Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Is the Church of England about to adopt anti-Semitism?

There ia a motion tabled at the Church of England’s General Synod in York (10 July 2012) which seeks to adopt formally and deepen the Church’s links with the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI). The Anglican Friends of Israel (AFI) are a little uneasy about this: EAPPI is a creation of the World Council of Churches and totally devoted to the anti-Semitic Palestinian narrative of the Middle East conflict, which it disseminates far and wide, particularly among the churches. Should the Synod adopt the EAPPI, it would be adopting the 'Nakba' agenda along with the organisation.

AFI has produced a document outlining their concerns about the EAPPI, its parent organisation and the eagerness with which some Christians are embracing its distorted narrative. His Grace reproduces it in its entirety:
Will the Nakba narrative be too tempting for Synod to resist?

A Christian Church voting to support an organisation founded by the World Council of Churches whose existence is to protect innocents from brutal soldiers of an occupying force. What could possibly go wrong?

Well quite a lot actually. At July’s Synod Church of England Bishops, Clergy and Laity will be invited to ‘adopt’ the Ecumenical Accompaniers Programme in Palestine and Israel. EAPPI describes its vision as bringing “internationals to the West Bank to experience life under occupation. Ecumenical Accompaniers provide protective presence to vulnerable communities, monitor and report human rights abuses and support Palestinians and Israelis working together for peace.”

EAPPI describes its mission as “to accompany Palestinians and Israelis in their non-violent actions and to carry out concerted advocacy efforts to end the occupation. Participants in the programme monitor and report violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, support acts of non-violent resistance alongside local Christian and Muslim Palestinians and Israeli peace activists, offer protection through non-violent presence, engage in public policy advocacy and, in general, stand in solidarity with the churches and all those struggling against the occupation.”

In other words, EAPPI exists solely to criticise Israel, a country which has had to contend with continual attempts by its neighbours to destroy it even prior to 1947 when the United Nations voted for a place of Jewish national self-determination in its ancient homeland.

EAPPI was spawned by The World Council of Churches which has largely adopted the ‘Nakba narrative’ of Palestinian victimhood and Israeli aggression, doggedly ignoring Arab terror and anti-semitism. WCC debates and pronouncements on the Middle East all condemn Israel, particularly IDF soldiers who stand daily between Israel’s multi-ethic citizenry and determined Palestinian terrorists. Examples of their notes and motions include

• September 11th 2001 the WCC passed a motion calling for “an international boycott of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.”
• Of veteran terrorist Yassir Arafat, Peter Weiderud, Director of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs wrote “President Arafat will be remembered for bringing the Palestinian people together and for his unique and tenacious contribution to the cause of establishing their national home.”
• The General Secretary of the WCC falsely called Israel’s boarding of the Mava Mari ‘illegal’, ignoring the violence of the jihadists who inflicted serious injuries on IDF personnel. Assumption of Israel’s guilt is second nature to the WCC.
• The WCC claims to support a 2-state solution to the conflict, yet in February 2001 it affirmed support for “ the right of return of Palestinian refugees” knowing that this would end the existence of Israel as a Jewish Homeland.

Notably absent from WCC statements on the Middle is explicit condemnation of Palestinian incitement to hatred of Israel and Jews, much of it directed at Palestinian children. Neither is any blame for Palestinian suffering laid at the door of Palestinian leaders who have squandered $billions of aid on bribes and terrorism over decades. Nor do human rights abuses by the Palestinian Authority, including the rights of Palestinian Christians, attract much WCC attention.

EAPPI embraces the WCC approach, blaming Palestinian misery on Israel alone and turning a blind eye to Palestinian corruption, rejectionism and incitement. EAPPI ignores the Arab aggression and anti-Semitism that lies at the root of the Middle East conflict and existed decades before 1967 – the year in which Israel offered to return all territory captured in the June war started by Egypt, in return for recognition and cessation of hostilities. (One wonders how many Ecumenical Accompaniers know about this offer, let alone the Arab response in the notorious Khartoum Declaration, “No recognition of Israel, No conciliation with Israel, and No negotiations with Israel.”)

EAPPI depicts the security barrier as an effort to steal land and resources from the Palestinians while downplaying one crucial fact: the number of terrorist attacks has decreased by 90 percent since the construction of the barrier. Even Palestinian terrorists admit the barrier has made it difficult to launch terror attacks. Instead, EAPPI uses the barrier to depict Israel as a racist nation despite its vibrantly multiracial, multi-faith society in which 1 in 5 Israeli citizens is Arab. Despite claiming to support a 2 state solution, EAPPI links to WCC declarations that enshrine the ‘Right of Return’ of Palestinian refugees, a move which would spell the end of Israel as a homeland where Jews can exercise the national self-determination that EAPPI is so keen to see for Palestinians.

To spread its message, EAPPI use volunteer ‘Accompaniers’, whose training includes only a couple of hours on Israel’s perspective on the conflict, to go with Palestinians through checkpoints and be on the look out for any ‘abusive’ IDF activity. Of the 3 months which these well-meaning but ill-informed Accompaniers spend in the Holy Land, only one day is dedicated to visiting Israel; so there is little opportunity for Accompaniers to meet Israelis apart from those who share EAPPI’s hostility towards Israel’s security measures. Thus they cannot learn about the desire for peace amongst ordinary Israelis or the physical economic and mental suffering which decades of Arab terrorism have inflicted upon them.

On their return, Accompaniers speak at venues, including churches of all denominations, about their experiences in the Holy Land. Their pronouncements are often regarded as authoritative by audiences unaware that Accompaniers know next to nothing of the ways in which Arab hostility and terror impacts mainstream Israelis. In this way an entirely skewed narrative fosters a climate of disdain and hostility towards Israel amongst UK Christians.

Islamist persecution, widespread throughout the Middle East, is the primary cause of the haemorrhage of Christians from the region. Yet once again, the Church’s spotlight is on Israel as Synod considers adopting EAPPI, an organisation that exists solely to criticise the one Middle Eastern democracy where Christianity flourishes and freedom of religion is a reality rather than an illusion.

It is alarming that, only 70 years after the Holocaust, some Christians are apparently so eager to embrace the Nakba narrative whose creators openly express their desire to see the end of Israel as a national homeland for the Jewish people. Can it be coincidence that Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, receives more opprobrium from Christian Churches than any other nation, including North Korea, Iran or the Sudan? It is time for the Church of England to ask this question very seriously indeed.
UPDATE: (21 June 2012) Canon Andrew White has approved this statement for issue:
"As someone who has spent many years living in the Middle East-the Land of the Bible-, risking life and limb for peace and who is proud to be a friend of Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Christians and Muslims, I do hope Synod will reject the motion calling for endorsement of EAPPI.

The motion is unjust and has caused deep pain in the Jewish Community. It neglects the wars against Israel's very right to exist. It overlooks the persecution of Jews in the Middle East that preceded the establishment of the modern State of Israel. Israel-like all countries-is not perfect, but she sincerely wishes to find peace.

It is not clear why Synod is being asked to adopt a one sided "NAKBA" narrative against Israel while our fellow Christians are dying in Iraq, Sudan, Egypt and Syria. There are many wonderful peace-loving people in the Palestinian territories who are entangled in a conflict they do not endorse, but the culture of incitement against Jews and Christians as well as the continuing rocket bombardments on Sderot are factors that Synod is being asked to ignore or at best discount."

Rev Canon Andrew White, St George's Baghdad. 21 June 2012

249 Comments:

Blogger G. Tingey said...

Just for once ...

Well said, that man!

20 June 2012 at 08:11  
Blogger IanCad said...

Have a care for your mortal coil YG,

I notice the Twitter times and the posting of today are less than seven hours apart. Let's now deduct two tooth brushings, two prayers and various other personal needs and you are now down to only six hours of sleep. Then, there's the feeding of the cat (for a cat owner you must be) perhaps a check on the subject of the day prior to posting, and now only five hours for slumber. Not enough! You are way too BUSY (Being Under Satan's Yoke)
YG, respectfully, let me remind you that you are burning the candle at both ends. It makes the last paragraph of yesterday's post seem quite ominous.
Antisemitism is woven deep into the european psyche. It will take little to revive it if a major crisis, particularly financial, erupts.
The WCC, by its actions is playing footsie with Islam.
Our government, by its support of Arab "Freedom Movements" will be complicit in the formation of a united Islamic front which will make the destruction of Israel the first priority.
It should be noted that only two major denominations are not members of the WCC. The Roman Catholic Church and the Seventh Day Adventists. However, both for different reasons.

20 June 2012 at 08:20  
Blogger D. Singh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 June 2012 at 09:20  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

With the 'Arab spring' now becoming a 'winter of discontent' -the world moves towards the unfulfilled prophecy in Psalm 83.

20 June 2012 at 09:21  
Blogger Preacher said...

The WCC are a religious version Of the EU. They are misguided & believe that unity between all religions will bring World Peace & herald a one world 'Church', Thus they are both Blind, naive & ignorant of scripture.
Anti Semitism has been rife through the Worlds political & religious groups since Jesus' time & will continue until His return.
Perhaps it has to do with the prophecies concerning His return, i.e that His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives & He will enter Jerusalem through the East Gate.
Well if you stick your head in the sand, your vision is somewhat obscured.
To borrow a quote from yesterday Doctor Cranmer, Anti Semitism? "Not in my name!".

20 June 2012 at 09:29  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

It is yet another moment where one looks at the "church" and wonders how it all went to " hell in a hand basket".

"The world is changing and society says we should too"
"So we'll change!"

"The world says the Bible is full of errors and misunderstandings of how the world works"
"So we'll ignore it and use reason!"

To use a standard forum parlance /headdesk

20 June 2012 at 09:42  
Blogger Anoneumouse said...

I always thought that Palestinians were a semitic people!

20 June 2012 at 10:57  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

For similar reasons I refused to give a donation to "Christian Aid" when I discovered that one of their projects was to assist Palestinians against Israel.
Seemingly no mention of helping Christians (such as in Egypt or Pakistan) anywhere on their site.

20 June 2012 at 11:39  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Cranmer,

Whenever I hear the word "anti-Semite" in the mouth of a Zionist, to paraphrase Herman Goring, I reach for my revolver. Israel is NOT the victim, it is the aggressor. A settler state whose roots go back NOT to the Holocaust (as most Zionists would cynically like you to believe) but to the age of empires when setting up settler states like Rhodesia and pre-independece Kenya was considered the way of the future. As a matter of fact, when the first Holocaust survivors began to arrive in Israel in the 1950s, they were treated like garbage because they did not fit the image of the heroic Jewish warrior (well, until Israel realized that by setting itself up as the moral heir of the six million, they could grab the cash the Nazi's victims has managed to hide in Swiss banks).

This should come as no surprise from a country whose youth movement back in the 1930s actively modelled itself on the Hiter Youth; a country which is still paying war pensions to the people who bombed the King David Hotel; a country whose "freedom fighters" 1n 1941 offered to form a state which would "establish relations with the German Reich" and protect Nazi interests in the area; a country which honours those of its founders who murdered the British minister of state in Cairo in 1944; a country which, under cover of a war which it started itself, grabbed the opportunity to expel 5000 of its passport holding Arab citizens and steal their land in 1956 (NOT Palestinians, but actual, supposed citizens of the "region's only democracy"); a country which attacked and bombed the USS Liberty, a ship belonging to its greatest ally so that it wouldn't pick up transmissions which showed it to be launching an unprovoked attack on Egypt. In this last instance, they killed 34 Americans and wounded 117, even shooting the lifeboats out of the water (international waters, by the way).

This is what you call a victim, is it Cranmer? And you've actually got the stones to sit there and toss out accusations of racialism at those who oppose this rancid entity, one which only exists because somehow they persuaded the world that it was just fine to expel an indiginous people from their land to make room for these settlers?

But then, you ARE a Conservative, aren't you? Remind me who it was who said to the Peel Commission in 1939, "I do not agree that the dog in a
manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America
or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade
race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place,". Here's a hint: his initials were Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill.

And in that statement you have Zionism in a nutshell (an apporpriate container). Do you agree with Churchill, Cranmer?

20 June 2012 at 11:49  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Armageddon is almost upon us if you go by the sentiments of your communicants. What has this bitterness and angst to do with Jesus Christ?

20 June 2012 at 12:23  
Blogger D. Singh said...

A couple of quotes from Churchill that did not hit the cutting room floor:


"The Jews are in Palestine by right, not by sufferance."

In 1921 he wrote:
It is manifestly right that the scattered Jews should have a national centre, and a national home to be re-united, and where else but in Palestine, with which for three thousand years they have been intimately and profoundly associated? We think it will be good for the world, good for the Jews, good for the British Empire, but also good for the Arabs who dwell in Palestine...they shall share in the benefits and progress of Zionism.

and

I am told the Arabs would have done it for themselves. Who is going to believe that? Left to themselves, the Arabs of Palestine would not in a thousand years have taken effective steps toward the irrigation and electrification of Palestine. They would have been quite content to dwell--a handful of philosophic people-- in the sun-scorched plains, letting the waters of the Jordan contine to flow unbridled and unharnessed into the Dead Sea.

20 June 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

None of which, D Singh, explains where the Zionists get the authority to expel the indiginous people to make room for their settlement.

20 June 2012 at 13:18  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

"Israel is NOT the victim, it is the aggressor"

Nonsense - at least according to history its not.

This is such a typical modernist view that because the West and the western media in particular has lost its critical backbone, that for some with the attention span of a gnat, it now passes for fact. Therefore because Israel needed to fence itself in from from throat cutting child killers, school roof rocketeers, deluded suicide bombers and Islamic propagandists it must naturally be the agressor.

Get over yourself Corrigan 1 and take your fashion statement keffeyah from over your eyes.

Countries and their borders that have been established post conflict, are too numerous to mention - it has ever been that way that's the way nationalism works. Palestine under the Ottomans was virtually all of the Middle East including areas of Iraq and Iran. It had been that way for hundreds of years and was scrub and desert for the most part until the State of Israel was proposed, then every Arab and his camel wanted a slice of it - except of course, those only too happy to sell up at vastly inflated land prices.

Over twenty percent of the entire population of Israel is ethnic Arab. In 1947 Trans Jordan was the designated ethnic Arab territory of a two State proposal and a secular Israel, with a shared access to Jerusalem and recognised by international standards, established for Jews, Arabs and Christians who so wished.

It was the Jordanian government who kicked out the Egyptian born Arafat and his terrorist gangs who became today's feted 'Palestinians' who hold no and never have held a legitimate right to nation status.

Try asking yourself the question why all these so called 'refugee palestinians' have never been assimilated into the host havens of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon or Jordan etc; even when the majority of them have been born in 'the refugee camps' within their borders? Hardly any of them have ever set foot in the much reduced land area defined as Israel, yet these enclaves have some of the most concentrated youth based populations of people on the planet.

Oh, did I fail to mention the woman who blew herself up at the Israeli hospital where they were treating her? oh well its just a minor detail far too small no doubt for you to consider - don't make me laugh with you crocodile tears for the poor 'palestinians', they're doing very all right for themselves at everyone else's expense, but I suppose the Fascist Left is in need of a cause and so are the Christian Churches now, by all accounts.

20 June 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Corrigan1

Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, into a land that I will show thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Genesis 12:1-3

20 June 2012 at 13:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Corrigan

Whenever I hear the word "anti-Semite" in the mouth of a Zionist, to paraphrase Herman Goring, I reach for my revolver.

If you are going to go about paraphrasing Nazis when discussing "the Jewish Question" you might as well consider using Julius Streicher and Der Stürmer for your source material. They will provide you much better quotes to work with than Göring.

carl

20 June 2012 at 13:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Corrigan1

‘A settler state whose roots go back NOT to the Holocaust (as most Zionists would cynically like you to believe) but to the age of empires when setting up settler states like Rhodesia and pre-independece Kenya was considered the way of the future.’

Go back to the age of empires?

My recall of history is a little hazy. Just remind me of when the modern state of Israel was established?

Now I wonder which nation (or nations) abstained at the famous UN vote to establish the state of Israel?

Now just remind me that when that once great nation abstained (failure to help Isarel): what happened to its empire?

Age of empires?

20 June 2012 at 13:34  
Blogger Huldah said...

Corrigan1

By 'Zionists' do you mean 'Jews'? If so, you should be aware that Jews are indigenous to the Middle East as archaeology and the existence of ancient Middle Eastern Jewish Communities such as the 3000+ year old one in Hebron demonstrates.

20 June 2012 at 13:35  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

I see. So we have right of the sword from Dreadnaught and its ok for the Israelis to act as they do because many Arab states oppress Palestinians too.

As for D Singh, it appears we are to have justification by selective scriptural quotation - this kind of theological unsophistication is exactly the reason why the Catholic Church is always reluctant to accept fundie ministers who wish to convert into the priesthood. Since we're picking quotes to suit, how about Luke 23:28 - weep not for me women of Jerusalem, but for yourselves and your children.

20 June 2012 at 13:43  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Corrigan1

‘Luke 23:28 - weep not for me women of Jerusalem, but for yourselves and your children.’

Don’t you know that in a deep spiritual sense He is telling all of us to weep for ourselves?

Don’t we all insult Him? Conceal issues from Him (as if they can be concealed). Tell Him lies. Withhold what is rightfully His. Spit in His face. Pierce His body. We do all this to Him when we do it to each other.

That’s why He forgives the offender his wrongdoing without consulting the victim.

We have all been there shouting and spitting: CRUCIFY, CRUCIFY, CRUCIFY.

20 June 2012 at 13:58  
Blogger Huldah said...

Corrigan 1

"ok for the Israelis to act as they do because many Arab states oppress Palestinians too."

Noone claims that. What interests me is that whilst allegations of Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians are siezed upon by so many 'friends' of Palestine to heap venomous criticism upon Israel most Arab mistreatment of Palestinians passes with nary a whisper from them.

Can you explain this phenomenon to us?

20 June 2012 at 14:52  
Blogger Theo said...

I am often angered and disappointed that those calling themselves Christians have such a paucity of knowledge of God's Word. Their opinions are often informed by the current trend of worldly wisdom (if wisdom it is).

There is nothing ambiguous about God's promise to His chosen people. Apart from Gen 12 already quoted there are numerous repetitions of this promise emphasizing the permanent nature of this covenant leaving it a totally unambiguous promise to the Jews.


For all the land which you see I will give to you and to your posterity forever.
Gen 13:15 (AMP)

And I will give to you and to your posterity after you the land in which you are a stranger [going from place to place], all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Gen 17:8 (AMP)

Bibi Netanyahu has often stated that all they want is the land that God gave them. This is a matter which should be beyond political debate for all those calling themselves Christian. This is the land that God gave His People for ever and not to support this position is to doubt that God does keeps His Covenants.

20 June 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger David B said...

The Middle Eastern situation is a great tragedy, with belief in the teachings of two religions at the heart of it, as well as the failings of ambitious men on both sides of the divide.

Some of us think that faith in the divine provenance of ancient texts is unwise.

But I have something to say which is off topic, which I very much hope HG reads.

Today I had occasion to go to a Tesco's cafe, where there is free wifi that I have registered for.

When I tried to access this blog, I had a message saying that the site was blocked.

I forget the exact phrasing of the message - wish I'd made a note of it now.

But it had something to do with the site being contentious, with the possibility of causing offence, and trusting that I would approve and understand such blocking.

I don't.

I couldn't help but wonder if it had something to do with ASAgate.

In any case, I deplore such net nannying, even when the site in question propounds many things with which I disagree, and I wonder if HG might consider taking it up with Tesco.

David B

20 June 2012 at 15:20  
Blogger Theo said...

"Some of us think that faith in the divine provenance of ancient texts is unwise"

Really David is that better than putting your faith in "ambitious men both sides of the divide"?

If you care to examine the prophecies made regarding the Jewish people you will discover that all have been fulfilled or are awaiting fulfillment - not one has been contradicted by events.

20 June 2012 at 15:51  
Blogger David B said...

Theo I'm not greatly impressed by prophesies awaiting fulfilment.

Nor prophesies that have proved wrong, like those expecting the second coming in the lifetime of people around in Biblical times.

Wiki says that there is a city at Tyre, despite the prophesy that it would never be rebuilt.

Are there any particular prophesies you would like to defend?

David B

20 June 2012 at 16:13  
Blogger Theo said...

DavidB
Your faith in Wiki is touching. Wiki described Tyre as the "outer part of a wheel"

At this point I think I would refer you to Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" which runs to at least 3 volumes. Your question is too wide ranging for a concise answer.
However as you seem fond of Wikipedia I would suggest that you start with the article "Jesus and messianic prophecy" and try to dissemble that.

I am surprised that you cannot draw deductions from Tesco's dislike of His Grace's site. There are elements within Tesco's IT department who have chosen homosexuality as a preferred sexual orientation and it is quite possible that some offence could have been taken to the expression of Christian viewpoints on this subject.

20 June 2012 at 16:50  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

True peace makers DON'T take sides.

On the subject of prophesies.

ALL Biblical prophesies come true, one way or another, even if the exact script has to be edited somewhat.

Although there is considerable doubt how much the hand of our creator God has to do with these events.

However there is little doubt that the Invisible Hand, attached to The All Seeing Eye has a very important role to play. Which is a historically well established religious institution with diplomatic, scientific, military and financial might of incalculable amounts, that uses Biblical prophesies, as well as other various supposed Acts of God as deliberately caused means to further their long term ends.

Therefore no prizes for guessing its name.

However if you are having any difficulty, here is a clue.

All roads lead to its head quarters.

20 June 2012 at 17:25  
Blogger David B said...

@ Theo

I'm familiar with McDowell only by repute, since I gather his readership and influence is primarily American.

He has been criticised, though, and the criticism has a lot of verisimilitude from where I'm sitting.

Just for a start, he apparently claims that Jesus's claim to divinity is unique.

If he did make such a claim, it is not true.

You might look at this fisking of Ch 1, and then defend Josh if you can.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/unique.html

David B

20 June 2012 at 17:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Atlas.
Therefore no prizes for guessing its name.

However if you are having any difficulty, here is a clue.

All roads lead to its head quarters.


It wouldn’t be your day care centre again by any chance ?

20 June 2012 at 18:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. One wonders why the mere mortals who seem to run the CoE - yes, those appointed busybodies impressed with their own title - need to guide the church to one position or another when even a schoolboy can tell you that the church has absolutely no justification whatsoever to get involved in the Palestine / Israel situation.

None at all. And just to lay it on with a trowel, exactly what does that sad place have to do with Christian worship in the British Isles. And don’t anyone DARE say it’s because Jesus lived there.

Of course, the CoE can’t really go around saying it’s none of their damn business, so the diplomatic stance is ‘Non Alignment’.

So ++Williams, before you leave and return back to the world of academic unreality from whence you came, do the decent thing old chap. Do what it is that’s expected of you…

20 June 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This conflict has nothing to do with prophesy. The modern state of Israel is not the re-creation of the Biblical state. It is a modern secular state with no eschatological significance. Biblical Judaism ended with the destruction of the Temple and the eradication of the Priesthood. It can never be reconstituted.

Mostly this conflict turns on how much any given individual credits Arab good will in dealing with Jews. If you (are naive enough to) think the Arabs are looking for co-existence, then you will push the Israelis to make concessions. If however you believe the Arabs are implacably committed to destroying the state of Israel (which is what the Arabs say to each other when they think Westerners aren't listening) then you will support the Israelis in their efforts.

Of course there are a few who think it would be just fine if the Jews were expelled from the land -preferrably after having been impaled on pitchforks. They think it a fit punishment for 'aggression' I guess.

carl

20 June 2012 at 18:25  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

the church has absolutely no justification whatsoever to get involved in the Palestine / Israel situation.

So you wouldn't mind if the if the Mullahs took Jerusalem and declared it a no go area for Jews and Christians as in Mecca? Some strange sort of Christian you for sure; I thought JC was called the Narareen because he lived there and was killed in Jerusalem and that's why Urban deemed it necessary to sen thousands to their deaths to reclaim it for Christianity - But what do I know what the nuns told you at school.

20 June 2012 at 19:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dreadnaught. You misunderstand. The CoE has no business being involved. It’s all down to British Foreign policy. (...I say archivists, that could be one of the last times you see that phrase...). Have no doubt that if that changed, the CoE would be TOLD to butt out. Its present meddling isn’t going to help - how could it ?

20 June 2012 at 20:06  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

For the fundie theologians which Protestant boards attract all too easily -

840 - and when one considers the future, God's people of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 - The Church's Relationship with the Muslims - The plan of salvation aso includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.

Cathecism of the Catholic Church


Don't see anything in there which grants the right to kill, steal or dispossess, either to Jew or Muslim, and nothing there either which says the existence of a Jewish state is necessary to salvation. Mind you, the Catholic Church DOES tend to interpret the Bible in its entirity rather than picking and choosing the bits it likes and ignoring the rest.

20 June 2012 at 20:09  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@Dreadnought,

Good response to Corrigan 1.

20 June 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger IanCad said...

Theo @ 14:56,

I believe you are mistaken in your assertion that God's promises to His Chosen People pertain in any way to the State of Israel today.
Scripture makes it quite clear who is an Israelite. It is he who accepts Jesus Christ as Son of God. (John 1: 47-49)
Galatians 3:26-29 and many other texts confirm that it is only through Christ that salvation is secured.
Perhaps our understanding of the Sriptures could be helped by accepting that the words, "Forever" or "Everlasting" should followed by "Until". Thus a covenant is in force "Forever" until the contract is breached.
The belief in an everlasting, everburning Hell is another example of a false doctrine based on the same concept. I should add that this belief has probably turned more souls away from accepting the blessings of our Christian faith than any other teaching.

20 June 2012 at 20:16  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Cheers Anna.

20 June 2012 at 20:31  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

OiG
'You misunderstand'

Is that so?... best put a poultice on the bullet hole in your left foot there Dude.

20 June 2012 at 20:44  
Blogger Huldah said...

The problem for Replacement Theologians is that they HAVE to talk modern Israel down to prove that their darling theory that God has rejected the Jewish nation in favour of the Church is correct.

And down that way is the slippery path of racism ... as the Church, after 1600 years of of replacement theology and institutional anti-semitism, really ought to have grasped by now.

20 June 2012 at 20:49  
Blogger IanCad said...

Huldah,

You are talking absolute nonsense. To asssume that those who hold "Replacement Theology" views necessarily oppose the State of Israel is very sloppy thinking.

20 June 2012 at 21:07  
Blogger Theo said...

IanCad,
I am perfectly happy that you think I am mistaken. The Hebrew does not leave any room for assuming that God's promises to Abraham were time limited or conditional. Your quote of John 1 is quaint and I can only assume you are clutching at straws while the verses in Galatians are there, not for the purpose of disestablishing the Jews but of avoiding the rift which he saw taking place between Jewish and Gentile believers and was an affirmation of the new covenant rather than a negation of the old covenant. Supercessionism was a tool used by the early Gentile church to justify their anti-semitism and remains so today. The fact that Israel is now a nation shows clearly that God has not yet finished with His People.

20 June 2012 at 22:11  
Blogger bluedog said...

Excellent comment @ 13.22, Mr Dreadnaught.

Mr Corrigan @ 11.49, amongst the plethora of quotes you have posted is this, from Winston Spencer Churchill, 'I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America.'

Now Churchill was part Cherokee through the genealogy of his American mother, Jenny Jerome. Indeed, so impressed were the Cherokee nation by the achievements of WSC that the made him an honourary Chief. WSC accepted with delight.

Would the Cherokee have done that if they felt the bitterness that you evince?

Unknowingly, when Obama removed Churchill's bust from the White House he insulted the Cherokee.

In the final analysis, all nations are settler nations. At some point every current dominant population has displaced another less capable people, it's the way of the world. Look at China which is an empire of the Han. we hear nothing from you about Chinese repression of Tibet and the peoples of Sinkiang. You should redouble your research efforts and post venomously in the Peoples Daily.

There are some historical truths which you need to accept in princple before you condemn Israel.

20 June 2012 at 22:17  
Blogger Huldah said...

IanCad

Nonsense! Sloppy! Oooer!

I'm talking about logic, Ian. The logic that sees the reality of a reborn Israel thriving on its ancient homeland and feels threatened lest its cherished theology be shattered by a reality that looks awfully like the fulfilment of an overarching theme of Biblical prophecy which does not fit the supercessionist model.

If people can hold replacement theology in tension with support for the modern Israel, good. But make no mistake, there is no sloppiness about a logic that links replacement theology with reflexive opposition to Israel.

20 June 2012 at 22:19  
Blogger St Bruno said...

The Church of England should decide who its friends are
and who is its mortal enemies if it wishes to survive in the
21st Century. Once the Jews are gone the Christians will be
next.

The writing has been on the wall for too long!
'Allahu akhbar' is plain for all to see.
Now is not the time for dithering surrender to Jihad.
Now should be the time for all good men to stand together
for their faith in Christ, in the Church of England,
and our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Support Israel before it's too late. Surely, 7 million Jews have the
right to their small homeland in a world of 1.3 billion Muslims and
the 1.4 billion Christians denying them some peace. There is space
enough in the world for all to live in multicultural harmony, but it is blindingly obvious that Israel and the Jews are not welcome.

Forget the ranting and threats of the OIC, EU and the UN.
Say no to Islam and the coming Caliphate in Europe and the coasts of the Mediterranean!

20 June 2012 at 22:23  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

@ Bluedog

"In the final analysis, all nations are settler nations. At some point every current dominant population has displaced another less capable people, it's the way of the world."


So that would be a "yes, I consider the Jews racially superior to the Palestinians". Before you pat yourself too hard on the back, Dog, do try to keep in mind that by that statement you've also accepted the right of Hamas to have their little go at racial triumphalism by launching all those rockets into Israel. They may win, they may lose, but you don't appear to have any problem with the concept of them giving it their best shot.

20 June 2012 at 22:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog

"At some point every current dominant population has displaced another less capable people, it's the way of the world."

I don't disgree but the implication is that the less capable people have an entitlement to resist such displacement.

Let's be honest, the 'war' for the Holy Land is not over - far from it. We have democracy v's dictatorship; Islam v's Judaism; secularism v's religion; mutual ethnic hatred; and Russian/Chinese interests v's the 'West'.

Go try to sort that mess out!

As my dear old Mum would say: "It'll end in tears."

20 June 2012 at 22:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Corrigan, one wonders if your stance is the result of foreign settlement, and resulting British policy in the North of Ireland. This is not a trick question, the Inspector would like to see a united Ireland at the earliest possibility...

20 June 2012 at 22:54  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@Inspector, Corrigan quoted Gorbles in one of his posts. I think that says all you need to know about this guys views. And of course Hitler, good Catholic that he was, didn't like Jews or Gays. Gosh, I'd been killed twice! And as I am moral evil (as declared by you and Dodo) I guess I had it coming, didn't I? I am not only a gay, but also a Christ killer.

20 June 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anna dear thing. One believes you meant Goebbels. Gorbals or the way you spelt it is a rather unpleasant part of Glasgow. Hitler was a bad Catholic, they don’t come any worse. Don’t worry girl, the Inspector will protect you, whatever happens....

20 June 2012 at 23:16  
Blogger North Briton said...

Serious question: Why would Anglicans be interested in cultivating an Earthly relationship with either the Israelis OR the Palestinians?

Both groups reject the divinity of Christ and are therefore Hellbound (as far as the genuinely Bible-believing Anglican is concerned, anyway).

Shouldn't contact be limited more or less entirely to missionary work?

20 June 2012 at 23:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna

I'd follow pater's advice on the earlier thread.

For the record:

Hitler was not a Catholic (there's no 'good' or 'bad' one, you either are or you are not. Hehated the Church).

I do not see you as 'moral evil' and have never said so. The ideas you uncritically support are, in my opinion, against God's and natural law.

You forget, I am of Jewish descent. You misrepresent the Catholic teaching, based squarely on the Gospel accounts, of the part played by the Jews in the death of Christ.

21 June 2012 at 00:05  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Dodo,

Just to be clear my father and mother both died when I and my twins were young. You are referring to my paternal uncle, who had to take on the position of legal guardian. He isn't very well, either. He's looking out for me like he always does and has done.

21 June 2012 at 00:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna
I do apologise for this and am sorry to hear of your losses. He behaved as a father might protecting his child.

21 June 2012 at 00:32  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 June 2012 at 01:42  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Your Grace, rushed back here after a friend in Aussie land, another unrepentant Zionist, emailed to ask me if I've ever seen your site and if you're for real. For real. The ghost of the martyred archbishop lives on and he is, indeed for real, I assured him. Thank you for the umpteenth time for your kind, wise and good words. Thanks also to the many commenters here; we don't have many friends in the world, especially not in the EU, but the ones we have are among the finest. Quality, remember, trumps quantity. G-d bless.

21 June 2012 at 02:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

And where have you been lately? You disappear for six months. Show up for a brief period, and then slip into the shadows again. We notice when you aren't around here, you know.

carl

21 June 2012 at 02:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Hitler was not a Catholic

This is absolutely true. National Socialism was as hostile to Christianity as it was to any other competing world view. How could it be otherwise when Christianity is permanently joined at the hip to Judaism?

carl

21 June 2012 at 02:29  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, my old friend Corrigan is here. Don't worry, Corry, I won't call you an antisemite...it upsets the Inspector (sees you as some sort of an unfortunate shell-shocked Provo or something) and you're not worth his unease...so Jew-hater will have to do. You won't have to dig among your folds of lard for your imaginary pistol as your hero, old Goering, you misquoted.

But here's something you'll be delighted to hear: Arabs in the Disputed Territories and predominantly Arab areas in Israel have lately been quietly selling off tens of thousands of dunams of land for outrageously high sums to international buyers who are donating it right back to young, idealistic and tough Israeli families. We don't begrudge the crazy prices for scrubland and rocky hilltops; to us our land is always beautiful as it's our priceless heritage, decreed by the Almighty, by history and not to forget, San Remo and even the UN. Besides, the enriched sellers face a death sentence if discovered and they and their families deserve to be safe and comfortable. So-sorry; your dream of a judenrein "Palestine" is behind schedule.

And you'll be tickled to know that I've been helping to devise and test a remarkable transportation and construction system that allows for rocket-fortified, fully sheltered, air-conditioned, electrified, fuel and water-supplied "settler" communities to be built within 24 hours before a road is graded.

It's our land, you see, and we are redeeming it from the colonialist Arab squatters while they are busy again killing each other and desending to their default condition of Islamist savagery. May they all be victorious at the same time, I say. Now, back to you; I'm sure you can outdo yourself with your next rant. I don't always read them...SSDD (same sh-t, different day)...but others might enjoy.

21 June 2012 at 02:41  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Mr Tingey, you surprise me. In a good way, for a change.

Greetings, Miss Anna Anglican. A Gay Anglican of Jewish extraction? Quite normal for this blog. Me, I have Anglican relatives and even a few dour Scottish Presbyterians somewhere near Edinborough, and to the confusion of many of my coreligionists I'm a monarchist and Anglophile trucker living in Canada. All rather ordinary for this place.

Carl, you're mostly right, but never say never. When in Yerushalayim (that would be "al Quds" for Corry) a few months ago, I saw an exhibit of Temple vessels and acoutrements in preparation for the Temple's reinstitution; I'll leave it to the theologically minded to determine how this can be done. Some say only the appearance of our Messiah can bring back the theocratic comonwealth, others say it's a political decision. Me, a knit-kippah Zionist living in Canada and part of the year in Israel, as of this year, I'm an agnostic on those issues.

21 June 2012 at 03:02  
Blogger Theo said...

Does not the "Islamic savagery" to which Avi refers have its roots in another prophect in Genesis 16:12-13 "And the Angel of the Lord said to her:
"Behold, you are with child,

And you shall bear a son.

You shall call his name Ishmael,

Because the Lord has heard your affliction.

He shall be a wild man;

His hand shall be against every man,

And every man's hand against him.

And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren
(NKJV)

If we look at the history of the Middle East can any description for the Arabs be better than this.

21 June 2012 at 03:29  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Murderous RASCISM has another name, it is DARWINISM, as promoted within all of our state and almost all of our private schools and other teaching institutions.

Darwinism has long since been with us, indeed before Darwin was even born, but it has now become the foundation stone of The New Religion of the coming age.

Darwinism however has a fatal flaw, it is nonsense, founded on the purest principles of total bullshit.

Darwinism is the cancer which eats away at the very fabric of society. A malignant growth, which diseases the souls of men.

If the CofE was serious about its survival, which it clearly is not, it would at least try to open the eyes of the people, most especially the young to the absolute scientifically proven impossibility of life somehow magically appearing, and then evolving into conscious beings by natural selection acting on random mutation.

We did not get to this place by murdering each other in some kind of mad game of survival of the fittest, we got to this place because our original creator still LOVES and cares for us.

This must logically be the case for many reasons, one of the most obvious one being that our political and religious leaders are so profoundly corrupted by pure evil.

We must have had someone, somewhere looking after us, otherwise our owners would have succeeded in not only wiping out the common people, but would have slaughtered each other many thousands of years ago.

Man is evolving all right, our problem is that he is doing so in a downward direction. We were created perfect, and have been in decline ever since. Our true reality is therefore the complete opposite of Darwinism.

This is not only stated quite clearly in ALL of the entire worlds ancient writings and religious texts, it is an ever more scientifically proven FACT of life.

21 June 2012 at 03:44  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hi Carl,

Thank you for asking. I haven't flitted off to another blog or anything like that; the burnout after the winter and ice road insanity, followed by the jaunt in Israel and the volunteer work there strained and recalibrated things a bit, so now that I'm back I've been trying to reorganize my routes and accounts so that I can spend more time with the family. Too many Sabbaths alone in motels (without single malt scotch and schmaltz herring with raw onions on Tam Tam crackers) on the other side of the continent tends to make one melancholic and prone to all sorts of antisocial behaviours. I like the US, but I'm tired of the border crossings, the stress of the trans-continental runs, the regulations and all the weirdoes and criminals lurking at the truck stops. I'm sticking to Ontario and Quebec now, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland now and then, and can make it back to Toronto before the weekend.

Also, my old laptop died and is still in Vancouver BC, my server got invaded and its OS fried while I was gone because I left a port open for some FTP I didn;t even need and now I have to bug a friend to reload it and get the remote connection going again. Just today, I spent hours recovering my old account here, as I forgot my passwords. I'm ready for a sabbatical, I think, but Israel drained the old accounts and now I must work and work and work.

How're you doing? Still working away or have you become French and retired to the patiseries?

21 June 2012 at 04:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

I'm plodding along.

... or have you become French ...

Heaven forbid! On another blog, I actually wrote and deleted a rather scathing post about France a few days ago. I have to watch that tendency.

... to the patiseries?

Ummm .. a what? OK, OK. I looked it up. It's some kind of bakery. But it sounds suspiciously ... French, and therefore must be suspicious.

carl

21 June 2012 at 05:43  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Actually, Avi, I don't care if you call me an anti-Semite or not: Zionists are utterly shameless about bandying that word around and you learn pretty quickly that if you are in the slightest degree critical of Israel - for ANY reason whatsoever - you're going to get called that. If you let it get to you, you might as well become a Zionist yourself.

What I AM curious about is the apparant belief on the part of Zionists that as soon as you invoke that word, it shuts down all opposition. This, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. It NEVER shuts up the critics, no matter how loudly you shout it, yet you go right on using it, every time expecting a different result. Surely this is the clinincal definition of insanity?

I'm sorry, but the only possible explanation I can come up with for the practice is an ingrained assumption of racial superiority: the goyim are all genetically inferior, therefore if we used "magic" words like anti-Semite, they'll shut up because they're too stupid to see through what we're doing. Fascinating, Captain.

21 June 2012 at 05:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 June 2012 at 05:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

btw Avi

I had never heard that quote you said was mis-attributed to Goering, so I looked to up and discovered it was written by some guy named Hanns Johst. The Nazi Poet Laureate. I am still trying to wrap my mind around that concept. I never knew there was such a thing. I can't even imagine such a thing as Nazi poetry. It must be worse than Socialist Realism.

Yes, but I'll bet Muhammad Amin al-Husayni just loved it.

carl

21 June 2012 at 05:56  
Blogger David B said...

I hope that the more sensible and better informed religious people here will take note of the harm to rationality that religion can do.

Evolution is an established fact of like, and to deny it as Atlas did is perverse.

I would also hope that the more thinking believers might ponder the damage that many people having a blind faith in interpretations of mutually exclusive ancient religious texts can, and does, do.

As exemplified in the Middle East.

David B

21 June 2012 at 08:14  
Blogger Preacher said...

Welcome back Avi. We're seeing some very welcome old friends returning,
D.Singh has also returned, (welcome back to you also brother).
Who next I wonder?.

21 June 2012 at 08:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Preacher

Thank you.

David B

Next thing you will be telling us is that you got your notion of human rights from a particular branch of physics.

21 June 2012 at 08:31  
Blogger David B said...

D Singh that seems rather a bizarre comment. Why on earth would I tell you that?

What brought that on?

David B

21 June 2012 at 09:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi said ...
"It's our land, you see, and we are redeeming it from the colonialist Arab squatters while they are busy again killing each other and desending to their default condition of Islamist savagery."

Is this the prevalent attitude amongst Israelis? Peace in the Middle East? And are Israeli citizens of Arab descent squatters too with similar traits?

Not only are Arabs some sort of lesser beings but:

"Some say only the appearance of our Messiah can bring back the theocratic comonwealth, others say it's a political decision."

Is Israel a modern secular democracy? And how far and wide will is this hoped for theocratic commonwealth to extend? According to the Bible it is to be worldwide.

Modern political Zionism is as far removed from the Biblical expression of the role of the Jews as Communism is from achieving universal peace on earth.

Theo asked ...
"Does not the "Islamic savagery" to which Avi refers have its roots in another prophect in Genesis 16:12-13"

So according to some schools of Christian Zionism, the Arabs are predestined to be wild and savage. I guess this certainly provides a justification for removing them from the Holy Land.

21 June 2012 at 09:08  
Blogger Theo said...

They're squatters, Dodo, they're squatters.

21 June 2012 at 09:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

David B

'I hope that the more sensible and better informed religious people here will take note of the harm to rationality that religion can do.'

21 June 2012 at 09:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Theo

Are the Arabs savages too? All of them?

We are all squatters on this earth. And, as time passes, we squatters acquire human, legal entitlement. Otherwise, "La propriété, c'est le vol!"

21 June 2012 at 09:54  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Corrigan @ 22.43, if this communicant wants to say ‘racial superiority’ he will say it. The word at issue is ‘capable’, which covers a combination of factors. It suits your case to give that word the meaning of racial superiority so you did so, which is dishonest. Whether the Jews are racially superior to the Arabs, this communicant cannot divine. After all, the world’s most successful corporation was founded by an American of Syrian Arab descent, the late Steve Jobs. And yet Israel lodges more than 10,000 new patents each year, more than any other nation in the world. In the right environment both Semitic peoples seem highly capable.

What cannot be denied is that the Israeli people are energetic, intelligent, motivated and culturally blessed by Judaism, a religion which somehow guides its adherents to remarkable success. If you at look Israel and the surrounding lands on Google Maps, the evidence of industry and prosperity in Israel is profound in comparison with the land of her neighbours.

So why are the majority of Arabs so backward? Victims of Great Power rivalry with bonus Western Colonialism? Of course! Wrong, the longest period of foreign dominion over Arab lands came from the Ottoman Empire, which incidently started the Jewish repopulation of the Holy Land. The Turks are not Arab and generally hold the Arabs in contempt.

Just as Israel has the benefit of Judaism, so the Arabs have the disadvantage of Islam with it’s fatalistic belief that everything depends on the will of Allah. It follows the Palestinians have a cultural bias putting them at the opposite side of the mean to the Israelis. There was of course a sizeable Christian Palestinian population of Palestinians, but in common with all Middle Eastern populations of Christians they are leaving their homelands in fear of their lives.

As to Hamas, they are lucky that their opponents are Israelis. Any less tolerant hegemon would wipe them out in an afternoon.

Communicant Avi Barzel brings the welcome news that a form of private sector Louisiana Purchase seems to be underway in the West Bank. One hopes that such a scheme will provide a peaceful and equitable solution to the current disputes.

Would you accept a peaceful solution on this basis, Mr Corrigan?

For a look at the future of Israel, you will hopefully enjoy this article:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ME24Ak01.html

21 June 2012 at 10:29  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Corrigan

'Zionists are utterly shameless'

Are you sitting comfortably?

You apparently can not see that the charges you make against Zionists also apply to Muslims. Substitute Muslim for or Zionist and Islam for Judaism and you have exactly the same arguments. Many Jews are not Zionists but they are Israeli, even more Jews have no desire to live in Israel but like to think of it as an historic 'homeland' and a place of safety.

Islamists however, don't want so much a literal 'homeland' or place of safety, they want the entire world to be 'reclaimed' - in the name of their god, with themselves in charge through Sharia Law. Your every-day nice guy Muslim in the West, is a sleeping stooge - figuratively and if necessary literally willing to die for or at least finance 'the cause' if s/he is daft enough to be so pressured.

Muslims though out history ans to the present day and into the future will if permitted, take over nations, minds and cultures by stealth then violence. They are taught the ways of their holy thug Muhammad, and closely follow his talents for murder and robbery and tribute.

Claiming to being in possession of the incontestable word of Allah set out in the Koranic Domeday Book, they set themselves up as misunderstood victims, who then naturally have to defend themselves, first with the rhetoric in the Koran, followed up if necessary, until the point submission (which is what being 'Muslim' actually means) by extreme physical force. However, its not all nasty; in the process they not only offer to make converts (reverts)of their 'hosts', take them as dhimmis or kill them, (they do offer a tempting range of choices). Then its just the simple matter of taking over or destroying the holy places, making them either Mosques or rubble heaps and top it all off by implementing Sharia law.

They already have Mecca which was where Baal had set up home until Muhammad fancied himself as gods last prophet. Then they wanted Jerusalem, (Muhammad once dreampt he went there and took off to heaven on a winged horse) and that old Temple site looked a bit tasty viwed from above.

Then what about the Orthodox Christian Hagia Sophia at Constantinople - who cares if there was no Mo connection (Church to Mosque to Museum and soon to be a Mosque again) they grabbed that too making a handy set of three.

How many sacred places do the Muslims need? Can you see a pattern emerging here - or it it me just being an old cynic?

I don't expect you to take all of this in at once - but I recommend you check it out at some time - it could save you from further ridicule next time you want to shill for Islam against Zionism.

21 June 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Mr Dreadnaught,

the engergy, industry, intelligence or othewise of Israelis is a matter of the most utter indifference; none of it explains what entitles them as of right to dispossess an indigenous people of that which rightfully belongs to them. To posit these qualities in the Israelis while simultaneously derriding the supposed sloth and inherent idleness of the Arabs within the context of this debate can only be interpreted to mean that Israelis are entitled to what belongs to others because they are "better" than the Palestinians. Yet, curiously, you hold ME to be the racialist.

As to the danger of Islam, well, who was it you think stopped it dead in its tracks in Spain, at the gates of Vienna and at Lepanto? We did; the Catholics did; the popeheads, the Tims, the Taigs. Us. We know exactly what a predatory Islam is capable of; more or less the same as a predatory Zionism is capable of. That does not change the fact that what's right is right, and to that end I'm still waiting for somebody to give me a good explanation of what entitles Zionists to steal what belongs to others.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Palestinians that which is theirs.

21 June 2012 at 11:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

Evolution is an established fact

Heh. Well, yes, except for the 'established' and 'fact' parts.

carl

21 June 2012 at 12:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog said ...

"After all, the world’s most successful corporation was founded by an American of Syrian Arab descent, the late Steve Jobs."

And there's me thinking the world's most successful 'corporation' was established by Christ and His nominated successors the Apostles, i.e the Catholic Church.

That aside, Corrigan has a point. Greater cultural and economic capability doesn't establish the right to dispossess a people of their lands although greater military capability has been the traditional method used. By this standard, the German's were perfectly entitled to invade Poland. Afterall, they were more capable economically and had a superior industrial foundation. And genocide is not a hugh step away if this is the standard adopted.

We are where we are in the Middle East. I don't think either Arabs or Israelis can defend their past and current behaviours. I certainly don't think God's 'Master Plan' is being realised there either or the Jewish people have a Divine Right to the land.

A political settlement is required and as someone once said, "war is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means".

21 June 2012 at 12:38  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Corrigan has no point at all. Why does Poland have possession of East Prussia and Silesia? The true answer is because "The Russians said so" and they enforced their will by deporting several million Germans. Do you then dispute this Polish possession? Are you agitating for the return of the 'German National Homeland' from Poland? There is hardly a border in the history of the world that hasn't be determined by war in some sense, and yet the world happily recognizes those borders without so much as a backwards glance. Except in Israel. I wonder why?

The Israelis established their initial borders by winning a war the Arabs had continuously threatened for months leading up to Israeli independence in 1948. There was no one who thought the Arabs could lose that war - least of all the Arabs. That's why the Arabs attacked the day after Israel was legally declared. If Israel had lost that war, who would now be calling for the restoration of a Jewish homeland? How would that have been any less the establishment of possession by the right of conquest?

That is the utter hypocrisy at the center of this debate. Only the Jews are denied what is settled for every other nation. If just once the Arabs win (and let's not forget that means the the Jews get slaughtered) no one will talk about occupation and borders anymore. The state of Israel will cease to exist and there will be an new Arab state. The cities will be renamed. It will be no different from Poland taking possession of Silesia.

Except for all those dead Jews of course. Given that Corrigan opened this thread by quoting a Nazi, I have to wonder how much that would distress him.

carl

21 June 2012 at 13:04  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Corrigan -

'Yet, curiously, you hold ME to be the racialist'.

You could do worse than re-reading my posts - none of which have anything directly or indirectly with what you mention here or accuse me of.

Granted the RCC's Ferdinand and Isabella booted them out of
Andalucia and Charles Martel, John Sobieski and more tackled the Islamists head on at the Gates of Vienna - yet you seem hell bent on undoing their work by missing the whole point. Try reading the 'Palestinian' Hamas Charter in their own words:-

'The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'(preamble)

The Exclusive Moslem Nature of the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession]consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it. (Article 11)

'Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the
Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem wherever he may be.' (Article 13)


Keep denying the hard facts if you must - but it's not just your own grave you are digging and its not simply a matter regarding Israel and the Gazan/West Bank Arabs - this is simply the latest stage in a very old campaign of global Islamisation. No mention of PEACE with Israel - just NO ISRAEL

21 June 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl
I think you have confirmed that Corrigan actually does have a point unless we are now accepting the principle that 'might is right' or 'capable nations can rule incapable nations'.

It doesn't make pre and post 1948 objectively "right" or "wrong" just because the Israelis had the military nounce to succeed. And besides I agree we're past all that in 2012 anyway.

All I'm saying is I can't actually see a settlement in the Middle East without ongoing warfare - be it guerilla or conventional - until one side defeats the other and can impose its will. A negotiated political settlement, given the competing interests and ideologies, is just not going to happen anytime soon.

And "Only the Jews are denied what is settled for every other nation" isn't actually true, now is it? Tibet? Kasmir? Northern Ireland? Falkland Islands?

There are unsettled borders across the world and disputed territories. They just don't happen to be where massive reserves of oil are located; where Islam meets Judaism; where some Christian sects predict an imminent Armaggedon; where democracy meets autocracy; and where the Russians/Chinese economic interests challenge the West.

What is Tony Blair doing to solve all this?

21 June 2012 at 13:42  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Once again, Mr Dreadnaught, still no explanation of what entitles the Zionists to steal what doesn't belong to them. I presume you're trying to paint a kind of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" kind of scenario for the Israelis (since the "birthright" argument won't fly, and the "region's only democracy" is a crock). Personally, I'd rather take my chances with a head-on clash with Islam than have this ramshackle pseudo-state claiming a place in my battle line.

21 June 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

How would devout Muslims and devout Jews answer the question:

"Who is my neighbour?"

And would either agree with John Calvin?

" ... mankind is knit together with a holy knot ... we must not live for ourselves, but for our neighbours."

21 June 2012 at 15:36  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr Corrigan

'I presume you're trying to paint a kind of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" kind of scenario for the Israelis'

I am presuming that you are a complete and utter TIT if that's all you have gleaned.

21 June 2012 at 15:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught

Bit Dodoesque that response. So unlike you too.

Please. I'm trying to reform. Do set a better example, Sir! You'll upset your barge and end up in the river.

21 June 2012 at 15:54  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Sorry birdman - didn't mean to rattle your personal cage or encroach on your progression of reform.

21 June 2012 at 16:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 June 2012 at 17:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

I think you have confirmed that Corrigan actually does have a point

His 'point' is that the Jews are illegitimate usurpers who have no right to exist on the land they occupy. He has defined them as aggressors by their mere existence. When I asked him some months back what he thought the Jews in in Israel should do, he suggested they emigrate to the US! (Which by the way would be a good thing for the US assuming it could absorb 6 million immigrants, but that is neither here nor there.) If this logic was consistently followed, it would delegitimize virtually all borders everywhere.

But we must be consistent. So let us start with the German-Polish border, shall we? Let's demand the return of territory taken from Germany by force in 1945. Let's demand the forcible return of German citizens who were forcibly deported from their homes. Or let's explain why we are demanding of Israel what no one has any intention of ever asking from Poland.

carl

21 June 2012 at 17:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You’re all wasting your time concerning yourselves with Johnny Arab. Dreadful fellow…

The Inspector has no doubt that if Israel began to collapse, he would be in there like a shot from wherever he lives to cut everyone’s throat. A race of people fizzing with violence just below the surface. Just look at the way they treat each other in their existing lands…

Wouldn’t give them the time of day, you know…

21 June 2012 at 18:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught

It's a work in progress.

carl
I think you know my position on the situation in 2012 - the State of Israel is an established nation and the Arabs want them gone. The precise boundaries have still to be finally settled following occupation - a major source of contention. Are you saying the occupied territories should also remain Israeli?

All I'm saying is that both 'sides' are at fault and are programmed to live in enmity. Their interpretations of their religious texts reinforces this. Hence my question about neighbour. I quoted John Calvin just for you too!
The other forces at play there, including the strategic and economic interests of other nations in the region, only adds fuel to this.

It is possible both sides are wrong, creating a vicious circle heading in one direction.

21 June 2012 at 18:19  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, as an American you can consider a patisserie as a kind of a tarted-up donut shop. The reference to France was its age of retirement at 56, I think, and wondered whether you've decided to emulate.

Corrigan, they are some who throw the antisemitism accusation sloppily; not I. For me it's a useful designation to mark Jew-haters who try to pretend that they are humanitarians or whatever the latest fad may be. It doesn't shut down opposition; it merely marks the spot, rather like a warning sign on a backed-up toilet which tells you to plug your nose and back away carefully.
I note that you apropriated the definition of insanity from a long-dead Zionist. We're everywhere, aren't we? As for your nightmares about being a Goy who is racially inferior to me, I don't know if I or anyone can help you with that. The well-documented reality of assigning Jews to an inferior racial status from the late Middle Ages right through to today and the absence of a single Jewish principle or doctrine which recognizes the largely imaginary construct of "race" will obviously not help because your delusion is unaffected by facts. I can suggest that being stuck in an economically failing country which foolishly jettisoned its rich cultural and religious heritage in the span of a single generation and replaced it with a toxic brew of mobster ultra-nationalism and socialist internationalism may have something to do with your night terrors. But I'm no expert. Perhaps our Inspector is right and you're reacting to the history of the eccesses of British colonialism. In that case, Zionists and Irish nationalists have similar complaints, which is why in earlier times the two cooperated. Alas, the Arabs have far more money, arms and oil than the Jews and so, here we are. No amount of "palestinianist" posturing on the world's stage will erase the shame of the Irish nationalists who unexpectedly stabbed their Jewish nationalist colleagues in the back for a few shekels...or, rather, rubles, riyadhs and Kalashnikovs. And traitors can only deal with their guilt by blaming their victims. Psycho-analyse that.

21 June 2012 at 18:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 June 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi

Hello you happy trucker.

Could you run that analysis of Irish Nationalism, Zionism and Islamism past us again - slowly. I'm struggling to understand it!

21 June 2012 at 18:50  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

All I'm saying is that both 'sides' are at fault and are programmed to live in enmity.

Except I know the history of this nation, and I find it difficult to locate Israeli fault. The Jews came to an underpopulated land, and made it prosper. The Arabs rejected this Jewish immigration because they feared Jewish industry. They wanted the land to remain an Arab land. The Arabs threatened war if they did not get their way. The Arabs started a war when the did not get their way. Against all expectations, the Arabs lost what otherwise would have been a war of extermination. They have continued on that quest of extermination ever since.

The nation of Israel is as legitimate as any nation in Europe. It was created by the major powers after a war just like Poland and (what used to be) Chechoslovakia. It is as legitimate as Iraq and Syria and Jordan and Saudi Arabia. So what then does this come down to? "No Jews! This land is Arab land and has been for centuries." But even that is wrong. Palestine was an imperial backwater ruled by Turks, sparely inhabited by Arabs, and then taken as a mandate when Turkey lost WWI. The powers that legally controlled the land put a Jewish state on it and the Arabs didn't like it. The Arabs tried to kill it. They lost. Too bad, so sad. That isn't the fault of the Jews and it doesn't justify this eternal Arab quest to destroy this state they have never accepted.

Are you saying the occupied territories should also remain Israeli?

Of course I am saying that. I have said that before on this very weblog. You would agree with me if you lived in Israel under the threat they face. It's easy to demand that others take risks.

Hence my question about neighbour.

I wonder how General Eisenhower would have answered that question if some one had asked him "Those Germans on the wrong end of your artillery. Aren't they your neighbors?" Soldiers have very different responsibilities and very different imperatives.

carl

21 June 2012 at 18:54  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo, we've been over most of the convoluted questions before and no answer of mine has satisfied as you moved on to the next quandary of yours but, hark, here's a new example of your clever Jesuitry: And are Israeli citizens of Arab descent squatters too with similar traits? Obviously, their citizenship status has "de-squatterized" them, no? Their communities are quite diverse, with Islamists, moderates and secularists. They are more diverse than those in Muslim countries mainly due to the fact that Israel has effective social safety nets and tries to prevent the Islamists from terrorizing them.

Btw, your rather slimy implication that I have concluded that "Arabs are lesser beings" is one of the reasons I tend to feel vaguely buggered after debating you.
I wish you'd finally accept the fact that having a Jewish father still makes you a 100% non-Jew and that you don't have to grovel and self-immolate before other non-Jews to prove your credentials. As I've suggested before, delight in your Catholicism and like others of other religions and ideologies, accept its lows and highs bravely and philosophically and try to be the best Catholic you can be.

21 June 2012 at 19:15  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oh, and hello there to you too, Dodo. I approve of your return to your original avatar. Nothing beats tradition for the warm and fuzzy feeling of gemuetlichkeit.

About your, could you run that analysis of Irish Nationalism, Zionism and Islamism past us again - slowly, uh, would suggesting that you scroll up and take your time with reading my comments which for some reason you mistakenly take for an "analysis"?

21 June 2012 at 19:24  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

The Inspector has no doubt that if Israel began to collapse, he would be in there like a shot from wherever he lives to cut everyone’s throat. A race of people fizzing with violence just below the surface. Just look at the way they treat each other in their existing lands…

And I have no doubts as well, Inspector, which is why I'd have to rush and drag you from the fray. Methinks you and I are a little too long in the tooth for such jolly atavistic exertions like slitting throats. Much better if we positioned ourselves at an outdoor pub in Tel Aviv with a sampling of brews and enjoyed the sight of the pretty ladies sailing by.

21 June 2012 at 19:29  
Blogger David B said...

@ Carl

You don't seem to know a lot about evolution.

To deny evolution is rather like insisting on a geocentric universe, as the Catholics did at one point before they let facts intrude on their theology.

@ Dodo

"We are where we are in the Middle East. I don't think either Arabs or Israelis can defend their past and current behaviours. I certainly don't think God's 'Master Plan' is being realised there either or the Jewish people have a Divine Right to the land. "

I think this quote shows that on some issues you can talk sense.

The situation has been a long term tragedy, and it is hard to see a solution.

David B

21 June 2012 at 19:30  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oh, sorry, Dodo, your avatar is from a different illustration. Don't let it be saud that all Dodos look the same to me.

21 June 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I'll take this opportunity to temporarily post a new avatar digitally sketched by my friend, Yoni B. I'm not sad or depressed there; I was merely taking a "power nap" whilst in the midst of sampling some fine new Israeli wines.

21 June 2012 at 19:47  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Wow, Avi, I'm sure glad you're NOT a racial supremicist. I suppose I could respond by pointing to the $4 million per day life support the state of Isreal has been on from the US since its creation (or is it up to five now?); or the fact that all those Israeli oranges with the Jaffa brand come mostly from orchards planted and marketed by Arabs until the Zionists ran them off their own land at the point of a gun (a very densely populated land, by the way, despite Dreadnaught's ignorance on the matter); or the fact that you guys actually attacked and destablaized Lebanon not because it was a military threat to you, but because the Lebanese were and are brilliant merchants and traders who were killing you in the market place and sucking up all the inward investment in the region (didn't think we knew about that one, did you?).

I COULD do all that, but why bother when I'm still waiting for the answer to the same question which Dreadnaught before you and D. Singh before him failed to answer - by what authority do you dispossess an indigenous people of that which is theirs?

21 June 2012 at 19:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi You have misread the Inspectors post. The ‘he’ referred to was Johnny Arab !

21 June 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Well, that certainly makes things easier, Inspector, looking for you all over the place might have cost us seats at a decent table with a good vista.

21 June 2012 at 20:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. Steady old chap. One can deduce you’re riled, but before you charge in there again, take a few moments out to compose yourself. Don’t want to bring a non combatant and neural down by friendly fire now, what !

21 June 2012 at 20:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. You know we are the same age, but you’ve managed to hang onto your hair colour. Well done that man. Not so for the Inspector, he’s now gone ‘post badger’ (...to silver fox...)

21 June 2012 at 20:19  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Corrigan, you're not even aware of how crazed and dysfunctional you've become on the topic of Jews and Israel, have you? Or how transparently you mark your...uh, "intellectual" sources.

To wit, you ignore all counter-arguments I or anyone offers and then you launch with "Wow, Avi, I'm sure glad you're NOT a racial supremicist."

Ooo-kay, well, bully for you, but then you plunge into "I suppose I could respond by pointing to (blah-bah-blah)" wherein you proceed to enumerate fantasies and concoctions found ...purely coincidentally, I'm sure... on Islamist, White Power and neo-Nazi sites. Oh, and on the new voice of neo-fascism, Pravda.

I can't help but giggle and indulge in a brief comment at your drunk's interpretation of the Lebanese conflict. For anyone interested, look into how a wealthy Christian-ruled country was destroyed by Soviet-backed Muslim violence and destruction and became a terrorist haven and and an Islamic outpost. Israel, the other non-Muslim stick-in-the-mud was next on the list. It still is.

21 June 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Oh dear, I'm a drunk now as well as a paranoid Jew-hater and a white power neo-Nazi. What an exciting life I lead.

I'm not going to get an answer to my question, am I?

21 June 2012 at 20:42  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Inspector, ha, weird eh? My hair's still mostly brown by some weird fluke, but there are a few clumps of grey here and there. My friend was overly generous, especially with my beard, which is mostly white by now. Hair comes, hair goes; my current attention is on curbing my vices, bringing my weight to what it was in my first year of U, getting more cardiovascular and pumping up more muscle mass. Don't want to be like some fellow truckers who've been piling on the pounds while driving and huff, puff and groan when they struggle into and out of their cab.

21 June 2012 at 20:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl
We have different understandings of the foundations of the Israeli State and the duplicity and intrigue following the development of political Zionism in the late 19th century.

The question about neigbour was a general one. One can wage a just war and conduct oneself morally. Being a neighbour and living harmoniously next to a tribe worshipping what is seen as a false God seems to be an alien concept to both sides.

21 June 2012 at 21:05  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Corrigan, add "navel-gazing immature fob" to the list while you're at it. This isn't all about you, you know.

Oh, yeah, there was a question in your rant. Sorry, must have slipped into a coma before getting to it. You mean: "by what authority do you dispossess an indigenous people of that which is theirs?

It's been answered by me and numerous people on this post and others repeatedly and for as long as I've abusing His Grace's hospitality here. So, if there's still room on your list, add "forgetful" just before "drunk."

But one more time: By the authority of our scriptures, history, continuous inhabitation (if that's a word), international laws, conventions and resolutions (San Remo, Balfour, UN) and not least by virtue of getting kicked out of most of Europe and told to go and find home well before travel to the Moon became a possibility.

The Arabs are not in any way indigenous except in Arabia, as the name might suggest to most people. Your flagrant hypocricy came out when you boasted about your coreligionists kicking Arabs out of Spain...al Andalus. There were there longer and became far more established and "inigenous" than in Eretz Israel, btw. The history of the region under the Ottomans has been covered here by others. Most of the Arabs who call themselves "indigenous Palestinians" are culturally and linguisticly Syrians, recent arrivals who came to profit from the economic boom started up by Jewish enterprise upon withdrawal of the Turks.

Save this answer and those of others, because you'll ask the same questions again at your next opportunity.

21 June 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Corrigan
I make no apologies for cutting and pasting the following so take your time and read - use your finger and mouth the words if it helps.

'Land Ownership in 1948'

The claim is often made that in 1948 a Jewish minority owning
only 5 per cent of the land of Palestine made itself master of the
Arab majority, which owned 95 per cent of the land.

In May 1948 the State of Israel was established in only part of the
area allotted by the original League of Nations Mandate. 8.6 per
cent of the land was owned by Jews and 3.3 per cent by Israeli
Arabs, while 16.9 per cent had been abandoned by Arab owners who
imprudently heeded the call from neighbouring countries to "get
out of the way" while the invading Arab armies made short shrift of
Israel. The rest of the land—over 70 per cent—had been vested in
the Mandatory Power, and accordingly reverted to the State of Israel as its legal heir.

(Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine, 1946, British Government Printer, p. 257.)

The greater part of this 70 per cent consisted of the Negev, some
3,144,250 acres all told, or close to 50 per cent of the 6,580,000
acres in all of Mandatory Palestine. Known as Crown or State
Lands, this was mostly uninhabited arid or semi-arid territory,
inherited originally by the Mandatory Government from Turkey.

In 1948 it passed to the Government of Israel.

These lands had not been owned by Arab farmers—neither under
the British Mandate nor under the preceding regime. Thus it is
obvious that the contention that 95 per cent of the land—whether
of Mandatory Palestine or of the State of Israel—had belonged to
Arabs has absolutely no foundation in fact.

1937 Report of the Palestine Royal Commission — In Chapter 9,par a. 43 the Report quotes an eye-witness account of the condition of the Maritime Plain in 1913: The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track
suitable for transport by camels and carts . . . no orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached Yabna village. . . . Not in a single village in all this area was water used for irrigation. Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen. . . . The ploughs used were of wood. . . The yields were very poor. . . . The sanitary conditions in the village were horrible. Schools did not exist. . . . The rate of infant mortality was very high. . . .

The area north of Jaffa . . . consisted of two distinctive parts. The eastern part, in the direction of the hills, resembled in culture that of the Gaza-Jaffa area. The western part, towards the sea, was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants.'


There are lists readily available on line (if you could bother to take your head from up your arse), of the land purchases made by pre-Israeli Jewish migrants from the early 19C onwards to wealthy absentee Arab landlords who kept the Arab tenant farmers in virtual Serfdom -

21 June 2012 at 21:32  
Blogger bluedog said...

Excellent post, Mr Dreadnaught @ 11.33. Regrettably it seems Mr Corrigan has been brainwashed by Palestinians and nothing can remove the stains.

Mr Corrigan, you repeatedly say that the Jews stole Arab land. The Jews have been living in the Holy Land from the dawn of time. How can they therefore steal their own homeland? It was not until after the death of Mahommed in 632 that the Arabs began their invasion of everywhere to spread the word of their god. We know from the Bible that during the time of Christ, the Holy Land was Jewish. As you are a Christian, can you not recognise this fact?

You have not replied to my earlier question. Do you accept that the purchase of Arab land by Jewish interests on the West Bank is acceptable as a peaceful and equitable solution to the current dispute?

21 June 2012 at 21:37  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Thank you Mr Australian Cattle Hound - but I doubt it will suffice MrC.

21 June 2012 at 21:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 June 2012 at 21:42  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, Re: 21 June 2012 05:56. That got my curiosity.

Turns out it's from his play, the Schlageter, where old Hanns penned, "Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meinen Browning," i.e., "Whenever I hear the word culture... I release (or "un-secure") the safety-catch of my Browning!"

Rather witty for a Nazi, I must concede. I'll have to remember the line, in the original German, and spit it out in snooty Hoch Deutsch accents as a retort whenever my wife accuses me of being an uncultured slob...usually moments before she produces tickets to some incomprehensible modern play at a theatre without a license for a bar.

21 June 2012 at 21:46  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

"We abroad are used to believing that Eretz Israel is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed, and that anyone who wishes to purchase land there may come and purchase as much as he desires. But in truth this is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains that are not fit to grow anything but fruit trees - and this only after hard labour and great expense of clearing and reclamation - only these are now cultivated"
Asher Ginsber, Jewish author and cultural Zionist, 1891



90% of the inhabitants of Palestine were non-Jewish and did NOT want a Jewish state;

If given such a state, "Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants"

Such a state would violate the Palestinian Arabs right to self-determination, and Zionists should find another place to plant.

"A national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish state"

"...nor can the erection of such a state be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religous rights of existing non-Jewish communities"

"The initial claim, often submitted by Zionists that they have a 'right' to Palestine based on an occupation of two thousand years ago can hardly be seriously entertained"
Report of the American
King-Crane commission, 1919



"...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done that may prejudice the civil and religous rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"
The part of the Balfour Declaration which Zionists never quote.



"Although it became official in 1858, the Ottoman Land Code was put into effect in Syria and Palestine over a period of decades...The land code required the registration of farm land, most of which had never before been registered and which had been treated according to traditional forms of land tenure...The new law meant that for the first time a peasant could be deprived of the right to live on and cultivate "his" land and pass it on to his heirs - a right that had formerly been considered "unalienable".

"Under the 1858 law, if peasants with long-standing rights failed to register - which they often did - rich guys who were good at manipulating the law registered large areas of land as theirs - and then sold it to the Jewish Agency, who was more than happy with the slippery arrangement"
Ron David
Arabs and Israel for Beginners




And not a cut or paste in sight; all typed by my own fair hand. See what us white-power, paranoid neo-Nazis are capable of when we're not drinking?

21 June 2012 at 22:17  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Corrigan @ 22.17

Third time lucky?

You have not replied to my earlier question.

Do you accept that the purchase of Arab owned land on the West Bank by Jewish interests is acceptable as a peaceful and equitable solution to the current dispute?

21 June 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

@Blue Dog,

I wonder if Mr C thinks that Jews who got chucked out of the Middle East by Arabs for being Jewish should have been supported as well? What about the theft of my Jewish Iraqi mom's property in the 1950s?

21 June 2012 at 23:09  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

"As long as the Jewish spirit is yearning deep in the heart,
With eyes turned toward the East, looking toward Zion,

Then our hope - the two-thousand-year-old hope - will not be lost:
To be a free people in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem"

21 June 2012 at 23:20  
Blogger bluedog said...

@ Hannah Kavanagh, I don't think Mr Corrigan is looking for any reasonable and equitable solution.

It seems he wants a Final Solution!

Your family's Iraqi assets are a lost cause, sad to say. You'll never get between the Shia and the Sunni long enough to make a claim.

21 June 2012 at 23:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi

Have you been drinking to excess?

I am well aware I am a Goyim. My father, raised a strict Orthodox Jew, fully explained what it means.

Like him, I have a great respect for the Old Testament and for the Jewish people and their present political struggles. Regretably, some of your comments make me question this. Like him too, I have an aversion to the cocktail of religious and political Zionism you presented earlier. Neither am I blind to the inconvenient historical realities of the situation leading to the present situation in the Middle East.

Now, perhaps you would share your insights into Irish nationalism. I have re-read your incoherent comments and, well, they're incoherent!

21 June 2012 at 23:53  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo,

You said, Avi...You're posts are incoherent this evening. Have you been drinking?" Dear, oh dear, I must look into the incoherence thing, but drinking? No, goodness, I don't indulge when alone or during the week. I natter on more about the vice than indulge in it, and when I do, always with plenty of food and soft liquids and very rarely to excess. I actually thought I was uncharateristically lucid today, sitting in my air-conditioned Casa Barzel, going over paperwork and escaping into blogging whilst sipping cool soda drinks, having passed on supervising an airbrake overhaul on account of the ugly heat wave we've been under.

Anyhow, onto things. I don't have a secretary, Dodo, so when you ask me to do this textual analysis of your posts, I may be lacking in literary appreciation. Cute, by the way, the way you say, "I know I'm just a Goy..." (sniff, sniff). Bravo! A subtle twist of meaning, the right amount of stoic pathos and any defense would have to be pages-long. Seeing how Gay marriage has been a topic on this blog, it occured to me that if you were to be my "wife," I'd be squishy putty in your hands.

However, you did say, clearly pointing to my alleged opinion by virtue of addressing me, "Not only are Arabs some sort of lesser beings ..." It can't be that after years of struggling with this insanely difficult language, I'm back at Level 2 ESL comprehension-wise? And why do you "repeat" lines I wasn't addressing and throw in ones from other posts? I feel a headache coming on, Dodo, why is that?

Anyway, here's something we've gone over before more than once: "Be honest. Jewish scripture is understood by some of your faith as indicating you are a special nation, chosen by God to rule the earth when the Messiah comes. The Arabs, of course, believe the same thing about themselves." If you google the issue of Jewish chosenness and avoid the rants of the antisemites, focussing on Jewish exegetical commentaries instead, you'll find a better answer than I can ever give. If you want to know my take on the issue, I believe that we have been chosen by G-d to be His servants and to obey a complex and difficult set of special commandments applicable only to us. That we are in no way better humans than all the other...note the word "other"...goyim/nations is made clear in the Torah by the unvarnished descriptions of our antics and the number of times the Almighty has chastised us and sent us out to the doghouse. Regarding the Messianic era, I take the rationalistic, minimalist interpretation of a re-instituted Davidic monarchy and a rebuilt Temple with a strong and successful Jewish state leading by example and geopolitical influence. If you're looking for more eschatological ponderings, you'll have to ask someone else. Or use Google.

I have no deep thoughts on the subject of Irish affairs and haven't claimed "expert knowledge" as you, in your inimical way, falsely imply. My remark was limited to the observation that for a brief period, during the Palestine Mandate years, the Irish nationalists and Zionist fighters collaborated and felt that they had a common enemy, the British, and a common purpose, national liberation.

It would help if you stuck to what people are saying, rather than what you can twist and torture out of their words outside of context and plain meaning, Dodo.

22 June 2012 at 00:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi

Of course by the time you answered I'd deleted my questions because I reflected upon them and decided they were perhaps too 'provocative'. Little did I know you actual want a scap.

"Regarding the Messianic era, I take the rationalistic, minimalist interpretation of a re-instituted Davidic monarchy and a rebuilt Temple with a strong and successful Jewish state leading by example and geopolitical influence."

There are other interpretations as you well know. Not democracy then, as the West believes? Or is it to be a constitutional monarchy?

And your justification for the State of Israel is:

"By the authority of our scriptures, history, continuous inhabitation (if that's a word), international laws, conventions and resolutions (San Remo, Balfour, UN) and not least by virtue of getting kicked out of most of Europe and told to go and find home well before travel to the Moon became a possibility."

Not historically accurate, reasonable or terribly logical is it?

And if you have no "deep thoughts" on Irish affairs then don't share them.

22 June 2012 at 00:29  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

I feel for you, sir.

She: So I got some tickets for us today.

He: ...

She: Don't look that way. They're for a play called "Waiting for Godot's Rhinoceros" You know I always pick good plays. Trust me.

He: Must I?

She: You'll enjoy it! It's culture.

He: Wenn ich ... OW!

She: I've heard it before. Put the tickets in your wallet, and don't 'lose' them. The play starts at 8:00 so plan accordingly.

He: (Mumble, mumble)

She: I heard that! Set a good example for your son.

He Jr: Huh? What's Mom talking about?

He: She got some tickets.

He Jr: To what?

He: ...

He: Montreal vs Toronto. Want to take her? I could make he sacrifice.

He Jr: Whatever. Mom hates hockey. [Takes tickets] "Waiting for Go..." BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA. Have fun with that, Dad.

She: And give me your phone. You're not surfing the web this time.

He: Does this place at least have a bar?

She: A juice bar.

He: ...


very sympathetic carl

22 June 2012 at 00:33  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

LOL! Carl, that was scary. If I didn't know better I'd say you have my house wired.

Especially the Waiting for Godot (a.k.a., Waiting for Something to Happen ...Anything...) bit.

That one I got dragged to in the pre-internet days. Took place in a mouldy "alternative" theatre with creaky straight-backed chairs with no padding. It's a sensory deprivation exercise, a black government program, I'm sure. It was the only time in my life when I wondered whether I could kill myself with mind-power alone and tried really, really hard. Which pointless attempt probably kept my blood pressure from dropping terminally and paradoxically, saved my life.

22 June 2012 at 03:04  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo,

This nagging and moving onto new accusations based on willful "misunderstandings" and omissions of yours is annoying. We are starting to sound like an old couple. People are going to talk, you know.

Let's see what we got now. "There are other interpretations (of the Messianic era) as you well know." Of course I bloody-well know, because I clearly said I can give you my own understanding and recommended that you read up on the topic or get other opinions.

And of the Messianic era you say, "Not democracy then, as the West believes? Or is it to be a constitutional monarchy?" This is beyond inane, Dodo. A Messianic democracy, as in an elected Messiah? Do you intend to run for the Office of the Messiahship? Jeesh.

Then you say, "And your justification for the State of Israel is....Not historically accurate, reasonable or terribly logical is it?" First of all, I don't need a "justification" or an excuse for Israel and I don't offer such either. That Israel was "allowed" to declare natonhood under international conventions and laws is an interesting twist with very little value, as such things like conventions and international laws are arbitrary and virtually meaningless. Our Torah and a concept referred to as "natural justice" supercede officialdom. I would support Israel even if all the world's nations and laws were against it because it would be the right thing ...the only thing... to do. As for your unsupported assessment of my historical accuracy, reasonability or logic, I can only say they are sound, period.

And, finally, the howler: And if you have no "deep thoughts" on Irish affairs then don't share them." Huh? First you accused me of claiming "expertise" on Irish affairs when I never did, then asked for my analysis, to which I responded that I don't have one, and then you accused me of offering such, which I never did.

Dodo, I can finally see why His Grace nearly turfed your pseudo-Jesuit arse out of here sometime last year. Your mendacity and constant stream of trumped-up petty charges and accusations can try a saint. Let's take a break from our stormy "relationship" and go out and see other people, ok? You're a bee-yatch of a date.

22 June 2012 at 05:40  
Blogger Ivan said...

Apart from all else Jews were one of the constituent peoples of the Ottoman Empire. As such they are eminently deserving of a nation-state by the rules governing such things. How is that on the breakup of the Ottoman, French and British Empires the Arabs ended with 20-odd states stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Oceans, but they begrudge other nationalities even one? Where are the states to which the Christian Assyrians, Copts and Chaldeans can flee to from the mullahs? Where is the Berber state? Only Israel among possible others came into being for the simple reason that the Israelis were able to fight and win. There is no other reason. As Connor Cruise OBrien put it Israel lives or dies based on the strength of the IDF. Now as to peace in that part of the world, the Israelis had made all the sacrifices necessary during the 90s and all they got in return was a harvest of death. There is in my opinion no country on earth that could have faced such implacable enemies as Israelis have and yet managed to keep a civilised life as they have for more that sixty years.

Ivan

22 June 2012 at 06:47  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Avi said

"Dodo, I can finally see why His Grace nearly turfed your pseudo-Jesuit arse out of here sometime last year. Your mendacity and constant stream of trumped-up petty charges and accusations can try a saint. Let's take a break from our stormy "relationship" and go out and see other people, ok? You're a bee-yatch of a date."
The wily bird probably pinched the 5 euros you left on the small plate as a tip, the scoundrel! Inter religious dating never works, my boy ;o)

Ernst

22 June 2012 at 11:32  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Just a quick response to the usual claptrap about Arab governments ordering Palestinians out while they dealt with the new Israeli state in 1948 -

Firstly, even if this were so, it would not in the slightest degree make the land any the less Palestinian. It's like saying you don't still own your house if you leave it during a hurricane. It's a ridiculous claim and is quite properly rejected by international law;

Secondly, it's NOT so. It never happened. There were NO such broadcasts by Arab governments. Quite the reverse, in fact. It's a lie. Unfortunately, Zionists believe they are entitled to lie (just as they are entitled to steal). See how that works?

http://www.users.cloud9.net/~recross/israel-watch/ErskinChilders.html


As to the Dog, no, it's not a fair settlement if you stick a gun in someone's face and then offer them money to sell what they don't want to sell. "Sticking a gun in someone's face" includes making every day of his life so utterly unbearable that be becomes broken and just wants it to be over.

Now, is anyone going to answer MY question?

22 June 2012 at 11:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi
Let's get one thing straight. I have absolutely no interest in dating you and Mrs Dodo would be horrified at such suggestion. Presumably Mrs Avi would be too.

Now, leaving personal insults aside, always difficult for me, let's try and untangle some of this.

Your justification for the secular State of Israel is:

"By the authority of our scriptures"

We'll leave the word "our" alone, shall we?

This is not an authority universally accepted, even within Judaism. It depends too on a particular interpretation of the Bible.

In a secular, post-Enlightened world, promoting liberal- democracy, this is not an argument that can be advanced in law. And its not one the Arab nations will ever accept.

" ... history, continuous inhabitation (if that's a word)"

Again, not really a basis for claiming sovereignity over a geographical territory long abandoned and when another group of people can claim an equally valid position.

" ... international laws, conventions and resolutions (San Remo, Balfour, UN)"

Bingo! Let's not delve too deeply into the Balfour Declaration and the dishonesty and deception behind its wording and presentation to the Arabs. Or the 'politics' behind the UN resolutions.

The justification for the State of Israel can, perhaps, be best based on UN resolutions following WW2 but I doubt the Arabs accept this.

" ... and not least by virtue of getting kicked out of most of Europe and told to go and find home well before travel to the Moon became a possibility."

Europe did not kick Jewish refugees out after defeating the Nazis.

My own view, for the record, is that Israel exists and has every right to defend itself in 2012. It exists by virtue of taking control of the country by military force and by having this affirmed by international law, whatever one thinks about the "natural justice" behind all of this.

I say, if your country's genuine assessment is that there can be no accomodation with Islam and Arabs, go ahead and rule the nation in the interests of your citizens. Keep the occupied territorities if they are essential for national defence. Drop the non-starter of a Palestinian State within the borders of Israel. Consider whether the existance of Gazza is sustainable. Just do it. But be sure all other avenues have been exhausted first and you have the means to enforce this settlement in the face of the local and international reaction you will face.

Your vision of a future Israel will be viewed as controversial by Islam and by some Christians.

"Regarding the Messianic era"

According to my beliefs, our Messiah has already been sent by God and was rejected.

"I take the rationalistic, minimalist interpretation of a re-instituted Davidic monarchy and a rebuilt Temple"

Building a Third Temple, presumably by demolishing other structures on the Mount, in readiness for an earthly Messiah, is hardly 'rational' or 'minimal'. Entirely legitimate if this is what your citizens want and your have legal entitlement to do so. Again, I'm not entirely sure how the world will receive this.

" ... with a strong and successful Jewish state leading by example and geopolitical influence."

How you achieve all of this will be the example you set and determine the type of influence you weild, surely?

Ernsty
What on earth is a 'Euro'? And inter-religious dating can work providing one doesn't get, er, religious!

22 June 2012 at 13:20  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ivan,

Excellent points/ In the melee here, I'm forgetting some of the basics, which the anti-Israel crowd has been hushing up for decades. First, Miss Anglican/Kavanagh reminded us of the Sephardi Jews who got robbed and brutally evicted from nearly all the Arab states in the 50s. In many cases, their ancestors had lived in those regions before the Arabs, so their "indigenous" status, which Corrigan natters on about, was real. They numbered more than the "Palestinians," and the majority were quietly resettled by Israel at its own expense, without the help of special UN bodies like UNRWA and without an international circus or a blood-bath. I can't say that Israel or that we, the Ashkenazi groups, have always treated our Sephardi brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters, but it would have been inconceivable for Israel to throw them into refugee camps, deny them citizenship and use the as them as PR props, as the Arabs are doing to their own people in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

The second basic point I'm forgetting is the one you brought up. The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire resulted in the creation of many countries...and the abandonment of just as many peoples, who were stuck in nations run be people they didn't get along with too well. These decisions, as you say, were political and based on the amount of influence and brute power the various actors could muster. That only Israel's formation and existence are challenged is not an accident, or a sign of justice and humanitarianism, but a mark of antisemitism. This is the point that people like Corrigan pretend not to understand and will publicly deny their true thoughts and pretend to be upset over their carefully selected "victims"...but only as long as antisemitism remains socially unacceptable.

Mr Ernst,

Greetings, I see you are still in fine form. LOL! I've forgotten the pleasures of reading your commentary and spray-bombing my screen with the mornin'g coffee.

Have been meaning to ask; has English Viking been around? Is he well? I miss his fine diplomacy, sensitivity and gentle treatment of those who willingly or unwittingly stumble into the swooshing trajectory of his swinging axe.

22 June 2012 at 13:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

It's an interesting logic that defines immigration as invasion. The Jews didn't come in landing craft, after all. They didn't storm the beaches after a preliminary bombardment. They came with tools and farm implements to develop a dramatically underdeveloped land. In fact, one of the principle arguments against the formation of a Jewish state was precisely this level of under-development. Opponents said that the land would not support the increased population caused by Jewish immigration. There being neither available work nor food, it was asserted that the immigrants would starve in idleness. Jewish leadership went to great lengths to develop an economic plan to counter precisely this argument.

But, of course, that development was the unspoken center of gravity of the Arab case. They feared Jewish immigration would change the demographic of the land. What had been primarily Arab and Muslim would be transformed into something primarily Western and Jewish. The power & industry of the western would be transported right into the middle of the House of Islam - the same West with which Islam had so spectacularly failed to compete for so many hundreds of years. It was that fear of humiliation; the fear of losing the whip hand in Palestine that drove Arab resistance. "The Jews could come" they said, but only in small numbers and only so long as they kept to their assigned place. Evidently it is better to be a poor master than a rich servant.

I can understand this logic. There are places in the US whose demographics have been changed overnight by the introduction of one industry. The meat-packers open a plant, and what had been a sleepy culturally homogenic mid-western town suddenly sees an influx of Mexican immigrants. It creates enormous stresses as settled ways of life are suddenly challenged by a large and muscular population that doesn't do things according to the received text. But that immigrant population didn't do anything wrong. And people don't have an inherent right to "keep things the way they want."

Which is what the Arabs were demanding in Palestine. And they were prepared to kill to enforce their desires. Which is why they marched to war the very day the Israeli state was declared. Fully confident were they of the slaughter they would inflict. But somehow the Jews managed to win. And so the Israeli war of Independence became yet one more addition to the long list of humiliations inflicted by the West on Islam and the Arab world. It's a heavy burden for a shame-based culture to carry. So they look for redress to purge the shame.

And people wonder why the Israelis must be ever vigilant.

carl

22 June 2012 at 13:48  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

ONLY Israel's creation was contested because ONLY Israel was made up of settlers and planters; Shephardic Jews "in those region" were not from Palestine - Avi Bazel has just admitted this in his last post. Yes, a small number had always lived in Palestine, but quite how that translates into a right for every Jew everywhere in the world to come and make themselves at home in another man's country escapes me. And I'm still waiting to know just how the Palestinians are responsible for making good Ms Anglican's grandmother's losses in Iraq. Answers on a postcard please...

22 June 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Corrigan writes ...

but quite how that translates into a right for every Jew everywhere in the world to come and make themselves at home in another man's country escapes me.

Emphasis mine. Sometimes I get the impression that Corrigan isn't really arguing about Palestine and Israel. Sometimes I think he is using Palestine as a surrogate for Ireland and Israel as a surrogate for England. I wonder. Is he standing in Nazareth, or on the bridge at Toome?

carl

22 June 2012 at 14:14  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ok, Dodo, here we go again...I must admit that fencing with you is certainly preferable to the tax form preparations I've been dragging out for three days now. Incidentally, I can't speak for Mrs Dodo, but I suspect that Mrs Barzel might not be as averse to a break from me as I would hope.

You have a problem with my saying our scriptures? Putting aside historical claims, in terms of language and meaning interpretations, place and explanations, there is a great difference between the way we understand the Torah and the way others interpret the Bible, or as you would call it the "Old" Testament. Internal differences notwithstanding, there is an acceptance of a "mainstream Judaism" amongst most groups, which implicitly recognize the Pharisaic/Rabbinic form of Orthodoxy as the benchmark on most issues.

As I said previously, I treat international legitimacy as a curiosity and it's absence would not change my loyalty one bit. However, when challenged with drivel about the "illegality" of Israel, the reminder that Israel's existence is enshrined by what goes for international law becomes necesary, especially in identifying those who arbitrarily support laws and conventions as they apply to other nations, but ignore them when it comes to Israel. Trying to draw distinctions between secular and religious interpretations of Israel is messy and if you're looking for clarity and decisiveness, you'll be disappointed. Even among the secular majority in Israel, and with all the tensions with the "ultra-Orthodox," the heritage of secular and socialist Zionism, there remains an understanding that Jewry and Israel are somehow Torah-bound and that what's labelled as Orthodoxy is the most legitimate expression of that.

Regarding getting kicked around Europe, you must be aware of the long history of expulsions of the Jews. With the rise of nationalism and racism, Jews were despised for not having a nation state and for being a foreign element, even in countries which Jews had settled before the nationalities which claimed their states had arrived. Even after WWII, Jews were being expelled from European nations, mostly in Poland, Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States, Hungary and Romania. There were vicious pogroms in Poland and with the advent of communism, Jewish private and communal properties were confiscated...along with those of others, to be fair...and Jews were either forcibly kept in and forced to assimilate, or were quietly nudged out of the country.

Spinning "hows" and "what ifs" about the reinstitution of the Temple is, in my opinion at least, pointless. In that matter, I'm supported by a succession of rabbinic opinion that warns about the futility of trying to guess G-d's plans and methods. Obviously, there is no point in being religious if you don't aknowledge that all the questions you and others ask and all the problems we project, would be easily resolved by the Almighty. The Messianic period may be interpreted as a Davidic monarchy operating in seemingly "natural" ways, but even the most rationalistic among us aknowledge that it would have to be universally evident and that Jews must be in a much higher state of Torah-observance than is the case today.

Carl and "Others"

You and many others here put me to shame with your knowledge of the issues and interpretations, not to mention mastery of rhetoric. I blush when I think that when I first arrived here, I thought I'd have to supply research and arguments, and now here I am, a chastened student, learning from a diverse group of Christians under the electronic roof of the ghost of a Renaissance Archbishop. WSonders will never cease, it seems.

22 June 2012 at 15:10  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Corrigan
The Ottoman Empire as you know lorded over, for 'shorthand' - Palestine. It was not an independent country. There was no mass appeal from within or without for it to be deemed so. The re-creation of Israel was and is the essence of Zionism.

Now you can clearly take issue with the morality of the concept from either Jewish or Muslim standpoint as to whomever hold the historic high ground and argue 'till the cows come home. I am not, for the purposes of preserving my own sanity, going to engage any further on that which in my opinion has no valid conclusivity attachable.

It is the present that matters and in your case whether or not the Arabs from 1947 onwards were forcibly evicted from their homes by the IDF or whatever it was named at conception. Were they ordered to leave by radio broadcast messages from their leaders? from the evidence available, not in so many words. Where they forced out by Israeli soldiers? some indeed but not all. If you a civillian living there at the time, commonsense no doubt would have prevailed during the months build up to the deadline of invasion of the by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon that you followed the example of the landlords and civic leaders and got the hell out of the way.

Now the Israeli Jews having literally nowhere to go have on all fronts, an enemy set on wiping the off the face of the earth. At the rear is a smaller but equally hostile and widely scattered, armed 'fifth column'. The same commonsense must prevail and remove or at least neutralise that which is virtually undetectable. The same course of action was taken in the opposing camps where Jews were expelled in almost equal numbers; no doubt without compensation or hope of repatriation/right of re3turn.

This is what happens when people are faced with fighting for their lives. Cruel events happen to innocent people - it's an un-escapable fact of conflict. It is no longer a case of individual rights and wrongs between one person and another, such sensitivities have to give way to the larger stage of events that determine and preserve a nations sovereignty.

However, since those days, the Arab leaders apart from Sadadt have denied the right of Israel to exist, and look where that got him. Israel has bent over backwards to accommodate a peaceful solution. It wants to live in peace with its neighbours, but its not peace that is want - I hope you read at least some the Hamas Charter.

The entire character of the who pushed whom argument is no longer the issue, and the displaced 'refugees' are now the pawns in a game of chess between Islamic gloabal ambition and the rest of the world. And before you say it I am not being overtly dramatic - there is plenty of evidence to believe that this is a fact backed they say by Allah and his Prophet.

22 June 2012 at 15:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl
Is there a common theme behind Ireland and Palestine? Could it be a sense of injustice felt by one side when conqoured by another's use of superior force, compounded when the victor claims the outcome is just and represents the Will of (their) God?

Shame, as you highlight, is a powerful motivator for revenge. Thankfully, Ireland is now on the road to peace despite the residual hatred felt by a few trapped in the past.

The current set of political compromises and aspirations holding the situation together in Israel is full of inconsistencies and mutually exclusive expectations. How on earth can there be an Islamic State within the boundaries of Israel? How on earth can there be peace with neighbouring nations who hold the very existence of Jews in Palestine to be an affront to (their) God?

The time for trying to agree who is historically 'right' or 'wrong', or who is representing the Will of God (be it Allah or Yahweh) has passed.

A situation that cannot continue will not continue.

22 June 2012 at 15:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

“Palestine and Transjordan are one.” King Abdullah…12 April 1948.

“We are the government of Palestine, the army of Palestine and the refugees of Palestine.” Prime Minister of Jordan, Hassa’ al-Majali, 23 August 1959.

“Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is one people and one land, with one history and one and the same fate.” Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein…2 February 1970.

“The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.” King Hussein, 1980.

22 June 2012 at 15:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

In other words a two state solution already exists. Jordan was created for the Palestinians.

Given that Israel is only the size of Wales - it's just a short walk.

22 June 2012 at 15:29  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Is there a common theme behind Ireland and Palestine?

This is a bit spurious BirdyBoy?

Why refer to 'Ireland' when you really mean events in Northern Ireland? There has been peace in that State since 1920 apart from Civil War 1922/23.

Ireland or at least please, 'Eire's' appointed negotiators Michael Collins et al did, on its behalf, settle for peace (albeit at the risk of a war of attrition), with the UK to the exclusion of the Six Counties. At a national level, a deals a deal surely, but the Arabs don't want any deal that includes the word Israel. This leaves little room to make any comparison resembling the peace achieved at the cessation of the British/Irish conflict. The tow State solution was on the table before the first ans subsequent pan-Arab/Israeli wars from 1947.

Not trying to swing this very interesting thread 'Romewards' by any chance are you?

22 June 2012 at 15:54  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Oy Vay Avi - you look more like a latter day Billy Joel than ermmm...billy joel - nice boy, is he Jewish? ...

I am almost offended that you omitted to include the merry band of atheists here who bother Old Cinders' good offices who also don't deny Israel.

22 June 2012 at 16:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught
Attempting to swing the debate Romewards? Not at all you atheist boat dweller. And let's not open the wounds of Michael Collins and subsequent events. Some say, having signed the treaty in 1922
Collins was planning to launch a guerrilla war against the Northern State.

I was making a point about realpolitiks and the ways of the world. I could have used the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) just as easily but they don't have quite the same religious edge.

22 June 2012 at 16:41  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oy vey indeed, Dreadnaught, I suspected I was forgetting someone. As modern equity-trained teachers...or, "educators" in the new jargon...like to say in a syrupy voice and with a forced smile, "alright, class, whose voice hasn't been heard?" Perhaps we should have little symbols beside our names; a cross for Christians (although Catholics and Protestants might want their own distinctive shape), a star of David for Jews...but what for atheists? The most logical choice, a blank spot, might be confused with Zen! Perhaps a design competition is in order.

Yup, Billy Joel is Jewish. Looked him up on the Net to see what he looks like today, and with his neat grey goatee, closely cropped hair and and a few added pounds, he looks indistinguishable from Peter Gabriel, Ian Anderson and perhaps a dozen other old rockers.

22 June 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Could it be a sense of injustice felt by one side when conquered by another's use of superior force

You have not yet established any injustice. The Israelis were attacked. They didn't attack. Their fate would have been decidedly bloody if they had been defeated. So what injustice attaches to the Israelis for successfully defeating an attempt at their own annihilation? What injustice did the Israelis inflict upon the Arabs simply for winning a war the Israelis did not want and did not start?

carl

22 June 2012 at 17:27  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

PS, Dreadnaught, your moniker reminds me that I should sometime include a pic of my guitar, which is a six string acoustic, unvarnisged birchwood, Canadian made "dreadnaught" class guitar by Norman.

Anyway, boys and girls, my wife just informed me that my putzing atound with tax forms and "playing" on the Net are over for the day. I am assigned to take Brat No.2 for a Sabbath shop and that I'm responsible for cooking the dinner. (Playing, she said! The fate world depends on our words here and she thinks I'm merely playing!)

Have a good weekend, all!

22 June 2012 at 17:28  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 June 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

btw, nobody (and I mean NOBODY) in 1948 believed the Jews held superior force in Palestine. The American War Dept opposed the establishment of a Jewish state because it felt such a state could never be established against Arab objections without war. The Jews were considered incapable of winning that war, and the Americans were not interested in fighting it. That's why the Arabs were so free with their threats of war in 1947 and 1948. That is why the Arabs were so confident when they sent their armies over the border.

carl

22 June 2012 at 17:40  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Avi

Nice strings - mine's is a Takamine.

22 June 2012 at 17:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl
I didn't say there was any actual injustice. The whole history of political Zionism, colonial involvement in the region, Arabian history and Islam is not easily unpicked.

What I said was:

"Could it be a sense of injustice felt by one side when conqoured by another's use of superior force, compounded when the victor claims the outcome is just and represents the Will of (their) God?"

The 14 May 1948 declaration by
David Ben-Gurion of "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel", with undefined borders, was tantamount to a declaration of war.

22 June 2012 at 18:47  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Not sure how we got to the subject of Ireland, but just to point out to Carl that the Irish quetsion wasn't/isn't just one of English vs Catholic Irish- a lot of the Protestant Unionists actually came from Scotland.

Which reminds me I haven't had a pint of Guinness (who were Protestants) in ages- I think I've got some celtic roots too as Kavanagh is an Irish surname- I know my aunite has proper flame red curly hair that makes Rebecca Brookes look Auburn.

22 June 2012 at 19:21  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

I hope you have a nice Sabbath, as it's now Friday evening-the paper work can wait!.

22 June 2012 at 19:22  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Also, just to lighten the mood a bit and in honour of Corrigan1, a few clips from the comedy Father Ted :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx5ay8QsTeQ&noredirect=1

22 June 2012 at 19:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

And Martin to meet the Queen, quite something !

“My goodness, my McGuiness”

“McGuiness is good for you”

“A lovely day for a McGuiness”

There are many more, but you get the drift....

22 June 2012 at 19:35  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Anna Kavanagh - isn't that a Jewish folk song or am I thinking of Havana Gila? either way it scans pretty good.

22 June 2012 at 20:06  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ha! The kids are trying to break their necks on the trampoline, the Better Half is in the bath, my shopping's done...perfect time to goof off before starting dinner and to take a quick peek at "Archie's Place" as I've come to call this blog.

Carl,

Your line that "Jews held superior force" in 1948 could be misleading to some. The Yishuv was vastly outnumbered and outgunned, having been nearly disarmed by the departing British, while the Arabs were given arms and even officers to advise and lead them. Better strategy, superior tactics, intelligence and very importantly, well-organized logistics and supply lines ...not to mention the realization that losing meant a savage genocide of the Jews in the former Mandate made the difference. Among the Jewish fighters there many who had volunteered in the British army, and there were some Canadian and American Jewish and non-Jewish veteran volunteers who had smuggled in arms. An elderly chap in my synagogue smuggled-in "plumbing equiopment" from which he designed and built gatling guns for jeeps and the few single engine planes in the emerging Israeli "air force." Another important skill learned from British commandos was night fihting techniques, which made a huge difference, since the Arabs were scared of the dark and treated after-hours like a social break for tea and feasting.
Btw, I'm still having horror flashbacks from your bringing up Waiting for Godot"....

Dreadnaught, which model and do hey still make them in Japan? I also have an old but sweet 1980s Yamaha nylon string from the days before they moved manufacturing to Korea and then China...with the corresponding drop in quality, of coure. My Norman model's not being made anymore and the closest is the Presys one ... http://www.nantelmusique.ca/product2999_158/norman-st68-presys.aspx ... but unvarnished and with an all-birchwood body. Would have sent a picture but I still haven't picked it up from the repair place. Last year, when I practiced for some Jethro Tull cover tunes, which use a lot of D majors, I wore down a divett under the E string of the 2nd fret on the fingerboard and got nasty buzz. Repair dude said he'd seen it on Tull-head guitars!

Miss Kavanagh, thank you kindly and a shabbat shalom to you and yours as well...and to anyone who may choose to have one, of course. The Hassidim say that the Sabbath, with its seemingly onerous and complex rules is made to look like a burden, but is in fact a delighful gift to all mankind...I like that one. I wouldn't dream of messing with my paperwork or even thinking of work on shabbat. It's weird, from the moment my wife lights the candles, it's as if a switch turns off all the mundane stresses ...and when on Saturday night the havdalah candle sizzles in the wine, it's as if all the insanity rushes back in, and sure enough the phones begin to ring.

Oh, oh...bathroom door opening, time to make busy.

22 June 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

EF508 cut away. Sounds great acoustic and even better on my 65 watt amp. I play blues harps and 'shout the Blues'

On a recent visit to the US I got to play with some old South Carolina blues boys near Paris Island - I think it was Hilton Head Is if memory serves - what a treat.

As much as I love the Blues Gordon Lightfoot is a great favourite of mine. Ever heard of an English player Gordon Giltrap? check him out if not. I was in his company just last week - great guy - unbelieveable fingers!

22 June 2012 at 21:23  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Avi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-FsrtfcccM&feature=related

22 June 2012 at 21:41  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Corrigan @ 11.22, you haven't thought this through at all. If you offer to pay money for something you implicitly recognise ownership. If you have a gun and you want something, you don't pay, you take. It follows that offering fair value for property to a willing seller is an equitable commercial transaction.

22 June 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

It's called "carrot and stick", Dog, and it allows thieving liars to present themselves to the world as legitimate owners.

22 June 2012 at 23:07  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi

Please don't understate the miltary capacity of the Israelis in 1947/1948 or overstate that of the Arabs. It isn't necessary and nowadays one only need use Google to learn the facts.

This just wasn't a 'David and Goliath' situation.

22 June 2012 at 23:35  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I agree with Avi about the spiritual significance of Shabbat and the peace it brings especially when extended family members live close by and attend.
It was my favourite ritual in Judaism.

23 June 2012 at 05:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

was tantamount to a declaration of war.

In other words, you have defined the mere existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East as a casis belli for war. For the only way the Jews could have avoided causing the war under this condition is to have never declared themselves independent.

It mattered not at all to the Arabs where the borders of Israel might be fixed. They were determined that no Jewish state should exist anywhere in Palestine. The war was not caused by 'undefined' borders. It was caused by Arab rejection of the existence of any Israeli state - a position they had made repeatedly clear in the previous months. Any form of Independence meant war. The Arabs declared this publicly and followed through on their oath. They did not suddenly decide to attack on the basis of Ben Gurion's statement.

carl

23 June 2012 at 06:07  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl
No this is not what I am saying at all. You had earlier indicated Israel was the State attacked by AArab aggressors, and implied war was not something they wanted.

Israel unilaterally declared itself a State the day before the British mandate expired and 12 months into a civil war within the mandated territory of Palestine. The issue was still the responsibility of the UN to resolve. This act could have only one outcome. As I said, it was tantamount to a declaration of war.

Stop painting Israel as the poor and innocent underdogs in the situation. By this time they already had an arms deal in place with Stalin!

23 June 2012 at 11:18  
Blogger Huldah said...

DtD

David Ben Gurion's Declaration of Israel's independence within the UN-defined borders was legal in the light of the 1947 UN resolution. What was illegal was the attempt to wipe out Israel and murder her Jewish citizens. That 150,000 Arabs living with Israel became Israeli citizens immediately after the War of Independence whereas there were NO Jewish citizens within the territories illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt ought to show anyone with a moral compass where the blame for the conflict lies.

That Arab position was illegal as well as racist then, and is illegal as well as racist now.

I would suggest that Palestinian leaders might now be pleased to have a state within the borders rejected in 1948, were it not for repeated statements from them and other Arab leaders that only eradication of the Jewish state will satisfy them.

For them - as for so many of Israel's opponents in the UK and elsewhere - it is Israel's existence as a Jewish homeland and not her actions, that cause offence. That position, I contend, is intrinsically racist.

23 June 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Huldah said ...

"David Ben Gurion's Declaration of Israel's independence within the UN-defined borders was legal in the light of the 1947 UN resolution."

How's that? The issue was still the responsibility of the UN to resolve.

" ... it is Israel's existence as a Jewish homeland and not her actions, that cause offence. That position, I contend, is intrinsically racist."

Nonsense! Being critical of Israeli actions as a State is not automatically being an antisemite - or a Jew-hater as Avi would have it.

23 June 2012 at 12:51  
Blogger Huldah said...

DtD

"Being critical of Israeli actions as a State is not automatically being an antisemite - or a Jew-hater as Avi would have it."

Absolutely correct. And I have never said that it is. Try reading the passage you quoted from me very carefully ....

23 June 2012 at 13:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Huldah

Of yes, the qualifiction was ommitted. So sorry.

"For them (Arab leaders) " - as for so many of Israel's opponents in the UK and elsewhere ..."

So many anti-semites in the UK and elsewhere aligned to the Arab murders. How to spot them?

The assumption often appears to be opposition to Israel is racially based. If one attempts to signal a degree of support for the Jewish people as opposed to complete support for State of Israel one is greeted with:

"I wish you'd finally accept the fact that having a Jewish father still makes you a 100% non-Jew and that you don't have to grovel and self-immolate before other non-Jews to prove your credentials." (Avi)

I happen to think there is a difference between a people and the State that represents them.

"I would support Israel even if all the world's nations and laws were against it because it would be the right thing ...the only thing... to do." (Avi)

Admirable nationalism, if their ever is such a thing. However, based on that unconditional view anyone and everyone opposed to the secular actions of the State of Israel is - wrong! And its a short step from that to being accused of anti-semitism.

23 June 2012 at 16:07  
Blogger Huldah said...

DtD

I accept your apology. Yet your comment suggests you still have not read what I wrote.

I'm sure you would agree with me that there is a difference between holding a racist position and being a racist, just as there is a difference between criticism of a state's actions and racist prejudice against that state's citizens. The distinction is quite clear in my post.

Your comment also suggests that you find what you perceive as sweeping assumptions on the part of other posters irritating, not to say hurtful, which is fair enough, but does not apply, as you suggest to my post.

I don't agree entirely with your distinction between a State and its citizens. A state IS its citizens. I personally find it more helpful to distinguish between a government and its citizens.

However, in the case of Israel, the distinction is often blurred as criticisms often directly or indirectly involve elements such as Jewish (and only Jewish) Israelis being dubbed 'western colonialists' or accused of displacing 'indigenous' people. This is not directed at a government, but an ethnic grouping, and as such is very much open to a charge of racism, intended or otherwise.

23 June 2012 at 16:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

You had earlier indicated Israel was the State attacked by Arab aggressors...

They were. It's an historical fact. Denying it is akin to denying that Germany invaded Poland on 1 Sep 39.

... and implied war was not something they wanted.

I didn't imply it. I stated it. The Israelis didn't want the war. The Arabs wanted the war to erase the nascent state of Israel.

The issue was still the responsibility of the UN to resolve.

Well, certainly the President of the United States didn't see it that way, since he recognized the State of Israel almost immediately. Even so, I would be fascinated to learn what you think the UN could have done to 'resolve' the situation.

This act could have only one outcome.

Yes, an Israeli declaration of Independence could have only one possible outcome. We know this because the Arab states had threatened
war for months, and followed through on their threat. However, that does not make the Israelis responsible for the Arab decision to attack. Nor does it make the Declaration of Independence a de facto declaration of war. The Israelis were under no obligation to retreat in the face of threat.

As I said, it was tantamount to a declaration of war.

And as I said, this effectively means that the creation of Israel itself was the legitimate casus belli for war. The UN wasn't going to find some magic bullet six months hence to make Arab intransigence go away. There wasn't a 'resolution' to the problem. Any Israeli Declaration of Independence at any time would have caused a similar Arab reaction.

Stop painting Israel as the poor and innocent underdogs in the situation.

You mean I should stop telling the truth?

By this time they already had an arms deal in place with Stalin!

And you blame them? The Arabs had threatened to annihilate the Jews for months. It's not like the Western powers were going to sell them arms. Nor were the western powers going to send in the Cavalry. With the exception of Truman, the western powers were all institutionally Arabist. The Jews in Israel were on their own. So they bought arms where they could get them. What would you have had them do? Stand there and wait to be shot?

carl

23 June 2012 at 17:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Hudah said ...
"I'm sure you would agree with me that there is a difference between holding a racist position and being a racist"

I'm not sure I would actually. For example, if I believe other races to be inferiour to white races I might hold this to be correct but it would be racist without some sort of verifiable evidence or reasoned argument. Are you implying those opposed on Israel are adopting a racist position?

carl
Let's be clear, 'history' in this situation, like so many others, is really propaganda with 'facts' ordered to a tell a particular narrative.

And Stalin also immediately recognised Israel too. The games of nation states play, eh.

We could go on indefinately playing blog tennis on this and get nowhere, just like the Arabs and Israelis.

Here and now, 2012, we are where we are. I don't like how we've got here or with the history of nationalist, secular Zionism and its support from America and Britain at the turn of the 20th century. But we are here. You also know my views on what needs to be done.

23 June 2012 at 18:00  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Isn't the one major void in the path of the search for peace in the Middle East, one of intransigence rooted in unretractable religious fundamentalism?

How for instance can any faith group, legitimately call itself a 'race' by clinging to the belief that they are a god's 'chosen people' of this material world and hold that position by claims to a Divine decree, yet still require man made territorial boundary laws established by universal(UN) recognition as well?

They either are or they aren't, and if they are, then it must follow that all of humanity should be the of the same group, being made in the image of said god - unless someone, somewhere at some time long long ago, had a hidden agenda and was telling the most outrageous Porkies?

Surely no one endorses that human genetic variations, recognise lines on a map. The fact that a person can undergo a ceremony and become a Muslim, Jew or Christian etc, does not alter their DNA, so how can any of them lay claim to being a such and such nation, identifiable and legitemised by the overwhelming number of affiliates to a particular set of doctrinal beliefs and rituals?

The hands of the metaphorical clock of history have long moved on, for nations and religion. If there is to be peace in the region there has to be rationality. I'm not saying this can't be achieved without banning all religion - not at all if thats what gets you through life, but possibly easier may be without the fog of superstitious and divergent arrogance that endorses one Group's right to a piece of the planet over another's.

The prospect would be at least comprehensible and potentially do-able at least in the short term but human is life by nature is ruled by the need to prevail, even at the expense of other life forms - including those of our own species.

23 June 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught

From my perspective these are two seperate issues. I don't see an issue in believing God chose a people for a Divine purpose. In fact, I believe He did.

As for Israel today and whether and how the Jews have or have yet to fulfil that purpose, that's a whole other ball-game. Of course, Islam also thinks it has a Divine mission and so too Christianity. Add Hinduism, Buddhism, Marxism, Liberalism and Capitalism to the list of competing world views.

I guess we all have to consider the options and determine where we stand. That or do a John Lennon and "Imagine" it was all different.

23 June 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

God chose a people for a Divine purpose

As long as you cling to that, I fear you are part of the void on the path to peace ol'bird.

23 June 2012 at 18:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught

It's get's worse. I actually don't believe there can ever be world peace. It's something we have to endlessly pursue. Each generation faces its particular struggle and the 'settlement' generates a fresh set of issues for the next.

Every solution has a problem, as the saying goes.

23 June 2012 at 19:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

To get world peace, you would need to lift man’s average IQ from 103 to 123. IQ can rise, but not that quickly. Say, 5 points in 60 years. So there you have when it will happen, 1st June 2252 around 4pm, just after tiffin.

23 June 2012 at 19:14  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 June 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DD
I'd settle for at least seeing peace in Israel before I scuttle off, but you're right - world peace is a whole new thread.

Uh oh - look who's woken up - I'm orf!

23 June 2012 at 19:34  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Guys,

It's nice to read a debate and to see that your all behaving like gentleman!

I can imagine you all in one of those London clubs :

Dodo- Irish Whisky and a 'light' filter cigarette.

Inspector - Brandy and a fine Cuban (cigar).

Carl Jacobs- a bourbon chaser and a pipe.

Dreadnought- English IPA and a full bloodied 'rocker' cigarette.

It's really interesting all this history. But what about the present? Lebanon is in Chaos, the Israeli-Arab peace process is stalled,Iraq is on the point of collapse, Syria's gone into civil war,and like Iraq has a Christian population that will loose whatever happens; Iran is developing a nuclear bomb to nuke us all and Egypt is electing a muslim brotherhood candidate. And to top it all the whole region supplies a huge amount of the world's oil supply. And on top of that the Argentines are causing problems with the indigenous British of the Falklands. Cripes. What are we going to do?

23 June 2012 at 19:45  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I'll settle for a Jamaican Spliff n a Red Stripe if that's ok with you Miss A.

23 June 2012 at 20:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ms K
I smoke Golden Virginia.
And there is an 'E' in Irish Whiskey! This from someone claiming Irish roots! Scottish Whisky lacks the extra diminsion provided by an 'E'.

Dreadnaught

What's a 'Jamaican Spliff'? I've never seen that brand on sale.

Peace in the Middle East? Not going to happen in our life time, I fear.

The Israelis could go for broke now while the Arabs are in disarray. Abandon the two state nonsense, claim the occuppied territories as permanently Jewish, invite the 'citizens' of Gazza to become Israeli or leave.

The problem is that this will unite them around their culturally ingrained hatred of Jews and the world would go ape sh*t!

Or they play the longer game and let Islam and the Arab nations fall apart. As their people become more aware through their young travelling, using the internet and being better educated, Islam will fall as will the dictators. Until then Israel has to weather the criticism and govern itself.

Simples - not!

Inspector
Oh well.

The world is scheduled to end at 11:11 GMT on 21st December 2012.

23 June 2012 at 20:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

anna anglican

one of those London clubs

An interesting comment, but utterly impossible. Dodo could never be admitted as a member of the Diogenes Club.

a bourbon chaser and a pipe.

Chianti, please. Bourbon is a form of whiskey and therefore undrinkable. However, I rather like the image of a pipe. Unfortunately, I am a non-smoker. Perhaps I could just affect the pose. People already mistake me for the Great Detective. A pipe would only increase the similarity.

carl

23 June 2012 at 20:49  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi all,


@Dodo,

I guess I've got too much of a plum in my mouth to be a 'proper Paddy'; I've always liked the laid back Irish English, although the Northern Irish Protestant English puts the willies up me (sorry Mr Belfast !) I had no idea Whiskey/Whisky could be spelt in different ways!

@Carl,

We are more tolerant now- gentleman's clubs are not just for the upper classes. Although a lot of the London clubs are still 'men only'(my uncle says this is because they fight duels and it is not right for a lady to see such brutality).

@Inspector- are you becoming one of those Protestant fundamentalist vicars like in America who can predict the end of the world, then it never happens, but they have taken the money from the widows and orphans?

@Dreadnaught- a red stripe and a spliff it is (I didn't want to presume). I only take legal drugs myself, but I'm a liberal, so what a man does in the comfort of his own barge is up to him!

23 June 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anna. It is rather refreshing to relax on this site from time to time. Unfortunately, we have some rather irritating homosexual men who come here begging reassurance from us in order to justify their bizarre and somewhat disease risking way of life. Not only are they upsetting the natural order, but the order on this site too...

23 June 2012 at 21:06  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@Dodo,

Re : the Peace Process,

One suggestion I heard of was for Israel to apply to join the UK. I guess if Prince Charles wants to be defender of the faiths it could work. And anyway, what Arab would want to fight the 38 Irish Brigade or the 51st Highlanders? Didn't they used to call them the "devils in skirts?".

23 June 2012 at 21:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Someone said ...

" ... although the Northern Irish Protestant English puts the willies up me (sorry Mr Belfast !)"

Dare I?

No, best not!

23 June 2012 at 21:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Please take note of the following from the leader of the free world.

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists."

Celebrate and be proud, alongside our LGBT friends.

23 June 2012 at 21:44  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Dodo,

Oh dear, I've put myself into your gags-it's the way you tell them as Dave Allen once said. What I meant to say is that the Northern Irish accent is a bit harsh on the ear and it can come across as intimidating ( although the nice man at Post Office home phone was very efficient and kind) if you don't understand it. My apologises to Mr Belfast is in the context of not wanting to offend him or a culture on the basis of an accent.

I hope that provides clarity.

23 June 2012 at 21:47  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Dodo,

Good show, but you've put this in the past! Are you really Alpha Draconis, pretending to be Dodo? (I don't like Alpha anymore, you known he left a post on my site, saying I was a 'filthy Jew').

23 June 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger anna anglican said...

PS- I'm not saying that Dodo is alpha, but that somehow he has copied Dodo's avatar.

23 June 2012 at 22:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna

I think that may have been the Northerner Frank "It's the way I tell 'em" Carson.

From the South, Dave "I'm an atheist, thank God" Allen was in a different league. His catchphrase, whiskey to hand,:

"Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you."

23 June 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna

The post from Obama was ironic and intended for the Inspector. I haven't reformed that much!!!

And of course I'm not the juvenile reptile! (At least I don't think so. However, I do have a reputation for using fake ID's from time to time. I'm sure DanJ0 will inform you all about given time.)

23 June 2012 at 22:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl

A chianti drinker? Figures. I just knew you reminded me of somebody:

"I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti."

23 June 2012 at 22:37  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Dodo,

Yes, I understood that irony- a very English thing as much as it is Irish (Germans don't understand it and after living in the uk for a long time she still doesn't get irony).

Glad that your not being one of those silly American Preachers that forms a cult and decides yesterday was doomsday!

Oh, I do get my Irish Comedians mixed up- I meant the portly Irishman who always smiled- I think that must have been frank carson- perhaps your the chap that does 'mock the week?'.

I know that my uncle thinks dave allen was funny- but as he always says 'a bit close to the bone' (not sure what he meant- I like Michael McIntyre, he's funny).

Anyway I'm glad that your not that ghastly reptile. In a funny way, I guess you, Nova and Inspector were trying to protect me from his clutches, even as you were being critical of gays and stuff.

This website is a funny place.

23 June 2012 at 22:57  
Blogger anna anglican said...

I've got to admit, I thought I was sailing close to the wind suggesting Carl even drank alcohol and was worried I might have offended him.

23 June 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger anna anglican said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 June 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger anna anglican said...

I guess the Norhern Irish accent isn't that bad- the nice man and some times girl, who calls me when I am due to give blood has a nice Ulster accent.

23 June 2012 at 23:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

anna anglican

Do you see why Dodo is fit for no civilized club? He would recommend Chianti with liver. The man is a barbarian.

carl

23 June 2012 at 23:04  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

23 June 2012 at 23:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Alpha

And what about a Jew makes him more susceptible to carrying diseases?

carl

23 June 2012 at 23:27  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Carl,

Yes, the choice of Chianti would not be good with liver (I don't eat offal myself, but have tried it in the past).

Chianti is a horrible choice to go with liver as it's too fruity to be a serious match, especially to a connoisseur,I would be more likely chosen a fine dark red like a Côtes du Rhône to bring out the flavor of the liver and to enhance the dish. Hope this helps?

23 June 2012 at 23:29  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older