you see why?.

Nor does this, for the same weak minded set, does this attack Jews. Again, do you see why?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Hehe 1812?

There wasn't much to sing about for the Americans after that one.

If you'll recall, your invasion of Canada at Fort York and Lundy's Lane didn't go very well.

After all, I'm a Canadian, not an American.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't forget the whole Canada theatre of the war was just an opportunistic invasion - little downside, much to gain if successful. Canada was just not that important. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

The war was a success from the US standpoint, since what we were fighting for was the right to trade freely with everyone (including Napoleon) and not have Americans impressed into the British navy. Key Events & Causes: War of 1812 (http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.1812.html)

Remember, the US has never lost a war.

W

[MMMMMM]

Glad you're winning but don't waste them on a foolish vacation. Move up in limit instead;-)

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
One can argue about whether Israel's or the Palestinians' cause is more just, but that the Israelis are fundamentally more peace-loving, on the evidence that Hatikvah has nice words in it, is ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Israelis may not be more peace-loving, but the Palestinians are, or have become, more violence-loving. Too many kids who have never set foot in Israel are being conditioned to be willing to die for "their" country. It isn't their country if they never lived there in the first place. Those Palestinians who were actually relocated may have a legitimate claim of some sort, but the others--which is the majority--really don't.

Using the Palestinans' reasoning, the descendants of every dispossessed people in the world should have a claim backwards in perpetuity. Well, the world just doesn't work that way. They should stop fighting an unwinnable war and harming their own people. Instead they need to get on with their lives--like every other dispossessed people throughout history has done. That would be the intelligent thing to do--the Palestinians could even come to prosperity before too long if they set their sights on that instead of on revenge.

On a side note: I read that over 200,000 Palestinians chose to stay in Israel when over 600,000 left (1948?). The Israeli government pleaded with them to stay and offered citizenship to those who did. Those who stayed were indeed granted Israeli citizenship and did just fine. Those who left--because the Arab nations which were massed for attack told them to evacuate and that they would be able to return after Israel was cleansed of Jews--ended up holding the bag. How much truth to this account?

[Gamblor]

I thought it was the Zionists that wanted to create the state of Israel, which is what started all this. against their will?

There was no Zionism until Arab raids on Jewish towns in Palestine necessitated a Jewish state to protect Jews.

Too bad the Palestinians never got a chance for this racial "self-determination". Perhaps if all the people who have relocated to Israel in the past 50 years go back to their homelands the war will end.

I will not challenge your assertion that Jews comprise a "race", or even that race is an issue here - after all, many Jews in Israel are in fact Arab Jews. However, if we do accept this assumption, then you must admit that Palestinians are part of the Arab Muslim ethnic group, and if that is the case, then there are 22 other Arab states in the middle east in which the Arab "race" asserts their self-determination. So they have indeed had their chance, and rejected it - either by choice or as a result of other Arabs.

Not that this is a race issue.

[Gamblor]

Read Israeli newspapers.

If you could read Hebrew, you'd see that any glimmer of hope, any prospect of peace and mutual collaboration with Arab countries is immediately given front page status, is praised by all leaders from Netanyahu to Sharon.

In Israel, first and foremost is safety and security for the citizenry. Second is peace.

In Arab nations, including Palestinian, first and foremost is whatever those in charge deem most important, even if its a new Mercedes. Everything else is secondary.

[Gamblor]

There was no Zionism until Arab raids on Jewish towns in Palestine necessitated a Jewish state to protect Jews.

As well as Russian pogroms, and Spanish Inquisitions, and British Crusades.

[andyfox]

In every country, first and foremost is whatever those deem important. In Israel, it has always been "security." As in every country, sometimes fears about security were, and other times nonsense.

No one denies the venality of the vast majority of the Arab "leadership." But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that Israel has been a peace-loving nation. We can argue about whether it has not been able to afford to be so in light of the threat posed by its enemies, but not the facts of its militarism. The leadership had always regarded all of Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan, as its patrimony.

[andyfox]

"It isn't their country if they never lived there in the first place."

This, of course, is precisely the argument that the Zionists made: that Palestine was "their" country because god had given it to them and because it was their historical homeland. Certainly the argument of kids that a piece of earth is "theirs" has more merit if their parents lived there than if their supposed forebears lived there some two thousand years ago.

Nobody says a claim to land goes back in perpetuity. Certainly some reasonable period of time should be involved.

The Israeli government was delighted that so many Palestinians left. The statements of all involved are clear in this regard. The offer they made to take some back was rejected by the United Nations and the United States as inadequate; the Israeli leaders knew it would be rejected, that's why they made it. The demographic problem of an Israel with a minority of Jews was "miraculously" solved. Those who remained were always treated as second-class citizens. Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. That being the case, non-Jews cannot be anything but.

An exodus of people who were on the losing side is pretty common after a civil war or revolution. I believe a larger portion of people living in the nascent United States after the Revolution fled than the percentage that fled from Vietnam after the Communist victory.

We are in agreement that the Palestinian leadership has failed the people. But both sides' leadership has (have?) failed their peoples by creating a legacy of violence and hatred, extrication from which seems almost impossible.

I dislike getting involved in these historical debates or even debates about recent events because it's usually a finger-pointing contest in a blame game that leads nowhere. Which is exactly, after all these years, where the "peace process" is.

[andyfox]

"Remember, the US has never lost a war."

You really ought to read something other than the bible.

[Gamblor]

We are in agreement that the Palestinian leadership has failed the people. But both sides' leadership has (have?) failed their peoples by creating a legacy of violence and hatred, extrication from which seems almost impossible.

Oh really?

What hatred of the "Palestinian people" is there by mainstream Israelis? None.

Mainstream Arabs, on the otherhand, have opinion that is formulated by the systematic blame of all that woes the nation on the Jews.

[andyfox]

"There was no Zionism until Arab raids on Jewish towns in Palestine necessitated a Jewish state to protect Jews."

Wrong. Modern Zionism was invented because of anti-semitism in Europe and Russia, not because of anything done in Palestine. It was the Dreyfus affair that caused the assimilated Jew Herzl to change his thinking. There were small non-Zionist communities in Palestine that pre-dated Zionism. The trouble with the natives began when the natives realized what the Zionists were up to and when some of the settlers treated those natives badly.

[Gamblor]

Read addendum.

[andyfox]

The Palestinians reaction to the Zionists colonization had nothing to do with the creation of Zionism. It did have a lot to do with the Zionist resort to force.

[Gamblor]

The Palestinians reaction to the Zionists colonization had nothing to do with the creation of Zionism.

That's a great one. Do you have any idea what you just said?

It is a fact that most of those that eventually believed Zionism was the answer to The Jewish Question immigrated to Israel as refugees.

If they were indeed colonizers, on whose behalf were they colonizing? Britain? France? Russia? Italy?

To where were the fantastic resources of the barren wasteland that was Palestine being exported?

Sorry, Andy.

They were refugees. Looking for a home. The Arab policy towards Jewish immigration was formulated by Haj Amin-el Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who initiated Arab riots in the 1920s to deter Jewish immigration to Palestine, long before there was any Jewish defence organization.

This, combined with anti-semitism in Europe led to the Zionist dream, not any colonization efforts. When the Arabs rebelled and rebelled against further immigration of Jews to Palestine, then the trouble began. Not before. What the Arabs of Palestine said, was basically, "As long as you sit in the corner and shut up, and stay in small enough numbers that you don't bother us, you can stay as our subservients."

Do you remember the story of Passover? Sounds familiar, no? Except Pharoah was a little less deliberate in his genocide - after all, he still needed slaves to build his cities. The Arabs had no use for Jews and viewed them as animals.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember, the US has never lost a war.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really ought to read something other than the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]
What has religion to do with our military history?

If you are suggesting that I think God has ensured all of our victories, you are wrong.

Remember God often makes his people suffer - like wandering in the desert for 40 years, or turning the other cheek.

If I ran this country based on biblical principles, I might just sit on my hands and do nothing in the face of terrorism, expecting to get my reward in eternal life. But my secular duty is to defend America, and I am fulfilling my secular duty to America.

God, on the other hand, does not need my help, although we certainly do need His help. (I realize that last clause will flip you out /images/graemlins/blush.gif)

W

[BadBoyBenny]

I don't know how you can not consider Vietnam or war. Or how you can not consider it a loss.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how you can not consider Vietnam or war. Or how you can not consider it a loss.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since you asked, Vietnam was a theatre of conflict in The Cold War (1945-1990), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War) just as North Africa, the Eastern Front, and the Pacific were theatres of war during WWII.

While our success varied from theatre to theatre, we ultimately won the long struggle that was The Cold War. (With special thanks to Ronald Reagan)


W

<font color="white">........................</font> http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/0/03/NatoAndPact.png

[BadBoyBenny]

A truly American perspective. I think most Vietnamese would have considered it a civil war in which many of the troops on one side were foreign imerialists trying to impose their will on the country. There weren't Russians fighting in Vietnam to my knowledge. While our objectives may have been related to the Cold War, our fighting was against the Vietnamese.

Vietnam was much more of a war in the traditional sense than the Cold War. Just as Iraq is more of a war than the war on terror or the war on drugs.

[GWB]

You so casually say we were fighting the Vietnamese. In truth the Vietnamese people did not want to have a Communist dictatorship imposed on them, but Russia and China and Ho Chi Minh's goons did not give them any choice.

We at least tried to keep half of the country free of dictatorship, while at the same time demonstrating that we would not roll over for Communist take-overs around the world.

W

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Vietnam was much more of a war in the traditional sense than the Cold War. Just as Iraq is more of a war than the war on terror or the war on drugs.



[/ QUOTE ]
It is a mistake to think of Iraq as a distinct war, it is not. Our Iraq action is but a part of the War on Terrorism, as is Afghanistan and our other efforts around the world.

W

[Kaz The Original]

How about you give back the land you stole?

[Gamblor]

Who is "you"?

[elwoodblues]

even if that question is correct in context, it still is grammatically hard to read.

[andyfox]

" [Andy]The Palestinians reaction to the Zionists colonization had nothing to do with the creation of Zionism. . . . [Gamblor] That's a great one. Do you have any idea what you just said?"

Yes. Herzl didn't mention Palestinians when he created modern Zionism. There was no consideration of what the reaction of the natives would be. There was no surety of even where the state of the Jews would be; Uganda was debated as a possible homeland at the Zionist Congress. The reaction of the Palestinians had a lot to do with how Zionism turned to force as a solution to its problems, but nothing at all with the creation of Zionism.

"If they were indeed colonizers, on whose behalf were they colonizing? Britain? France? Russia? Italy?"

Great Britain. Herzl tried to sell the Zionist enterprise to the European powers as their agents of progress and influence in the backward sea of orientals, as a colonial enterprise to safeguard the sponsor's interest in the middle east.

To see Palestine as a barren wasteland, instead of the home of hundreds of thousands of people, was the big mistake made by the colonists. It is the mistake all colonists make, whether they see themselves as refugees or not.

Palestinian opposition to Zionist immigration to Palestine started long before the 1920s. How did the opposition of the Grand Mufti lead to "the Zionist dream?" It was indeed anti-semitism in Europe and Russia that led to the modern Zionist dream. It was the feeling that the Zionists were entering a barren wasteland, and the treatment of the natives, and the natives' reaction to the colonization and their treatment, that led to the Zionist nightmare.

The ardent Zionist Asher Ginsburg (Ahad Haam) wrote movingly of how the colonists lorded it over the natives and worried that this ill-treatment would come back to haunt the Zionists. A very different type of Zionist, Jabotinksy recognized early on that the Palestinians would not give up their land and that the Zionist would have to resort to what he called The Iron Wall.

The Zionists had no use for the Palestinians and treated them as animals.

[Gamblor]

Herzl didn't mention Palestinians when he created modern Zionism. There was no consideration of what the reaction of the natives would be. There was no surety of even where the state of the Jews would be; Uganda was debated as a possible homeland at the Zionist Congress. The reaction of the Palestinians had a lot to do with how Zionism turned to force as a solution to its problems, but nothing at all with the creation of Zionism.

Herzl didn't create Zionism, he merely articulated it and became its political champion. Jewish prayers have included prayers for a return to Zion since before the Crusades.

Just because YOU don't take the religion seriously (as you have the right to), doesn't mean others don't - and those that do have known that since the day of the exile Jews that DO pray have been praying for a "return to Zion".

Zionism is not the establishment of a Jewish state. It is the return to and settlement of diaspora Jews in Zion. There's a difference - only after the anti-semitism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries reared its head did Zionism take on a political form.

Great Britain. Herzl tried to sell the Zionist enterprise to the European powers as their agents of progress and influence in the backward sea of orientals, as a colonial enterprise to safeguard the sponsor's interest in the middle east.

The British Mandate began before Zionism hit the mainstream. Great Britian and the Zionists clashed repeatedly, especially after the 1922 White Paper which limited Jewish immigration to Palestine. Herzl's position was a facade to lure the British into support for Zionism - it was, as Arthur Balfour put it, to be "a Jewish national home". Not a satellite of the British Empire.

Colonization is necessarily done by force- usually militarily.

To say the Zionists "lorded" over the Palestinian Arabs is a gross oversimplification. Using money donated abroad, they legally purchased land, often at exorbitant prices, from absentee Arab landlords, the same people that now claim it was stolen from them.

Then, upon settling the land legally purchased, they began to find the local Arabs were most unfriendly neighbours. With the context of Russian pogroms and Arab Riots, Jabotinsky soon correctly realized that Arabs would never accept Jews in their midst (obvious, when examining the history of the Arab riots of the early 1920s), and realized that extending an olive branch would amount to the same result it had with Russian Bolsheviks - expulsion to Siberia, or in this case, the bottom of the Mediterranean.

[Kaz The Original]

The jewish state.

[andyfox]

Herzl created modern political zionism. I know about Jewish prayers and Rabbi Judah Alkalai and Tzevi Hirsch Kalischer and the Kolonisationsverein fur Palastina and Moses Hess and Leo Pinsker and Chibat Zion and Nathan Birnbaum and all the rest. Herzl is rightly considered the father of modern Zionism.

Herzl left open the location of the Jewish state. While acknowledging the historic homeland of Paleestine, the vast open spaces and temperate climate of Argentina were attractive to him.

Herzl proposed the Jews as managers of Europe's interests in the middle east, "an outpost of civilization against barbarism." He spent the rest of his life traveling throughout the west seeking a sponsor for his colonial scheme. To Germans, he implied that the proposed Jewish teritory would become an outpost of Berlin; to the British, that it would serk colonial status under Britain; to the Turks, that Jewish money would alleviate their chronic economic woes.

By the way, I do take the idea of the Jewish religion seriously: it is my contention that it is their religion that united Jews, nothing more. They were not a nation; the idea that they were was invented by the Zionists.

Of course the Zionists and the British had their disagreements. The British also made promises to the Arabs, most of them contradictory to those made to the Jews.

Remember that many who came in the Second Aliyah were veterans of the self-defense groups that had formed inside Russia. Self-defense became a major pillar of their ideology in Palestine. They translated their Russian experiences into the Palestinian context: Arab equalled gentile; Arab marauding equalled progrom; local antagonism and territorial feuding equalled anti-Semitism. The persecutors they left behind, they found in their new surroundings. This is natural.

Ahad Haam: "We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is almost completely deserted, a non-cultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow." "The Arab knew full well what Zionist intentions were in the country . . . if the time should come when the lives of our people in Palestine should develop to the extent that, to a smaller of greater degree they usurp the place of the local population, the latter will not yeild easily." Indeed, they did not.

Zionism was a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement. Yes, classic European colonialism had used force of arms. The new Zionist colonialism purchased land and established colonies or settlements. Realizing Zionism meant settlement and settlement meant isolation and vulnerability. From the start, the aim was to control all of Palestine and thus expansionism was necessary. The Zionists were uninterested in the Palestinian Arabs.

There is plenty of blame for today's situation all around. Let's not gloss over the nature of the Zionist movement.

[Gamblor]

Actually, Jewish immigrants fleeing persecution (mostly from Russia) purchased, often at exorbitant prices, the land from Arab landowners who were all-too-excited to unload the empty land.

Jerusalem Grand Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini often called for the execution of any Arab landowner who dared sell land to a Jew.

[Gamblor]

By the way, I do take the idea of the Jewish religion seriously: it is my contention that it is their religion that united Jews, nothing more. They were not a nation; the idea that they were was invented by the Zionists.

I'd argue that the notion of "nation" was there long before the political Zionists - Ahad Ha'am, after all, means literally "One (Achad) of the (Ha) Nation (Am)".

Am Yisrael (Nation of Israel) has been a fundamental part of Jewish identity (and prayer, for that matter) for centuries.

Invented? I don't think so. Articulated is more like it.

While your post is fairly accurate, it doesn't, at any point, support the claim that Zionism was a colonial enterprise on behalf of the British.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
In truth the Vietnamese people did not want to have a Communist dictatorship imposed on them, but Russia and China and Ho Chi Minh's goons did not give them any choice.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I'm sure the Vietnamese were much more eager for the French Colonialism we allowed to be imposed on them. Or much more eager for the corrupt and inept Diem government (a puppet state led by expatriate) to run their country into the ground.

We intervened to stop the planned elections in 1956 that would have and were supposed to unify the country because we knew that Diem would not stand a chance against Ho politically. The Vietnamese would have voted Communism in had we not intervened. The Vietnamese wanted Communism because all of the greatest nationalists wre communist, and because their heroes who had given them victory over the French were Communist. The fact is the majority of the country were Ho's goons.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
then there are 22 other Arab states in the middle east in which the Arab "race" asserts their self-determination

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Do two wrongs make a right?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you could read Hebrew, you'd see that any glimmer of hope, any prospect of peace and mutual collaboration with Arab countries is immediately given front page status, is praised by all leaders from Netanyahu to Sharon.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hog wash.

The peace is usually terminated either by a suicide bomb attack or by an attack by Israeli gunships for extra-judicial murders, often resulting in the loss of innocent life. Both sides are very culpable. Of late there have been more of the latter then there used to be.

Ooops, I forgot no Palestinian who gets killed in one of these attacks is innocent, they are all protecting the terrorists.

[Gamblor]

Not at all.

http://www.iris.org.il/images/arabwld3.gif

[ACPlayer]

Exactly -- they were refugees and they used military force to purge the area of others. In that they created another set of refugees who refused to simply run away from the problem created by the Zionists.

Arab policy against Jewish immigration in the 20's is the same as the restrictive immigration policy of today's Israel and many other countries. It is rational and normal in most countries.

The problem clearly is that the Zionists have some strange idea that the land belongs to them. Nobody else recognizes this so called ownership. The Zionists are willing to kill and chase people from their homes to claim this land which they cannot claim by normal property rights methods. The Zionists may have had a dream but they sure trampled over millions in their efforts to build this dream.

Remember that many devout Jews have long opposed the creation of a Jewish state. Perhaps they have a good reason.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem clearly is that the Zionists have some strange idea that the land belongs to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Great Britain owned the land and could have given it to whomever she pleased. Come to think of it, she did partition some land for the Palestinians, didn't she? And wasn't some of that land stolen by Jordan and another Arab state?

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody else recognizes this so called ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, ACPlayer, the U.N. and most countries do recognize it. It's most ARAB STATES who don't.

[ACPlayer]

Study up MMMMMMM.

The UN recognizes Israel and not the land grab and has security council resolutions that have asked Israel to stop settlements for decades. Look at a timeline of the WB settlements in the past 15 years to see how the land grab continues.

If the US came to its senses and stopped its one-sided support of Israel in the UN we would a) get peace in the middle east and b) reduce the chances of further terrorist anger at the US.

[Gamblor]

Arab policy against Jewish immigration in the 20's is the same as the restrictive immigration policy of today's Israel and many other countries.

Non-Jews are permitted to apply for immigration to Israel under similar criteria as immigration to the United States. Allowing one grouop in automaticall doesn't change that other groups can still apply under normal criteria - i.e. education, family, wealth, etc.

The Zionists may have had a dream but they sure trampled over millions in their efforts to build this dream.

Less than 600K, by the UN's count. Less than the number of Jews booted out of Arab countries in 1948.

many devout Jews have long opposed the creation of a Jewish state.

Only because they believed that when the Mashiach arrived, they would re-establish the Kingdom of Israel with him as the King. Would you rather have that?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Only because they believed that when the Mashiach arrived, they would re-establish the Kingdom of Israel with him as the King. Would you rather have that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it's off-topic, but one thing puzles me a bit: for those Jews who believe(d) in the concept of Mashiach, why would they think Jesus was not he? His coming was foretold by recorded prophecy, his teachings were very "God-like" in their emphasis on love and forgiveness, and he spoke of his kingdom being a spiritual kingdom rather than an earthly kingdom. If I were a Jew who believed in the concept of Mashiach, I would probably think Jesus rather fit the bill, although in a somewhat unexpected fashion. A friend of mine who has read the Old and New Testaments at length said things match between the old prophecies and the story of Jesus' life. So why do the Mashiach-believing Jews think he is yet to come rather than that he already came? Of course those (Christians) who believe in the Second Coming may say that he will then fulfill the earthly promise of the Kingdom as well--but why the Jews would believe in a Messiah yet think Jesus, whose life was foretold in Old Testament prophecy, was not he, rather baffles me.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Study up MMMMMMM.

The UN recognizes Israel and not the land grab and has security council resolutions that have asked Israel to stop settlements for decades. Look at a timeline of the WB settlements in the past 15 years to see how the land grab continues.

[/ QUOTE ]

We were talking about Israel as a whole, ACPlayer--not the disputed territories. Go back and read this part of the thread again.

[ QUOTE ]
If the US came to its senses and stopped its one-sided support of Israel in the UN we would a) get peace in the middle east and b) reduce the chances of further terrorist anger at the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah right. No way in hell are the Palestinians ever going to stop attacking Israel as long as they have bombs and weapons and impressionable youths to indoctrinate. You're dreaming.

As for reducing "further terrorist anger at the United States" I have a better idea: kill the terrorists. That way they won't be angry anymore. Anything less and they will still be angry and have murder in their hearts: that's why they are terrorists in the first place, because of what is in their hearts and their ideology. Attempting to placate them will do about as much good as trying to appease Hitler. Why isn't this obvious.

[Gamblor]

Well, as a Jew, I believe quite the opposite from mainstram Christianity. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

There were various inconsistencies between the Jewish establishment's (of Temple times) interpretation of the prophecies and the actual story of Jesus. I'm not sure, but the Gospels are actually his Disciples' account of his acts, so a lot of Divine Inspiration is thrown in to build Jesus up high.

38 years after his death, the Romans ransacked Israel and destroyed the First Temple. And the Romans were still oppressing the Hebrews. What Mashiach allows that to continue?

I don't doubt that he was a good man and probably the most brilliant leader in history, but the one thing the Mashiach was supposed to bring was world peace and the revival of the Jewish kingdom in Israel.

"And nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor should they learn war anymore" Isaiah 2:2.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
There were various inconsistencies between the Jewish establishment's (of Temple times) interpretation of the prophecies and the actual story of Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could be, I'm not well-studied in the Old Testament.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure, but the Gospels are actually his Disciples' account of his acts, so a lot of Divine Inspiration is thrown in to build Jesus up high.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, not unlikely.

[ QUOTE ]
38 years after his death, the Romans ransacked Israel and destroyed the First Temple. And the Romans were still oppressing the Hebrews. What Mashiach allows that to continue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the same one who refused to resist evil, who saw the spiritual struggle as more important than the earthly struggle?

Also...weren't the Jews still engaging in idolatry of some sort? Maybe they weren't ready for it? (and maybe still aren't?)

[ QUOTE ]
I don't doubt that he was a good man and probably the most brilliant leader in history, but the one thing the Mashiach was supposed to bring was world peace and the revival of the Jewish kingdom in Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the time was not right for that. The Christians would say that will happen when Jesus returns.

[Gamblor]

weren't the Jews still engaging in idolatry of some sort? Maybe they weren't ready for it? (and maybe still aren't?)

They hadn't engaged in idolatry since the Golden Calf at Mt. Sinai, if I'm not mistaken.

Truthfully, I don't know enough about the time of Jesus outside my Israeli high school education. Which obviously doesn't paint Jesus as a hero.

[MMMMMM]

By idolatry, I meant more generally than the Golden Calf, though I should have said so. Could not their over-fixation with animals be considered a form of idolatry? The sacrifices were meant to be prove that they cared more about God than about their animals: sort of like you or I burning a hundred-dollar bill, since animals were valuable. My incomplete understanding is that animal sacrifice became more important after the Golden Calf debacle, as they were regularly required to prove that they weren't idolizing (worshipping, that is) anything but God. Any additional light you can shed would be appreciated.

[pretender2k]

I thought it was Pink Flloyd "Mother"

"Mother why does eveybody have a BOMB"

[ACPlayer]

Only because they believed that when the Mashiach arrived, they would re-establish the Kingdom of Israel with him as the King. Would you rather have that?

Absolutely. They can wait forever.

[ACPlayer]

Yeah right. No way in hell are the Palestinians ever going to stop attacking Israel as long as they have bombs and weapons and impressionable youths to indoctrinate. You're dreaming.

So, let them sort it out. Israel started the war, they can finish it without our help. They dont need to keep dragging us into it. As far as I can tell whenever we have asked Israel for restraint there has been another Apache Gunship attack started by Israel.

Well, if we can get them to be not angry at us, we can move into the house with which Islam can live peacefully --- oh I forgot you pick and choose those parts of Islam that lead you to conclude that they will kill you anyway. Delusion must make you happy.

[ACPlayer]

Ah, I see, you win so you can gamble at a higher level, some of us win so we can enjoy the winnings while expanding our minds. More to life than poker you know.

Try it, you may be surprised.

[Gamblor]

Absolutely. They can wait forever.

Not a big fan of Jews, are you? I mean, they're all the same anyway.

[Gamblor]

As far as I know, sacrifice was nothing more than commemoration of the sacrifice Avraham was willing to make.

After moving to Cana'an, Avraham, whose wife Sarah was infertile, married his servant Hagar, who eventually gave birth to Ishmael (Yishma El - "Hear God"), the father of Islam. Mohammed the Islamic prophet I believe is descended from him, but I'm not sure - it wouldn't suprise me, knowing the way religion went around Mohammed's time, that they merely changed their Son of Choice to separate themselves from the Jews - but that's obviously not an educated opinion. Isaac (Yitzchak - "He laughed") was born to Sarah later on, well over the age of a hundred.

Avram, in the early chapters of Genesis, is asked by God to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Very explicitly, no reason at all is given - leading us to believe that the sacrifice was a test of faith.

As Avram had his son tied to the altar on Mt. Moriah (now in Jerusalem), he raised the knife, when he was suddenly stopped by an Angel who demanded he not harm Isaac. Instead, Abraham sacrificed a ram caught in some weeds, while Isaac grew up to father Jacob (Ya'akov - later renamed "Yisra El" - wrestled with God), who fathered Joseph (Yosef - Mr. Technicolour Dreamcoat himself).

From what I understand, the sacrifice ritual came about to commemorate this event, not to kill innocents (lambs, that is).

Sacrifice stopped with the Roman destruction of Solomon's Temple, and in exile, Prayer replaced sacrifice - prayer mainly for a return from Exile. To Israel. Hence Zionism.

Many prayers in prayer books have a short paragraph at the bottom explaining where the prayer was written - some are almost 2000 year old, and for the most part, the order of the services haven't changed since then.

[MMMMMM]

Sorry, but "getting people not to be angry with us (or me)" has never been one of my priorities. If they are angry with us for absurd reasons that is unacceptable and they should be so told.

Appeasement always encourages further encroachment--this truth has stood the test of time.

[Gamblor]

Appeasement always encourages further encroachment--this truth has stood the test of time.

Nobody knows this better than the State of Israel.