Gaza's on-going Palestinian civilians Killing

[jjj]

Actually, I know a great deal about Judaism. I grew up in a neighborhood in a little town in New Jersey that was about 1/3 Jewish, so....I remain in informed disagreement with your assertion (Judaism is bigoted). Individuals certainly are or are not bigoted, and I stand by my assertion that you went too far in generalizing from specifics.

I was not. I was using a specific example of a general behaviour, the direct opposite of what you assert. Judaism disapproves of upon marrying outside of the religion and people who do so tend to be cut off/treated as dead. I have had a lot of Jewish friends, but dislike that aspect of their culture.
So how were those who married outside the Jewish faith in your neighbourhood treated? Did it even happen?

P.S.: Personal attacks are not appreciated, Sir.

If you do not like being called stupidly literal, there's an easy solution, don't be stupidly literal then. 

[mezzoduomo]

I was not. I was using a specific example of a general behaviour, the direct opposite of what you assert. Judaism disapproves of upon marrying outside of the religion and people who do so tend to be cut off/treated as dead. I have had a lot of Jewish friends, but dislike that aspect of their culture.
So how were those who married outside the Jewish faith in your neighbourhood treated? Did it even happen?
If you do not like being called stupidly literal, there's an easy solution, don't be stupidly literal then. 

You win. You're right, I'm wrong. I'm so stupidly literal, that I'm not fit for this Forum.  I'm also a slow learner, because I'm only just now realizing what an utter waste of time it is. Have a nice day.

[jjj]

You win. You're right, I'm wrong. I'm so stupidly literal, that I'm not fit for this Forum.  I'm also a slow learner, because I'm only just now realizing what an utter waste of time it is. Have a nice day.

Well that one way of avoiding answering the awkward question.

[PeterAit]

You win. You're right, I'm wrong. I'm so stupidly literal, that I'm not fit for this Forum.  I'm also a slow learner, because I'm only just now realizing what an utter waste of time it is. Have a nice day.

C'mon, people, take a breath! This generally interesting thread is degenerating into name calling and personal attacks. It has been my experience over many years that when one person calls another stupid or bigoted or ignorant it is a sure sign that the first person's arguments are weak. If you disagree with someone's opinions, then argue against those opinions. The other person may in fact be a knuckle-dragging moron, but then it should be easy for you to demolish their arguments. Attacking them personally (ad hominem, for those who were not subjected to Latin in high school) just makes you look dumb. Which you may well be <g> but no need to advertise it!

[jjj]

C'mon, people, take a breath! This generally interesting thread is degenerating into name calling and personal attacks. It has been my experience over many years that when one person calls another stupid or bigoted or ignorant it is a sure sign that the first person's arguments are weak. If you disagree with someone's opinions, then argue against those opinions. The other person may in fact be a knuckle-dragging moron, but then it should be easy for you to demolish their arguments. Attacking them personally (ad hominem, for those who were not subjected to Latin in high school) just makes you look dumb. Which you may well be <g> but no need to advertise it!

There is a big difference between an ad hominen attack and calling out someone for their bad behaviour or attitude. People who behave badly love to hide behind the 'ad hominen' defence as it excuses their faults, so please don't encourage that Peter. My view is that if you do not want to be called stupid/racist or what ever do not behave stupidly or in a racist manner and so on.
A personal attack would be something that was nothing to do with the argument, e.g. calling someone fat and ugly. However calling out someone whose views were say racist/sectarian is entirely germane to the argument in this particular thread or above where someone completely failed to read a post correctly and inaccurately accused me of being a racist bigot, I called them 'stupidly literal' as that described exactly their behaviour and thus their subsequent fallacious argument. Attitude and argument are not separate entities.

I have no problem whatsoever with people who hold different views from me, but I'm getting extremely fed up with people being too darn lazy to read posts correctly, jump to asine conclusions or misquote/quote out of context. I've just hidden the posts of one serial misreader as he's such a waste of space. I may need to add others to the list or not bother with LuLa anymore if the cruft continues to outweigh any intelligent debate.

[jjj]

Is it OK for the UK to supply armaments to Israel to kill "guilty" men and women?

What about 'guilty' children?

[James Clark]

Quoted because this deserves more than to be lost at the bottom of a previous page in the middle of personal squabbling.  

Religious extremism is found in each of the three major monotheistic traditions. In each of them we can obscene views about those outside the faith. Anyone who has spent time on the ground doing inter-religious work in the region knows this. Likewise it's easy to find within these religions a call to recognize the common humanity of all, the golden rule, the divine root of human existence, etc., which is why I'm not at all shy to say I'm religious myself. As for any argument that Islam is somehow more violent than Judaism or Christianity, such an argument must account for the reality that the world's most well organized nonviolent fighting force was deeply Islamic.

People whose job it is to provide actual security to their people, and not sell newspapers or win elections, know that Hamas is not a one-dimensional organization.  The former Mossad director Ephraim Halevy stated to the Israeli cabinet in 2008 "The Hamas leadership has recognized that its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future. They are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967. . . . They know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their cooperation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game. They will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals."

The Harvard scholar Sara Roy is an expert on Gaza and Hamas. She argues against analysis of Hamas that it is "an insular, one-dimensional and seemingly mindless entity dedicated solely to violence, terrorism and Israel’s destruction." She writes "While there can be no doubt that since its inception in 1987, Hamas has engaged in violence, armed struggle, and terrorism as the primary force behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel, it is also a broad-based movement that has evolved into an increasingly complex, varied, and sophisticated organization engaged in a variety of societal activities vital to Palestinian life. Hamas’s evolution has been most dramatic with regard to its ideology, organizational structure, role in Palestinian society, and perceived goals--its limitations notwithstanding."

In sum, calling Hamas a "radical Islamic terrorist group" and leaving it at that is about has helpful as calling Begin and Shamir lifelong terrorists. They were both terrorists at one point. They were also Israeli Prime Ministers later on. Neither Hamas or these two men deserve to be reduced to caricatures.

My Israeli friend Gershon Baskin has negotiated at length with Hamas. Gershon is on the right in the photo below (his Palestinian friend Hanna Siniora is on the left), which I took in Jerusalem in 2005.  He writes "Hamas has never agreed to a 2 state solution. Mashal has spoken about a Palestinian state in 1967 borders with no peace with Israel or recognition of Israel and continuing to maintain that all of Palestine from the river to the sea will become Palestine. For Hamas and for Mashal the occupation did not begin in 1967 it began in 1948 and that is what everyone in Hamas calls Sderot and Kiryat Gat and Tel Aviv settlements. When they talk about ending the occupation, they mean ending Israel." He  adds "For the purpose of accuracy and integrity it must be noted that no Gov of Israel has ever agreed to a 2 states solution, not yet at least." He also notes "The Camp David proposal was never voted on by a Government of Israel, it was in a process of negotiations and it consisted of a very partially sovereign Palestinian state on 89% of the West Bank with 2 East West Israeli controlled corridors and Israeli control of all of the external borders -- a kind of sovereign cage, almost nothing in Jerusalem, and there were only 6 hours of discussions on refugees with no proposals at all. A largely unfinished process that both sides agreed to continue negotiating on. From the end of Camp David in July 2000 until Taba in January 2001 the parties held another 52 negotiating meetings. without reaching an agreement."

We must also note, Likud "has *never* in its statements of principles, accepted a Palestinian State". Likud's platform puts it in black and white: "The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river."

In sum, both Hamas and Likud take maximilalist positions, each wanting a state with borders that excludes the Other. But political reality, both on the ground and internationally, constrains their ideological visions. That is the reality that we who want peace must deal with too. Both sides have violent extremists who want to wipe each other out. Both sides have those who prefer to negotiate and ultimately coexist.

Gershon argues "There is only one solution to [this war] which has a good outcome for all of the peoples engaged and most of the leaders as well -- a political solution which deals with the security issues, the economic issues and the political issues. Palestine must be a free, economically viable state living in peace with its neighbors. A non-militarized Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Palestinian Jerusalem, with agreed security arrangements with Israel, negotiated and agreed borders, a fair agreed solution to the refugee problem, full mutual recognition of the two states for two peoples solution, with regional security accords, and recognition of Israel by its neighbors -- this is the solution which must emerge from this war. It starts with Israeli acceptance of the Arab Peace Initiative as the basis of negotiations with the Palestinians and the Arab world."

I agree with Gershon, but I think the role of religion and culture is also critical. The gap between the religious and those of a more secular bent on both sides can be vast.

[Schewe]

Besides just because someone else behaves in an even worse way, this does not affect the point I was making that Judaism itself can be bigoted.

All religions I'm aware of–except for Buddhism-are bigoted and exclusionary...radical Islam takes that to the degree that Muslims are "required" to kill infidels.

[Manoli]

Quoted because this deserves more than to be lost at the bottom of a previous page in the middle of personal squabbling.  

+1
and thanks to Damon for such an exceptional exposé.

[jjj]

All religions I'm aware of–except for Buddhism-are bigoted and exclusionary...radical Islam takes that to the degree that Muslims are "required" to kill infidels.

Christianity has probably killed far more people - mainly as it had a head start. Though that's not relevant to the point I was making made either.

[jjj]

Quoted because this deserves more than to be lost at the bottom of a previous page in the middle of personal squabbling.

Already replied to that thoughtful post. Thought it a shame no-one else had.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

There is a big difference between an ad hominen attack and calling out someone for their bad behaviour or attitude.... My view is that if you do not want to be called stupid/racist or what ever do not behave stupidly or in a racist manner and so on...

Phew! What a relief! All this time I was afraid to call you a pompous jerk because it would be ad hominem attack. Turns out it is just an astute observation of your behavior.

[BernardLanguillier]

...
In sum, calling Hamas a "radical Islamic terrorist group" and leaving it at that is about has helpful as calling Begin and Shamir lifelong terrorists. They were both terrorists at one point. They were also Israeli Prime Ministers later on. Neither Hamas or these two men deserve to be reduced to caricatures.
...
In sum, both Hamas and Likud take maximilalist positions, each wanting a state with borders that excludes the Other. But political reality, both on the ground and internationally, constrains their ideological visions. That is the reality that we who want peace must deal with too. Both sides have violent extremists who want to wipe each other out. Both sides have those who prefer to negotiate and ultimately coexist.
...
Gershon argues "There is only one solution to [this war] which has a good outcome for all of the peoples engaged and most of the leaders as well -- a political solution which deals with the security issues, the economic issues and the political issues. Palestine must be a free, economically viable state living in peace with its neighbors. A non-militarized Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Palestinian Jerusalem, with agreed security arrangements with Israel, negotiated and agreed borders, a fair agreed solution to the refugee problem, full mutual recognition of the two states for two peoples solution, with regional security accords, and recognition of Israel by its neighbors -- this is the solution which must emerge from this war. It starts with Israeli acceptance of the Arab Peace Initiative as the basis of negotiations with the Palestinians and the Arab world."

Very interesting post Damon, thanks for sharing your knowledge of the situation.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

All religions I'm aware of–except for Buddhism-are bigoted and exclusionary...radical Islam takes that to the degree that Muslims are "required" to kill infidels.

I tend to agree Jeff. I'm so appalled at the reaction of certain radical Muslims to any criticism of Mohammad that I'm completely put off visiting Islamic countries where such radicalism exists, such as Pakistan, not only in case I say something I shouldn't, and end up losing my life, but because I'm so opposed in principle to such draconian censorship of thought and expression.

There's no doubt that Christianity was just as radical in the past as certain sects of Islam are today, but fortunately the Christian churches, as a result of the separation of church and state, no longer have the political power they used to have in the past.

Buddhism is like a breath of fresh air.

[Gulag]

Image there was no oil in the Middle East. That would answer all the questions.

[Ray]

Image there was no oil in the Middle East. That would answer all the questions.

Okay! Attached is an image of no oil in the Middle East, or more precisely in an Iranian desert somewhere between Tehran and the Pakistan border, taken in 1962. 

[PeterAit]

Phew! What a relief! All this time I was afraid to call you a pompous jerk because it would be ad hominem attack. Turns out it is just an astute observation of your behavior.

LOL!

[Gulag]

Okay! Attached is an image of no oil in the Middle East, or more precisely in an Iranian desert somewhere between Tehran and the Pakistan border, taken in 1962. 

Typo. What I intended to say is that "Imagine there was no oil in the Middle East. That would answer all the questions. "

[Ray]

Typo. What I intended to say is that "Imagine there was no oil in the Middle East. That would answer all the questions. "

Of course. I understood it was a typo, but it so happened I had recently re-scanned a rather degraded image I had taken in Iran over 50 years ago, depicting the subsistence life-style of many ordinary folks at that time. This image sprang to mind as a result of your typo. The message in the image is: This is what it would be like for large numbers of people in the Middle East, without the economic benefits flowing from oil.

[Damon Lynch]

The message in the image is: This is what it would be like for large numbers of people in the Middle East, without the economic benefits flowing from oil.

You chose the picture of an Iranian family with a camel in a desert to argue your point. Really? What else do you believe -- that a camel taught Avicenna (Ibn Sina) how to be a polymath?  That Al-Khorezmi, after whose name the term algorithm is derived, flew into the Middle East on a rocket ship? That the Cyrus Cylinder is made of jelly? That the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, in which the U.S. and U.K. overthrew Iran's first democratically elected prime minister, was because Eisenhower and Churchill liked the taste of pistachios?