In our previous post on this subject, we looked at the claim that the Jewish people have a claim to the territory currently occupied by the modern state of Israel because they were promised it in the Bible.
We saw that reasonable people could take different views of this subject, especially concerning how such a promise might apply to the present age.
Now let’s look at the question from an ethical rather than a revelatory perspective. That is to say, apart from the revelation claim that we have already examined, what grounds might be offered for the claim.
Before we do that, though, I’d like to clear something up that I think has resulted in some folks spinning their wheels: the term anti-Semite. This is a misnomer. It is used to refer to hatred of Jews, though the category “Semite” properly includes people who aren’t Jews. Nevertheless, that is how the term is used. I suggest that we not fight about the word and just note that it is a misnomer that is in popular use and move on.
Now: What claims besides revelation might one appeal to in support of the claim that the Jewish people have a claim to the territory of Israel?
1) The legal argument: This would involve asserting that some entity or entities that had legal title to this territory in the 20th century lawfully gave it to the present Israeli governing entity as a Jewish homeland. And, in fact, many people do make this claim.
While it would be an interesting legal debate to thrash this out, we’re not going to do that on this blog. I am not an expert on the law, especially as it pertains to this question, and it would exceed the capacity of a multi-issue blog like this to review all the relevant information and arrive at a firm conclusion. Therefore, aware that there is more than one side to this argument, I would suppose that reasonable people could take different views on the issue.
Further, regardless of whether civil (or international or whatever) law supports does not deal directly with the question of what is ethical. Human law can support all kind of wicked and unjust things, and so even if human law supports something, that isn’t itself decisive for the question of whether the thing is moral (which is the kind of question this blog is more interested in).
So let’s look at other grounds.
2) The ancestral argument: Some in the combox have asserted that the Jewish people have a right to the land of Israel based on the fact that their ancestors lived there a long time ago.
This strikes me as the least convincing argument on this issue. The fact is that human populations move all over the place during history. Often they are forced out of one land, and at some point any claim they have to it lapses. That fact that modern Jews’ ancestors had title to the property 1900 years ago doesn’t mean that they presently do any more than I have title to where my ancestors lived 1900 years ago.
In view of the historical memory of the Land and in view of the biblical promise regarding it, it is understandable—especially after the Holocaust—that there would be a desire to immigrate there and create a Jewish haven state there, but this is a natural desire—not a moral right to do so. Based on our individual and corporate histories, there are all kinds of desires we might naturally have about the way we’d like the world to be, but that doesn’t give us the moral right to go out and try to bring them about. Whether we have a moral right to take action regarding a wish or desire is a separate question than whether is it natural for us to wish it.
Human migration is so extensive in history that all of our ancestors have been kicked out of lots of places at various stages. In fact, if the Out of Africa theory is true, all non-Africans’ ancestors at one point must have gone through the very territory currently occupied by Israel. That doesn’t give all non-Africans title to this plot of land, either.
So . . . where your distant ancestors lived doesn’t mean that you get to reclaim the place today.
(Unless God has said you can, but that’s a different ground. It’s the revelation claim, not a “we used to live here” claim.)
3) Right of conquest: Historically a lot of people have felt that if you conquer a land, it’s yours. The fact you conquered it gives you a right to it.
One problem for using this argument in the case of Israel is that it works contrary to the legal argument that many wish to use. If the land was given to the Israelis legally then it wasn’t obtained by conquest—at least in the traditional sense (we’ll get to an untraditional one, below).
The conquest claim might, however, be used for territory like the West Bank since that was obtained in war.
But the right of conquest isn’t generally acknowledged today. The fact you conquered something may have given you title to it in the middle ages (or even more recently), but it doesn’t today. America conquered Iraq, but that doesn’t mean we own it. In fact, there is a widespread sentiment that America should get out of Iraq as soon as practical.
Today if you want to claim moral title to a land, you need something more than “We militarily defeated the people who were living there.”
4) Right of self-determination: The argument here would be something like: Since the legitimacy of government depends on the consent of the governed, the majority of people who actually live in a land get to determine how it is governed and by whom. Therefore, since the majority of people currently living in the territory of Israel are Israelis and, it would seem, support the existence of Israel, they have title to the land.
You might also call this the right of present possession and, as the old saying goes, “possession is nine tenths of the law.”
This is a more persuasive argument than the ones we have considered thus far in this post. Some version of the right of self-determination in conjunction with the present possession of a territory must underly the moral right that every nation state has to its territory. Whether Israel’s case is justified is a question that has to be answered, but at least this argument presents us with a potentially successful argument.
Note, however, that it only addresses the question of whether the Israelis now have moral title to the land, not whether they did so in the past or whether they will in the future.
If we consider the past, it is quickly recognized that in the 19th and in the first half of the 20th centuries there was a massive migration of Jewish people into the territory of Palestine—with an eye to potentially founding a Jewish state or haven state there, which would mean displacing or making some other arrangement with the people who were already living there.
The desirability of creating a Jewish haven and the understandability of wanting to creating it here doesn’t mean that it was automatically moral to do so. What this amounts to is a non-military invasion of the territory with an eye to claiming it for yourself—the nontraditional form of conquest mentioned earlier.
Certainly one can see how the then-present inhabitants of the territory would object to this project, just as Native Americans could reasonably object to the mass migrations of European colonists with the same designs . . . or the way Mexicans might have viewed with suspicion the immigration of lots of potentially rebellious Anglos into Texas in the early 1800s . . . or the way Americans in the modern Southwest might view with suspicion the Reconquista sentiments expressed by some recent immigrants.
I don’t say that to pass judgment on any of these groups. It’s just a fact of history that immigrants can overwhelm and eventually take control of the lands to which they migrate. Whether they were justified in doing so is a complex moral question to which there is no automatically right or wrong answer. People do need places to live, and sometimes they need to migrate. When they migrate, some places are more rational to migrate to than others. And if enough of them migrate, over time it will have a natural impact on the governance of the region.
Because there is a natural tendency for everyone to identify their own interests with what is morally right, those who are doing the migrating have a natural tendency to think that it is morally right for them to do so, and those whose territory is being migrated to have a natural tendency to view the situation with concern or alarm and to think that it is morally wrong.
So it is reasonable for Jewish immigrants to the territory of modern Israel to view the migration as justified (or even necessary), and it is natural for Palestinians (then and now) to view it as unnecessary and unjustified.
In other words: People can have different views on this subject.
There does come a point, if a migration is big enough, where a new governing situation becomes rational or even obligatory. The situation of a tiny nativist group holding all governing authority in the face of a disenfranchised majority class is going to lead to really bad situations (think: Apartheid, only with the natives being the rulers and the immigrants being the disenfranchised). The immigrant class must have its say in determining the governance of the region, and if it is big enough, it’s going to end up exercising that governance itself.
When that happens, a new civil order has been achieved. Hopefully it will be a just order (often it is not). Hopefully it will be achieved bloodlessly (often it is not). But the immigrant class will be the new rulers, and legitimately so.
One can hold, then, that this is the situation that applies in modern Israel, and that the common good is best secured by allowing the state to continue to exist. This would mean that the Israelis have a moral right to the territory (or at least some of the territory) now, regardless of whether they achieved this by legitimate means.
Or one can deny this and argue that the presence of modern Israel is a destabilizing element that will ultimately harm the common good of the parties involved—or that is presently harming the common good of the parties—and that it would be better to peacefully dismantle it.
I don’t see that as happening any time in the near future. A more likely scenario to my mind is that nuclear proliferation in Muslim states may at some point lead to the destruction of Israel.
That’s not at all something I wish for, but it is an eminently possible occurrence in the imminent future.
One could thus argue that, while Israel for a time held the land legitimately, it could cease to do so in the future, should the situation grow more unstable and the presence of Israel lead to great harm to the common good of the parties involved.
So just as this theory does not mean Israel achieved its title to the land through moral means, it also does not mean that it necessarily will keep its title in the future.
All of these are positions one could entertain legitimately. I’m not going to tell you which you should believe. I’m just trying to point out the scope that exists for diversity of opinion.
What are your thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment
This breakdown of the various viewpoints of the morality/ethics of the creation of the stae of Israel means that the military response of the invaded indiginous population is in fact not a generalized ‘terrorist’ threat but potentially a valid effort at self-defense. Interesting.(For instance though native american violence in the face of colonizers in-migration on their hunting grounds was initially labelled as wild savage violence of the indiginous, it is now seen through the lens of revisionist historians as defensive actions. I don’t think “Dances with Wolves” would have done so well in the 1800’s….)
A question: Human migration patterns have some fairly well understood rhythms, whether influxes of movements due to refugees or a slow trickle of movement to pursue economic benefit, etc. Is there any similar example of the kind of intentional human migration as we’ve seen in Israel over the past 60 some years? Taking into account not only the initial influx escaping persecution, but the subsequent courting of immigrants from non Nazi-controlled lands? I ask to see what examples of local population response we have seen or what kind of land/political influence resulted.
This breakdown of the various viewpoints of the morality/ethics of the creation of the stae of Israel means that the military response of the invaded indiginous population is in fact not a generalized ‘terrorist’ threat but potentially a valid effort at self-defense.
Well, heno, then how would you categorize Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s public committment to obliterate Israel with nuclear weapons…a committment that no Muslim religious leader nor Arab political leader has condemned publicly, especially because such an act would obliterate the Palestinians living in and near Israel?
Joseph D’Hippolito
I was actually refering to the response of the Palestinians, such as with the Intifada, throwing rocks at soldiers, moving through suicide bombings and Hamas rockets. I am not saying that the ends justify the means, far from it. I said it can not ALL be generalized under ‘terrorism’. It seems that while the self-defense (again, in light of an understanding that there was an unethical colonization of territories occupied by a population of Arabs) theory is a very real option, then the response can also be justified. To answer to your question, I do not personally believe Iran’s threat to obliterate Israel with Nuclear weapons is an ethical response, even if the state of Israel has injustice issues vis a vis the Palestinians. I say this as a practicing Muslim Arab. But in the end, Israel is responsible for creating the initial injustice, and must address the issue of human rights and borders regardless of Iran or Hamas. There is a greater issue at stake, with millions of people’s lives affected. Just because the Black Panther’s used terrorism to incite violence against their ‘white’ oppressors, did not deligitimize the civil rights movement. Other’s were courting change through ethical routes, and regardless, the American system responsible for providing a civic platform of equality, then addressed the legality of specific actions separately.
Finally: something I have been waiting for all my life. An explanation why Israel shouldn’t exist. And it’s well thought out, well, constructed, you simply can’t argue with it: take quite simply every reason given until now (history, anti-Semitism, religion, morality) and simply destroy it using simple logic and sophistry. Where was this guy when we all needed him in ‘48, ‘67…. And before. Herzl would no doubt have simply packed up his books and taken up needlework.
The only thing that the writer doesn’t look at is what exists, and what a shame it would be were it to simply disappear in his well-desired radioactive cloud.
The fact that of all the countries left behind by European imperialism, Israel is the only functioning democracy is a coincidence. It could just as well have happened in Uganda. But now that it’s there, what a model it could be…
The fact that it’s given the writer an unproportional amount of technology & health tools – no big deal. Destroy Israel and no. 2 becomes no. 1
The fact that there’s an entire state fighting against anti-Semitism (to the best of its ability) even engaging those who would have otherwise still been remaining silent… when will these jews understand that it’s time to go back to Poland and Germany.. . oh and the US, of course…
The fact that there has been an uninterrupted presence… I would guess there’s been one in rome and iran. Luckily we aren’t demanding these as homelands too.
The fact is, mr, eiken, that besides a CLAIM to something, there IS nothing else. You have 2 claims (3 if you count the Christians, but they’re not at war with us… or are they?). You’ve destroyed ours. Now, just to show us how objective you really are, destroy theirs. Just so we wont be too convinced by your verbal acrobatics and go home. Otherwise, you’ll simply have another bangaldesh – an oasis in the dark that went the way of all things people remain silent about… I wonder where mr. aiken was then?
The immigration-as-conquest theory works well, except that it doesn’t really solve the problem of Palestine & Israel. If a people-group migrates to a new, already-settled place, it is natural that they should govern it, because the land ought to be governed by those who live there. However, the way Israel and Palestine work, the land is either governed by the Jews or the Palestinians, which is different than the land being governed by those who live there. Immigration-as-conquest only works if you displace the original inhabitants, and that’s not what has happened in The Levant (to use my favorite, archaic term for the area) or in the American SouthWest (thus, foiling the reconqusita, I think). Just as it’s not right for the government of a modern, American city to all be white (or black) people, it’s wrong for the government of Israel-Palestine to be all Jews or all Muslims (or Christians; I’ve heard some of us are there too).
Not that either of the two people-groups in question are likely to care about consent-of-the-governed theory.
I find this a little too dismissive of the legal arguments. Unless you’re encouraging a strain of anarchy, you have to give it considerable leeway. The moral argument should be reminded that we *morally* need to honor the laws of the land and their controlling legislators. Even if the lawmakers foolishly come to the wrong conclusion (whatever that may be) regarding the subject, as long as their decision is morally acceptable, it needs to take a certain moral precedence.
The fact that of all the countries left behind by European imperialism, Israel is the only functioning democracy is a coincidence.
Huh? India, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Botswana, Costa Rica, and the United States (just to name a few of the countries left behind by European imperialism) *aren’t* functioning democracies?
Just one small point of clarification: America didn’t conquer Iraq, we “liberated” it.
I agree with oferdesade that Jimmy’s dispassionate approach to the question of the Statehood of Israel (however high-minded and well-intentioned) is a disappointment. In particular, his agnosticism on the legal issue, is frustrating. After all, the Vatican has recognized the State of Israel and maintains diplomatic relations with her.
Furthermore, there is an unseemliness to speculating about the possible/probable destruction of Israel by nuclear strikes for Islamo-fascist neighbors while remaining aloof - an academic detachment - about the simple matter of Israel’s legal existence (as if a UN mandate were not sufficient). Reminds me of President Obama’s response at the Saddleback discussion when he was asked when do legel protections begin for the unborn? The self-proclaimed constitutional scholar responded coolly, “That’s above my paygrade!” His evasion won him high praise in the secular press.
What other Nations’ and their right to exist should we open up for debate: Haiti, Somalia, Ireland? The subtext of Jimmy’s column was Helen Thomas’ despicable remarks: “Tell ‘em to get the hell out of Palestine!” Does Israel have a right to exist? According to Jimmy - maybe not ...
This establishes that an expertise in apologetics is not the same as an expertise at large. There’s a reason, in addition to continuous residency of Jews in the theater, that the modern state of Israel evolved and achieved juridical recognition. What is it? Any high school student can achieve that answer, but it is not to be found here. But arriving at that answer might actually illuminate the question of morality Mr. Aiken seeks unsuccessfully to solve. Nor is agnosticism satisfactory to anyone - be either hot or cold.
“The fact is that human populations move all over the place during history. Often they are forced out of one land, and at some point any claim they have to it lapses.”
Good point. So, in three or so generations, have the claims of Palestinian refugees vis a vis their ancestral lands lapsed?
Have they weakened?
I personally know many refugee families who fled their native countries in the 1960s - 1980s…well after the Palestinians. They are representative of millions of others.
My friends and acquaintances include Maronites who fled Lebanon. Secular Muslims and Jews who fled Iran. Roman Catholics who fled Cuba. Buddhists who fled Southeast Asia.
In all cases they left with nothing…abandoning wealth, homes, and professions with no compensation (which they deserve).
And they were all able to build rich, fulfilling lives in the West…not tormented by perpetual outrage over their unjust treatment.
I find it hard to understand why the Palestinian plight uniquely outrages so many, when similar, larger, and more recent injustices are ignored.
I also wonder if at some point, one has an ethical obligation to abandon a grievance, however legitimate, and seek compensation and the opportunity to resettle and begin a better life.
This latter path has borne rich fruit for so many of my acquaintances, who have established prosperous, happy families in their new homelands.
At one point should one abandon the crusade for perfect justice, stop kicking against the pricks, and pursue a new life, for one’s own benefit…and for one’s children?
Wow, you guys really seem to be lashing out at Jimmy. I would rather see logical attacks against his reasoning than vague allusions to his lack of expertise or integrity. This is especially odd when he is listing possible positions and not defending a particular one. Pick the ones you don’t like and point out why you don’t like them.
The one I disagree with most is the idea that the common good trumps all. This is the idea that if Iran got nukes and was willing to use them against Israel, that it follows that Israel would no longer have an ethical right to exist as it’s existence would threaten the common good.
To me this is akin to saying that if men can’t control themselves and are going to rape women, maybe they can all agree to rape the same woman so that only one woman suffers. Less women suffer, therefore greater common good.
We should be trying to prevent the rape.
We should recognize that it is Iran’s insane aggression that violates the common good in this scenario. It is the Iranian regime, not the Israeli regime, that has abandoned any ethical basis and is flirting with illegitimacy when they threaten nuclear action.
Red_Beard,
Please don’t confuse my criticism of this series of articles by Jimmy with any impugning of his motives or integrity. On the contrary, I have the highest regard for his skills and character. I just think, in this case, his effort to be “fair” to all sides has resulted in a slight to the one party which should have been defended (from the fulminous Helen Thomas) - Israel!
jimmy you said….“A more likely scenario to my mind is that nuclear proliferation in Muslim states may at some point lead to the destruction of Israel.”
i would agree with you, but the more likely outcome is that Israel will use her nuclear power in the destruction of muslim states and anyone else who gets in the way. look at what she done in the US. 9/11
i know i am of topic but somethings need to be pointed out.
Posted by victor on Thursday, Jun 24, 2010 10:34 AM (EST):
Just one small point of clarification: America didn’t conquer Iraq, we “liberated” it.
Maybe Victor would like to go live in Iraq seeing as it is so liberated.
Maybe he would like to go live in Afganastan after we liberated it too.
Israel, purportedly our friend, has been spying on us all. And we’re not talking about individual spooks like Jonathan Pollard, or small-time networks such as the 140 Israelis arrested by the FBI prior to 9/11, or the 60 arrested since (including 5 arrested who were cheering and celebrating as the World Trade Towers collapsed).
Thanks for clarifying MarkC.
brian,
“look at what she done in the US. 9/11”
Really? Israel “did” 9/11? This is beyond absurd. The guilt for 9/11 is on the hands of those who perpetrated it, not on those who pissed them off.
If you cut me off in traffic, and I get mad about it and blow up your car with a bazooka, is it your fault? After all, you did cut me off. You started it, you made me angry. My response is only rational right?
-the preceding was sarcasm, there is always someone who doesn’t get it-
“including 5 arrested who were cheering and celebrating as the World Trade Towers collapsed”
Does anyone doubt that some Brittans were grateful for Pearl Harbor bringing us into WWII?
What about the sentiment that calls the fall of Adam a “fortunate fall?”
Good can come out of evil, and anticipating the good is not the same as willing the evil.
The Jews are no more guilty than the Americans in their displacement of native Americans except the Americans have also supported the Jews in their displacement of Palestenians. Historically the Jews have been displaced and now there doing the same to others. Maybe some day the Palestenians can open up casinos on the Mediterranean.
It should be noted that Jews have lived continuously in the Land of Israel since biblical times. They are not the newcomers, the Palestinians are.
And if the Jews have, in your words, no historical, moral or ethical claim to the land, then neither do the Palestinians. As you, yourself said, “The fact is that human populations move all over the place during history. Often they are forced out of one land, and at some point any claim they have to it lapses.” You’ve just proven the Palestinians have no more claim to the land than the Jews do. Thanks for clearing that up!!
what Sarah said…...Posted by Sarah on Thursday, Jun 24, 2010 3:51 PM (EST):
“You’ve just proven the Palestinians have no more claim to the land than the Jews do.”
meanwhile millions of Palestinians are living in a Concentration camp and being bomb to kingdom come. Im sure God is real pleased with that. so lets see now,,,, All this is going on with Gods blessings because this is the land he give to these jews. And the great USofA is funding it all so that makes them blessed as well. That’s just great except the jews that are claiming the land as their god given right are mostly or not at all Israelites
A must read article. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/hittites.htm.
And this http://www.christusrex.org/www2/koestler/
The fact is that modern day Israel is run not by the chosen people but by Zionist thugs.
What was that scripture in the book of Apocalypse. Something about those claiming to be Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
the problem with most Catholics and Christians is they are to afraid to speak out about these false jews because they are afraid they might piss off God and they will go to hell if they say a bad word about Israel.
Stop being afraid and speak the truth. The truth will set you free and it will also set the people of Gaza free. It will even set the real Israelites free.
These so-called jews are, at the moment, making plans to bomb Iran and a whole lot more people so they can usher in their long awaited messiah who will be an anti-christ and your tax $$$$$s are funding their every move. I wonder what Christ thinks of that.
The real Israelites, the real jews, those who are the remnant are the ones who will inherit the land. They are the ones who have accepted Jesus or will before it’s all over; and it’s not the people who rule and claim this Zionist state as their god given land.
Joseph D’Hippolito said,,,,,,Brian, perhaps you would like Saddam Hussein back in power in Iraq and the Taliban back in power in Afghanistan, so more innocent people could be murdered and oppressed for the Greater Glory of Allah?
You need to go do some research and stop listening to the news. Who was it funded and befriended Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran? Who was it that gave the green light to Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait and then turned Iraq in to a waste land and has caused the deaths of 100s of 1000s of innocent people. Same thing that is now happening in Afghanistan.
Well do you know who it was, who it is? It is the American government and if you look a bit closer you will find that the BIG CATS in the government who are pushing all this so-called war on terror are Zionist jews. Don’t take my word for it go look up who they are and where their loyalties lie; it’s not with the American people that’s for sure. These same Zionist are going for Iran next and whoever else they see as a threat to their superior race.
Unplug from the grid and find out for yourself what is really going on.
STOP BELIEVING EVERYTHING YOU HEAR ON THE NEWS.
i’m finished with this post. How many more of your children will you send to die for this false war on terror. Find out who the real terrorist are. Encourage your children not to sign up for uncle Sam. Find out who really pulled off 9/11 and stop voting them in. Maybe then we can all live in peace.
Joseph D’Hippolito RE: your last comment.
Like i said before, stop listening to the news.
peace to all, even the jews.
God bless.
“Find out who really pulled off 9/11”
Wow. Really? You have some very strange ideas.
Mr. Akin separates the legal question from the moral question. That is an error. Suppose Party B has legal title to the land. One may have come to the conclusion that on on level Party A has moral title to the land but that because of the moral importance of engendering respect for international law that in the final analysis Party B has moral title to the land. Mr. Akin has left the impression that a moral analysis that disregards any moral goods or considerations related to politics or law is by itself decisive. That is ironic, as I have showed.
Posted by Joseph D’Hippolito on Thursday, Jun 24, 2010 6:22 PM (EST):
“Did you know that he (and other Middle Eastern leaders) were quite close to the Soviets for most of the Cold War?”
Yeah, and you know who ran the USSR (I’ll give you a hint, starts with a “J” and ends with a “ews”)
Jimmy, can we agree that some of this stuff rises to the level of anti-semitism (or Judenhass if you prefer a more precise term)
Seamus: India functional? you bin there? pakistan, iran, iraq, africa (yes, the entire continent). dont give me some examples of penal colonies that have had 200 years to get it somewhat right (after hunting aboriginies as if they were animals, civil war in the US and god knows what else)... oh, and ireland. tell me that it wasn’t imperialism (political or religious) that hasnt left behind even the tiniest of scars).
you do know what i mean, even if you pretend to be stupid.
just as you probably knew what i meant about biafra, although i wrote bangaladesh (same time period, same story, sorry). just for a small hint: http://journeytoforever.org/rrlib/biafra.html
oferdesade,
Take a deep breath and give us a break. When you say things like:
“”“of all the countries left behind by European imperialism, Israel is the only functioning democracy”“”
then you are taking a position that can be examined.
“”“you do know what i mean, even if you pretend to be stupid”“”
So if we take your words to mean what they say, we are pretending to be stupid?
A simple, “I meant this:” statement would cover it without having to lash out at everybody.
One of my biggest frustrations about this topic is that I’ve never had any help to rationally explore it. Everyone I’ve talked to about it who has an opinion has passionately made up their minds already to the point that they are ignoring half the story. I end up defending the other position just to try to show both sides. I am usually defending Israel by default, but this thread has shown that there are plenty of angry emotional people on both sides of the issue.
Both sides are in a battle to see who can get most effectively use the arsenal of conspiracy theorys, revisionist history, and name calling against the other.
So according to these comments, Jimmy desires Israel to be nuked and jews led the USSR. Doesn’t anyone else see that both of these are irrational?
Posted by Joseph D’Hippolito on Thursday, Jun 24, 2010 9:36 PM (EST):
Sorry, my sarcasm button is on the fritz.
I was trying to help connect this to the Helen Thomas thing. Even if what she said wasn’t anti-semetic, surely we can agree that the things brian is saying are?
Besides if anyone is secretly running the world, they’re not doing a very good job of it. Have you seen the media coverage on the floatilla.
I meant to say “if there is a Jewish conspiracy running the world…”
Red_Beard and everyone else.
I for one was once on the side of Israel believing that no matter what the pros and cons were the jews had a god given right to the land. I didn’t understand a lot of things then. I got all my info from the news man on the TV and from listening to Politicians who, for the most part, are a corruptible lot. It has been proven many times in the past and more recently, that they serve themselves more than the people who elected then in the first place. When I began to look into things that people were telling me I rebelled, I didn’t want to believe that I was being deceived, lied to and manipulated by TPTB (the powers that be). I spent a long time trying to come to terms with things and I very near lost my faith in the process. (R.Catholic).
I got more than confused and laid up and down more garden paths than I care to mention, but sometimes you just have to step back from the blinkered view of things that we are shown and told we must believe so that we can see the bigger picture.
Jesus himself said that we would be deceived. Do you for one moment think that TPTB have your best interest at heart? What did Jesus say to those in power when he walked the earth? We have to obey the law of the land for sure but not to the point of losing our souls.
You said,,,,,, “One of my biggest frustrations about this topic is that I’ve never had any help to rationally explore it. Everyone I’ve talked to about it who has an opinion has passionately made up their minds already to the point that they are ignoring half the story. I end up defending the other position just to try to show both sides. I am usually defending Israel by default, but this thread has shown that there are plenty of angry emotional people on both sides of the issue”
I grew up as a republican in N Ireland through all the troubles and got into plenty of it myself. When I got older I found Jesus and had to rethink my whole out-look. I had to learn to look at things from both sides and not the blinkered one-sided view of republicanism that I was brought up with. Like you, I too never had any help to rationally explore it, I had to find out for myself by taking all the things I believed in and grew up with and find out for my self what the truth was. The old republican thing still rises to the surface now and again and I have to try to hold it in check and think to myself, is this what Jesus would want?
I think now of my protestant neighbours and the suffering and fear that must have permeated their lives during those dark days even though it was they and their Politicians and their loyalty to god and Ulster that brought all this trouble to my country in the first place. I am glad those days are almost over and look forward to a chance for all the people of N Ireland to live together in peace.
I look at that tiny piece of land called Israel in Palestine and I try hard to see both sides, but the truth is that there is something going on over there that is dragging the world into WW3 and if people don’t stand up to our so-called Politicians and TPTB from all over the world then WW3 is what we will get; and very soon by the looks of it.
The Zionist government that sits in power in Israel and has its tentacles in the political affairs of every country in the western world is not the Biblical people of the old testament they are a brood of vipers and their father is the father of lies.
Don’t wait for someone to show you the proof, go look for it yourself. Don’t be afraid to take the blinkers off. God won’t send you to hell for trying to find out the truth; in fact it is your duty to find out the truth.
Conspiracy theorist are called nutters because they up-set the TPTB and yes it is true that some of them are nutters but there are a lot of good truth seekers out there. What their motives are may sometimes be brought in to question but that’s for you to find out. Don’t just believe them either. Go look-up what they are saying and see for yourself if what they say is true or not.
Lastly. I am sorry if I have come across as one of those angry emotional people but I didn’t just come to my conclusions by taking one side or the other. I had to search my heart and readjust my view; with the evidence plainly in front of my eyes I had no choice. I thought God would send me to hell for questioning TPTB even those within our beloved Church. Did one of our own Popes not say that the smoke of Satan had entered into the Church? He could only have entered through men that we put our trust in. We are all being deceived and lulled to sleep. Awake from your slumber.
Turn your eyes and your heart to Jesus and ask Him to show you the truth. It doesn’t mean you have to become a rebel and join the lynching mob when the revolution begins or inspire anarchy and hate for those who don’t think like you, but you must speak the truth when your brother or sister is being raped and murdered and few seem to care as long as they have their needs and wants. It is not enough to go to mass on a Sunday and ask god to sort all the worlds problems out because it up-sets out way of living. We are charged with that. Stop voting these people into power and if you can’t find any honest Politicians then don’t vote at all. If they tell you are breaking the law by not voting then go to prison. Write to your reps in congress and anywhere else they maybe and demand that they do the right thing. Bring your children out of those terrible wars being fought at the request of the Zionist state of Israel. Dare to find out the truth of 9/11 and you will be able to breathe the fresh air once more, if there is indeed time left to do that much.
As for the question, whose land is it? Why don’t you take a look at the link below and then ask the question again.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3608544-israeli-settlements-the-red-button-that-could-detonate-and-destroy-the-peace-process/image/34979787-the-incredible-shrinking-land-of-palestine-
Remember the biggest proportion of this land has been taken by force against ordinary working folk just like you and I and you wonder why the people of Palestine take up arms. Is this justice? these people need our help not more condemnation because they won’t buckel to opression.
God bless
gurnygob
brian,
“”“The Zionist government that sits in power in Israel and has its tentacles
in the political affairs of every country in the western world is not the
Biblical people of the old testament they are a brood of vipers and their
father is the father of lies.”“”
See, things are so easy for you when you only see half. You don’t see the incredible suffering that hamas is inflicting upon the palestinians. You don’t see the busses that have been blown up in Israel, the rockets that are perpetually launched against civilians, the financial rewards for the families of suicide bombers. You don’t see how Yassar Arafat was one of the greatest causes of palestinean pain for years, ready to plunge his suffering people into a civil war just to hold on to his power. All Palestinian suffering from your view wrests upon Israel alone.
You see the hate on one side and are closed to the hate on the other side. In discussion with you, I am forced to defend Israel because your “blinkers” are still on. We must be honest about the failings of both sides if we are ever going to get anywhere.
My family participates in the Ulster project where protestant Irish teens spend a month with Catholic American families. Some of my family’s greatest friendships are in Northern Ireland with Protestants.
Historically, there was plenty of hate on both sides. Both sides could possibly legitimately call the other “broods of vipers,” but peace is coming. It can’t come until you are willing to see that your enemies are human, not monsters.
If you are half blind, you can never get there.
And let’s not forget what our great ally Israel did to the USS Liberty. With friends like that who needs enemies?
Speaking of getting threads off track, my apologies for getting into a spitting match with D’Hippolito. It was unnecessary and out of line.
I do not, however, retract my condemnation of Brian’s kooky claim that Israel engineered 9/11.
Mark Shea said….I do not, however, retract my condemnation of Brian’s kooky claim that Israel engineered 9/11.
do you know why you won’t retract. Because you are afrid. You are afrid to look the truth in the eye. You are afrid because you don’t want your make-up world to be up-set. You wont even intertain the thougth because you don’t give a hoot. Anb I bet you haven’t even looked to see if there is any truth in my statement. you are a coward.
*************************************************************
Red_Beard…
you think peace is coming. I say war is coming, we shall see who is right. Also, i give you more wisdom. you talk about what hamas is doing to its own people and the poor people of Israel. well here is some news for you. This Zionist fake jew government is about to sacrifice the people of Israel for their own end. You seem to like watching TV, well watch it then and see what rains down on the people of Israel soon and where on earth will all their Zionist masters be, they will be in underground bunkers or sipping fine wine and sucking oysters with Obama in the Whitehouse. Well maybe not the oysters unless they get them far away from the oil. And don’t think that you will be safe where you are either, they wont be able to pull this off with out some home-grown collateral damage.
For goodness sake go do some soul searching and find out the truth that’s all I ask, if you find out that I am wrong then you will have nothing to worry about.
I have said enough. I am not trying to up-set anyone, or maybe I am, but if that’s what it takes so be it.
Read over what I have said and you will see my sincerity for you.
Brace yourselves for what is coming. I know I will.
God speed
ps word verification = together
do you know why you won’t retract. Because you are afrid.
Yes. Yes I am. I am afraid of wasting precious time. It’s the same fear that drives me to not look geocentrism claims in the eye. Or to consider the merits of the “We never landed on the Moon” conspiracy theory. Or the “CIA created AIDS” conspiracy. Or the “Lizard People are Among Us!” conspiracy. Or the “Obama is not an American citizen” theory. Or the “Jesuits killed Lincoln” theory. Or the “Jesus was a dead rabbi with a girlfriend” theory. Or the “JFK is being kept alive in Area 51” theory. I fear all such conspiracy theories fill me with a vast nameless dread of chasing after loony rumors based on nothing.
Joe:
Thank you for your kind words.
I liked JMarie’s comment: “If there is a Jewish conspiracy running the world, , they’re not doing a very good job of it. Have you seen the media coverage on the floatilla.”
I also enjoyed this comment: “comboxes live and die by Gresham’s law. Bad conversation drives outgood as the fanatics from opposing side suck all the oxygen out of the room.”
I was hopeful when “brian” said (on Thursday, Jun 24, 2010 6:27 PM), “i’m finished with this post.” Sadly, he apparently is not a man of his word ...
I would also note that when I went to investigate brian’s following claim (below), I discovered it was a direct copy/paste from another site/discussion:
“Israel, purportedly our friend, has been spying on us all. And we’re not talking about individual spooks like Jonathan Pollard, or small-time networks such as the 140 Israelis arrested by the FBI prior to 9/11, or the 60 arrested since (including 5 arrested who were cheering and celebrating as the World Trade Towers collapsed).”
So much for honest dialog ...
The United States - Whose Land is it?
Who was there first? What happened to them?
Do the present residents have a right to occupy that land?
History is messy.
Over 60% of Jews in Israel were born in Isrel. The majority of Israeli Jews are decended from Middle Eastern populations within the last century
Thank you for another interesting article, Jimmy. And thank you for the clarification on the definition of anti-Semitism.
But how bizarre and disturbing to see people promoting anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Why is it that people buy into such nonsense? Extraordinary claims **should** demand extraordinary proof. But it seems that some people simply just want to believe these things. And so, they read an article or book and presto…they’re an “expert” and they “know the truth.”
Good heavens.
With Mark Shea, I’m afraid, but for another reason as well. History has proven that ridiculous/scandalous myths can eventually gain a foothold in times of duress (like, say, that the Jews are poisoning wells?) and such myths can lead to terrible atrocities - like the pogroms that occurred in Palestine before Israel became a nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Tiberias_massacre
Great…...so who is going to maintain and safeguard the Holy Land if Israel is destroyed or removed, the iconoclast Mohammedans?
Muslims try to portray themselves as victims. Forget Darfur and Sudan where they have murdered more than 300.000 people. Forget how they are using murder, death threats and land confiscation to drive Christians out of the Holy Land. More Christian refugees in Costa Rica than in the West Bank. Muslims persecute Christians in every Muslim country. Intolerant People. Long live Israel.
That’s an interesting new moral reasoning you got going there. Palestinians in Eastern Jerusalem are guilty of crimes committed by people in Darfur, because they are the same religion (assuming, that is, they *are* the same religion since not a few Palestinians are fellow Catholics). So by this reasoning, you are guilty of the murder of Jews in the Rhineland during the Crusades, because you are Catholic like their murderers? And those murdered Jews (and all Jews) are guilty of the murder of Jesus?
I’m pretty sure that kind of thinking would not get you a passing grade in a Catholic moral theology class, even *before* Vatican II.
Mark,
In assessing guilt for a particular act, you are absolutely correct. A man is only guilty of the evil he commits. There is no contradiction between some muslims being victims and others being oppressors.
What about the pattern though? Most of the violent conflicts in the world today involve Islam. There is no Muslim led country in the world that has real freedom of religion (according to Al Kresta’s show yesterday). If we want to discuss Islam as an entitiy in opposition to the state of Israel, the pattern of intolerance and violence has to hold some weight doesn’t it?
15:33 And Simon answered him, and said to him: We have neither taken other men’s land, neither do we hold that which is other men’s: but the inheritance of our fathers, which was for some time unjustly possessed by our enemies.
15:34 But we having opportunity claim the inheritance of our fathers.
First Book of the Maccabees
The legal argument is the most convincing of these, but there is another which I think is conclusive. There is no rule of divine or international law against a new state emerging, without outside assistance, on the territory of a pre-existing state. Neither is there any rule of divine or international law against a new state emerging on territory where state authority has broken down. In that case, where there is a political vacuum the formation of a new state is a moral imperative.
Judging by the events at Hebron in 1929, Tiberias in 1938 and others, there is in Islam a sect or group who believe absolutely that whenever a farm or area of land is owned by a muslim, it should never again be owned by “an unbeliever”. Further, any muslim who sells land to an unbeliever must be killed for this act. The same logic that applied to those who established a Jewish kibbutz at Hebron now applies to the state of Israel.
The group of muslims flatly refusing to concede the right of Israel to exist will not live in peace with a Jewish (or other non-islamic) controlled state. Barring divine intervention, peace between Israel and its arab neighbors cannot be achieved. Trying to get the US government to hold talks with middle Eastern parties on this topic is essentially a waste of time IMO.
TeaPot562
First of all, hello everybody! Second, I get easily confused by quotes and cynicism; I can’t always tell who is saying what and if you really mean what you are saying. Furthermore, congratulations “brian” and “JMarie”; keep up the good work. I only hope that you mean what I think you mean. I like your perspectives, and I personally agree with most of what you have said so far. Don’t let these guys get you down. I wish that I could find the CBS 60 Minutes’ t. v. program that I watched when it was originally broadcasted that showed the 5 Israeli spies cheering and celebrating as the World Trade Center collapsed, and etc. Regarding the funny business about who was running the Soviet Union, I have heard that Stalin was suppose to be a communist, but, in actuality, he was an egotist who betrayed and killed communists which should be a historical warning about leaders betraying their own people. Also, for whats its worth, because the situation with Iraq was mentioned, I think that the only reason why the USA went to war against Saddam Hussein was because of capital, markets, and the Adam Smith invisible hand of G-d referring to Saddam buying military equipment from the soviets instead of from us. I got sucked into this kind of jibber jabber in Jimmy Akin’s blog questioning whether Helen Thomas is or isn’t an anti-Semite, and I kind of liked it. However, I am suspicious that this arguing back and forth could simply involve an amoral talk radio type of trick for ratings accomplished by provoking people. For this reason, I have gotten frustrated a few times and, out of frustration, erased a few very good blog first drafts of mine that I now wish that I had kept since I now think that they were so good. When I think about it, this is cyber-space which is as real or unreal as what is depicted in the new Johnny Depp, Disney, Tim Burton, Alice in Wonderland movie—somewhat about going down a hole, fighting, and discovering oneself and one’s supposed moral fiber and also about thinking that everything seems like in a questionable “dream” with all that that implies. All of us are also bordering on the theme of the new Anthony Hopkins’ Wolfman movie which is somewhat about whether innocent men who are monsters should be killed. The movie made me wonder if the word gypsy is derived from the word Egyptian since both words have the gyp part in common; this kind of relates to some of the above discussions about people moving around and losing their identities. Have there been any movies made with all the perspectives covering all of the intrigue, fascination, and killing going on that we ourselves are discussing? In my opinion (which is based on limited movie experience), I think that, if a movie were made), then the movie should be (introspective) like the World War II Kurt Vonnegut Slaughterhouse Five movie. As for boring reality, I think that terms—like legality, morality, and justice—should be define, and what about the phenomenological riddle: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” What is evil and good, and what “makes” it; if evil is being done in a country and there isn’t a journalist to report it (like hypothetically in Saudi Arabia or in any place), or if someone or some country has money to squelch, confuse, manipulate, or corrupt the news, then is it, or can it be, evil? Does the whereabouts and wherewithal of reporters and/or of journalists create the matrix of reality? Obviously, people have different views. So, how can we justify our flying off the handle?
I usually avoid commenting on this touchy subject, but while Jimmy’s analysis is good as far as it goes, I think there’s another important aspect to this issue.
At least 40 percent of the Jewish population of Israel is descended from Jews who were refugees from across the Middle East.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Exodus_from_Arab_Lands
Maybe if Israel had never been founded, they would still have their homes in Arab countries, but as it is, there is no way they could return to their family’s places of origins.
It’ss important to remember there was displacement and refugees on both sides, and both deserve just treatment.
Mr. Akin blogged about the legality and morality, but there are other dimensions to consider. What does it mean if I am one sided and belabor my points? Does it mean that I prefer the one side over the other? Money, American military help, factories, businesses, and the news media are definitely skewed towards the side of Israel. So, why are the Palestinians winning the PR and sympathy war? I believe that you know why. It is because Israel retaliates disproportionately big time against Palestinian attacks. The retaliation doesn’t seem fair, just, or retributive. FAIRNESS seems to outweigh righteousness except for bloodshed, misery, and destruction. Israeli shouldn’t be sitting ducks, but Palestinians shouldn’t be crushed like cockroaches either. Talking about poetic justice, the best blog that I have liked, above, is “John’s” blog from 6-24-2010 at 3:23 PM about Palestinians someday owning casinos on the Mediterranean somewhat analogous to the American Indians’ situation. Finally, what is cyber-bullying? Remember the Irish girl Phoebe Prince who committed suicide because she was bullied by Americans? Is reverence for life applicable?
“...and the news media are definitely skewed towards the side of Israel.”
I must live in a completely different world than the one you inhabit. The view from here has the government and the media afraid to say anything about Islam except the phrase, “Islam is a religion of peace.” I have seen an absurd anti-israeli bias to the extent that we make Hamas look like good-guys.
The insanity of not being able to honestly discuss a culture with a sub-culture that wants us completely destroyed is utterly absurd, but it is the western world today.
Now I’m back to defending Israel again whether I like to or not. Because no one is willing to discuss the failings on both sides. I can’t listen to this kind of absurd revisionism without speaking out.
A quick google search for a stat I had heard before gives this:
“of over 700 General Assembly resolutions passed since the UN’s 1945 establishment, nearly 450 condemn Israel.”
I think that those numbers are out of date, but picking on Israel seems to be the one thing that brings the world together. That doesn’t in itself prove whether or not Israel deserves it, but it should dispel the hogwash of these “Jews are running the world” theorys.
Dear Red Beard: Thank you very sincerely for your recent blog which questioned my point of view about the news media being slanted towards Israel. Thank you for exercising your freedom of speech and of religion. I have thought of an answer though. I believe that you and I were blogging about two different things, and why is that? I most certainly agree with you that our news media is afraid of Islam—as demonstrated by the Prophet Mohammed movie and cartoon flaps. The news media being somewhat liberal might say that it is being respectful towards (religious) minorities and/or towards (freedom of) religion, which is, in my opinion, also hypocritical and laughable. In general, I personally think that a certain logical error is being made about the connections between 1st Amendment political and national duties and obligations, the truth of any religion’s morality, and the basis upon which the rule of law rest. Superficially, just like fairness might outweigh righteousness, perhaps journalists think that the public good outweighs criticism of Islam. This touches a little upon what Jimmy Akin brought up about legality and morality. While I consider myself to be one type of liberal, I am still able to criticize the so-called liberal news media for what it is doing with Islam. Liberalism should mean freedom to criticize too in addition to freedom to respect. I notice that Rush Limbaugh has no trouble in criticizing Islam for Islamofascism, but I don’t like the term Islamofascism, which is a different subject. Perhaps the so-called liberal news media is changing its historical liberal view on tolerance for criticism, obscenity, blasphemy, libel, and sedition and changing it to being more like the conservatives’ view. Conservatives and “Federalist Paper” promoters have believed in anti-sedition laws, and, now, liberals are jumping on the bandwagon in connection to anti-sedition hate crime laws—but which also involves the much touted politically correct way of thinking. This is another reason why people are turning independent these days and saying that our political parties are too much alike or the same. Nevertheless, I still believe that our news media is heavily slanted towards Israel—as all the links, paid for news articles, and advertisements in major online newspapers and online t. v. shows amply demonstrate which is of course not to say that this coverage is all that there is. Even your common sense would have to tell you that our news media would have to be heavily slanted towards Israel, for example, because it is obvious that the USA shares a lot more commerce ties and cultural values with Israel. If you had money to invest in building a factory, would you prefer building it in Israel or in the Palestinian territories where infrastructure has been blown up, where the rule of law is questionable, and etc.? Using common sense and without trying to get too nitpicky about which country or place is the most blown up as compared to the other, there is the obligation of self preservation which creates a bias. Furthermore, Israel realizing more of its potential than the Palestinians, which is most probably the result of Western bias, would further prove my point. So, in conclusion, I think that we, Red Beard and I, are both correct. Again, that’s what I think. How about you?
Well, I don’t think that we were using terms in the same way so thanks for clarifying.
You seem to equate success with bias which I don’t believe follows. Israel is more economically developed than most islamic countries because they have pursued a free market. Israel is less “blown up” as you say because they have taken security seriously. (These security measures that have helped are definitely one of the great wedges in the peace process, but that isn’t the point of the conversation.) I think that the success you point to is a byproduct of a particular culture, not the result of other nations holding their hand. I know I would rather invest in Israel with a free market culture vs. say Venezuela where industries get nationalized on a political whim. so I don’t agree with the common sense argument you put forward as I understand it.
The United States pays for the salary of most of the Palestinian government with other nations picking up the rest. I already quoted the insane proportion of UN resolutions against Israel. In my very un-scientific experience, I see about 12 anti-Israeli news articles for every 1 pro-Israeli one (which is why the claim of a media bias towards Israel is so difficult for me to comprehend). This is my experience, I don’t know what yours is.
Red Beard, I hear you. Thanks for replying (and so fast). I’ll be thinking about what you have written. I’ll try to control my enthusiasm for a while and let others do some blogging so that nobody will think that I am hijacking this website since my blogs are so long. I really liked your last blog, at least for now. Keep up the good work.
red beard: i’m sorry to make this kind of condescending remark (i know i hate it when people use it on me) but you DO seem intelligent:
READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN!
read it carefully.
i think it is quite clear that behind the purported logically constructed argument, there is an almost absloutely clear agenda. as a jew (one who suffered the pre-vatican 2 pleasures of being educated in an incredibly anti-semitical primary school atmosphere), i find the agenda ... problematic.
as a 10th generation israeli (and take my word for it: there are very few palestinians - yes, or israelis - who can delve back that far) the logical conclusions of his argument leave me homeless (as the good ship st louis proved, nobody will take me) - so forgive me for being a bit peeved.
Oferdesade,
I re-read the article as you asked. There are 4 arguments made and 2 of them where presented as illogical and 2 of them where presented as open for disagreement. I agree with the evaluation of these arguments. I personally believe that a permutation of #4 - Right of self-determination would be the source of a claim for an ethical right to exist. Apart from a question of ethics, I think that Israel’s existence is critical for the US, but that is also not the topic at hand.
I also believe, that we are getting pretty far bent out of shape for the question as there are many many many nations that don’t have an ethical right to exist as they do today, but that is a larger topic.
As for the agenda, I don’t see it. If you ever listen to Catholic Answers Live, this is the way Jimmy thinks. Someone called in and asked if a Catholic in good conscience could have voted for a pro-death candidate and Jimmy’s response was to list all possible permutations of the categories “Catholic,” “Well-informed,” voting for “pro-life/death” with the corresponding outcome. It was refreshing to a programmer like me, but definitely not the way an average man would answer the question.
So, if you feel attacked by this article, I’m sorry, I don’t believe that was the intent. I would ask you though, on what basis do you believe that Israel has an ethical right to exist as a nation?
Please note that by asking the question, I am not denying such a right, just trying to see where you believe the ethical basis lies.
Jimmy listed some possible arguments without taking one and the rest of us have dropped the issue entirely and just argued about which group is really running the world. :o)
After reading Akin’s blogs on the subject of Zionism, I only now finally understand that the Jews are and were European colonialists who created colonies in Arab Palestine to displace the indigenous Arab Palestinian population , only to be later granted an artificially created state by the European Colonial powers.
Thanks to Akin I now also have a fuller understanding of the life of Jesus. Jesus was an Arab Palestinian (they are also Semites!) who was born in Zionist occupied Arab Palestine. He was murdered by the Zionists as part of their on going genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Arab Palestinians.
Of course, that’s not the way it’s currently presented in the Christian scriptures or accepted scholarly works. However that just goes to prove how the Zionists have always controlled the media. If you don’t believe me, you can ask Bishop Giacomo Babini.
Dov Pollock, you are a genius!
Wow Dov,
Thanks for adding to the conversation. The one thing that this thread had been lacking was a misrepresentation of Jimmy’s views.
- end sarcasm -
Is there anyone left who is interested in looking for the truth rather than reaffirming a position or ideology that they’ve already assumed?
One thing is certain, we definitely have proven Jimmy’s point from his previous article that the word anti-semitism is being abused. You can’t speak or write or think in a way that might be interpreted as (maybe, hypothetically, possibly)opposed to the state of Israel without people coming out of the woodwork to tell you that you are a horrible person.
The three categories that are allowed on this thread by popular demand*:
1. Zionist stooges who want to see the extermination Palestinians.
2. Anti-Semitic Terrorists who hate either the Jews or democracy and therefore want to see Israel blown off the map first with the US to follow. (Oh, and don’t forget that the Jews killed Christ! It’s payback time!)
3. Woefully blind, ignorant (and I must say idiotic) to the evil group (insert which group here) that is trying to destroy all that you hold dear. A robot who apparently trusts the news.
Man, I would like a 4th choice, but since each side gets to paint the other, these are all the choices you get.
I’m Woefully blind. Jimmy must be an Anti-Semitic Terrorist. What are you guys?
*I know I’ll regret the tone of this. If I offended you with my categorization of your position, take a look at the other categories. If you agree with any one of them, I’m glad you are offended. If you disagree with them all, then this wasn’t pointed at you and I’m sorry I offended you.
Red Beard, what follows is only my opinion which could be wrong and possibly not cool. However, more than likely “Dov Pollock” is a pseudo name which, if it is a pseudo name, contains a lot of comedy in itself and is worthy and appropriate, also “just in itself”, to be connected to what has been blogged here and earlier about what Helen Thomas said, and, furthermore, what Dov Pollock said contains some possible truth and also the highest comedy possible that even Sarah Silverman or Kathy Griffin could have said. I find that there is a lot involved with the blog which makes it genius. For example, “Dov” is suppose to be a boy’s name of Hebrew origin; it can also be short for dove” which is a symbol for peace; and it can also mean dull or boring and even normal. “Pollock” can be slang for Polish person—who some people don’t think can be friends with Jews per the criticism knocking Helen Thomas. So, in one name, there are concepts of peace, friendship, Jews, and Polish people all combined which other people were so outraged over when they heard Helen Thomas suggest the same type of iconoclastic thing like Jews going back to Poland. The whole idea of Jews rewriting the Bible is, to me, a hilarious comment on our George Orwellian times. It fits in perfectly with any conspiracy theory, and everyone honestly believes in conspiracy theories now a days—even the devil is a conspiracy theory. I don’t think that it is sarcastic.
In my opinion Muslims have let their fellow brothers and sisters in Palestine down.
For one, there is really no one righteous in this conflict
Two, if it goes on Israel will no doubt be destroyed but at the expense of millions of Muslims lives as well. The victory will be pyrric at best.
I think Muslims and the Jews should strike a deal. Both admit right and wrong. Israel agrees to pay each Palestinian so much money with the agreement that Muslim nations economically able to do so (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Pakistan, Syria, Lybia,ect) will allow the Palestinians to emmigrate to their nations. Israel can have the land but no more than what she has now.
Redbeard:
Fair question.
There is no ethical reason for a state to exist, other than those stated by Tocqueville (the association of people for mutual purpose to overcome selfish desires (piu o meno). Israel of course fulfils that – mutual purpose (overcome a history of whatnot) and I think on overcoming selfish desires our record’s not too bad, both on the individual level and the global level (unless you actually BELIEVE Israeli doctors harvest spare parts in disaster zones. And yes, we do have a lot to be ashamed of – peres & sth Africa, selling guns to Chilean dictators, a hefty portion of the regional mess…) – but then, hopefully, so would a Palestinian state. No! 2 things stand out in jimmy’s … let’s-pretend-I’m-being-objective rant, both based on omission. One is israel’s POSITIVE record – which gives one an ethical reason to exist: it contributes to the common good more than it detracts from it, and I’m willing to make a double columned list for you) and the second is the fact that – yes, in spite of vat-2 (which many say signaled a shift in attitudes that was a RESULT of world events) – jews could still be scapegoated (maddoff is, after all, jewish, and goldman sachs SOUNDS jewish). This brings you to the moslem caricature model: the only thing sometimes preventing bad stuff from happening is the fact that someone out there with teeth is making threatening noises. You can’t leave it to the same jewish lobby that wasn’t loud enough in 1939. People still look to those who are different and if nobody’s out there to protect them they get firebombed (Turkish workers in Europe circa 1996), attacked (jews in Europe not JUST by Islamic activists) disinherited (aussie natives).
So no. moore would probably dismiss the entire Zionist theory. Kohlberg – not so quickly, I think.
ps. i’d like to thank the editors of NCReg for their patience…
So it is an argument from the common good. I don’t need convincing that Israel contributes to the common good and I doubt a diagram would convince anyone here who does. :o) The only problem that I have with that is that if it ceases to be in the common good, Israel ceases to have the right to exist, that really rubs me the wrong way.
A lot of lousy ethical reasoning in the life issues start by assuming that the rights are something external and not intrinsic. Also, who is qualified to judge common good?
I think that’s why I like a version of self-determination as the ethical basis, though of course, one doesn’t contradict the other.
I gatta say I like you oferdesade. I just wish you’d cut Jimmy a little slack and not assume the worst of him.
Patrick,
If Dov is a sarcastic genius, he’s too deep for me. :o)
The line between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism may sometimes be blurred. However, it’s impossible to understand Catholic negative attitudes toward Zionism, like those expressed by Akin, without viewing them in the context of traditional Catholic anti-Jewish attitudes. These may be defined in three separate categories, although their anti-Jewish expression was often overlapping.
a) God rewards those who believe in Him and follow Him. The Jews rejected God and committed Deicide. For this they are cursed by God, forced to wander the world like Cain, and God causes them to suffer.
b) Jews and Judaism are a malignant and negative influence on Christians and Christianity.
c) Jews remain Jews through blindness and flaws in their character. They can only find salvation and get to the world to come if they become Christians.
The above three traditional Catholic attitudes formed the basis for all Catholic Church interaction with the Jews up until the 20th Century, and were the motivation for the acts of persecutions against the Jews by the Catholic Church. Catholic Church laws ordered Jews to wear special clothing marking them as Jews and ordered them to live in ghettos. Jews were forbidden any and all social interaction with Catholics, be it at school, at work or in any social setting. Jews were routinely murdered after being accused of killing Christian children to use their blood in their rituals, of desecrating the Eucharist, of poisoning wells and causing plague. Jews were routinely expelled from their homes, their property confiscated. Long before the third Reich, Jewish religious books were ordered burned by the Church. Long before the Chinese cultural revolution Jews were seized from their homes, forced converted, forced to attend classes indoctrinating them in Catholicism.
Catholic apologists invariably explain that not only were these acts against the Jews by the Catholic Church justified it was invariably the Jews own fault. If little Edgardo Mortara was forcibly removed and forcibly converted it was his family’s fault for not being willing to bring their Jewish child up as a non Jew. It was their fault for employing a Catholic maid. If Jews were placed in ghettos it was for their own protection. It only remains to be asked – protection from what and from whom?
If you read Fr. Fahey on Jewish naturalism or Fr. Feeney in “The Point”, you will discover that Jews are using their power to undermine Christianity. They are out to destroy Christmas, manipulate the media against the Church, lead the faithful to liberalism, atheism and abortions.
The regaining of the Jews of their sovereignty over their historic homeland and their survival, both under impossible odds, their strength and their prosperity, their massive disproportional contributions in so many fields of intellect and science, does not fit with these attitudes. Jews are not meant to regain their independence they are meant to wander forever with the mark of Cain for the crime of Deicide.
The Nazi’s yelled “the Jews back to Palestine” and “destroy the Jews”. What’s being yelled here is “the Jews back to Europe” and “destroy the Jewish State”. Akin can’t see the hate and anti-Semitism in those statements just as no doubt he can’t understand the immorality of the Mortara affair or feel the chill of a Catholic blog continuing the historic diatribe against the Jewish people. If Akin wished to call into question the legitimacy of the State of Israel, he should realize that he is the best argument possible for its imperative necessity.
Patrick,
Well, I guess Dov is not a sarcastic genius. :o)
Dov,
Thanks for clarifying my point #2 above. I imprecisely stated:
2. Anti-Semitic Terrorists who hate either the Jews or democracy and therefore want to see Israel blown off the map first with the US to follow. (Oh, and don’t forget that the Jews killed Christ! It’s payback time!)
But I certainly should have included more. I submit to the correction. Now, those who agree with the position that Jimmy never took but we all omnisciently decree he believes is:
2. Anti-Semitic-Nazi-Catholic-Islamic-Terrorists who hate either the Jews or democracy and therefore want to see Israel blown off the map first with the US to follow. (Oh, and don’t forget that the Jews killed Christ! It’s payback time!)
I’m so glad that we all know everything. It really adds clarity to public denunciations!
I forgot my sarcasm flag above.
I appreciate and think I understand the reason for your passion, Dov, but you’re going off the opposite extreme. Jumping to negative conclusions, broad-brushing, only mentioning the negative, etc. There’s no balance. Unless you’re only interested in preaching to the choir, this isn’t a very wise approach.
.
I don’t see where Jimmy personally took a negative position on Zionism or expressed a negative attitude. My recollection is that he expressly refrained from taking any position at all. And your characterization of NCRegister blog as “continuing the historic diatribe against the Jewish people” strikes me as a bit ridiculous, really.
franciscan
first of all - let me commend ncreg for letting this dialogue continue as long as it has - it’s been enlightening and (compared to a rag like the italian Reset.com) fair in its inclusion.
the historic diatribe is a fact that even the pope and some of his more prominent sppokespeople have admitted to appolgized for. dont shut your eyes - it also means keeping out the sunlight… and yes, this jew admits that even the catholic church has many bright spots (my daughter attends scouts and frankly - i have never seen such an accepting manner, certainly not in jewish ideologized organizations) FOR WHATEVER REASONS!!!.
second - there is no such thing as not taking a position. by choosing a subject for focus, there is a position - implied or direct. the actual use of the loaded term “occupation” at the very top is suspect to say the least. i think if you read my bit on exclusion, that gets even stronger. and - finally - red-headed bearded men with glasses have an inherent porpensity towards anti-semitism.
redbeard:
POWER TO THE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST! it’s the only ammunition we have against the truly heretic - those who hijack the true meaning of The Word.
“red-headed bearded men with glasses have an inherent porpensity towards anti-semitism.”
Whooo, that was close! Only my beard is read and I just wear glasses at the computer. Does that make me half anti-semite? Ohh, my dad must be an anti-semite, though his has some brown in it and is starting to grey. Maybe that means he is starting to grow out of his anti-semitism?
- end sarcasm -
As for the Church:
CCC 63: Israel is the priestly people of God, “called by the name of the LORD,” and “the first to hear the word of God,“21 the people of “elder brethren” in the faith of Abraham.
Basically, the Jewish people are our big brothers and God especially loves them “for the sake of their forefathers.” The Church greatly desires full unity with our Jewish brothers which can only come through Jesus Christ, our savior (who is also Jewish).
I’m not saying we’re perfect, but it is official Church teaching that God loves Jews in a special way; that Christ is Jewish, that Mary is Jewish, etc, etc, etc.
If you find Catholics who hate the Jews, I’ll stand with you in denouncing them.
ST. PAUL said “Anyone who followes Jesus, is a son of Abraham” The jewish arrogancy of “Chosen People” is a deception on part of the jews. This is why they plotted against Jesus. HE ACCEPTED EVERYONE! WE’re all the same. But show me a race who lays Golden eggs when they use the restroom. I’ll kiss their feet. Keep it simple!!!!
Race is irrelavent. It’s time for all jews to get on their knees and ask Jesus forgiveness. WE owe them nothing, but they owe Jesus!!
Jesus could have come as an ILLEGAL MEXICAN!! WHAT’s the difference? THe message is the same.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Hey, that one I can answer! If you define sound as wave oscillation of molecules through a physical medium, then yes, it makes a sound (in that case, the oscillating air molecules - I am assuming this forest existed in an atmosphere, and not some hypothetical vacuum planet or something).
If you define sound to mean the perception of the aforementioned waves, then no, it does not.
So, “c matt,” for whats its worth, here is something else that you could possibly comment on, if you want, which is only a stream of consciousness from me that you made me think of in your blog above. This particular stream of consciousness isn’t scientific or like a phenomenological riddle. You say that there are two realities: one reality based on perception and the other based on facts. It is like one reality based on hearing journalists, the news media, or the “good news” with another possible reality still existing even though we don’t hear (much or nothing) about it. This is also like the two realities of Isaac’s and Ishmael’s descendants from which we mainly only hear about the one (Isaac) and not about the other (Ishmael). It is like “the squeaky wheel gets the oil” proverb. And, it is like the tribe that is louder and more saber-rattling and warrior-like gets the land in the Middle East; however, the unheard side cannot be dismissed. Therefore, is the recipe for success in the Middle East to impress others, make oneself a showoff, become a smart-aleck, be violent, be nasty, demeaning, belittling, or disrespectful to your “enemy” in the Middle East? Would any lessons from Dale Carnegie, Vincent Peale, Zig Ziglar, I Ching, Confusius, Sigmund Freud, Herbert Marcuse, or Josh Waitzkin apply to decrease the violence and potential for war?
In defense of Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims, consider these four sayings: “don’t worry, be happy”, “what you don’t know won’t hurt you”, “out of sight, out of mind”, and “the additional number of words that Eskimos have to describe snow allows them to do more”. These sayings can also be applied to what we know about who owns the land in the Middle East. If all that we know is the Judeo-Christian stuff which we are comfortable with, then our Arab information will be inadequate, inept, and make us nervous or uncomfortable. Just focusing on what we have been told, birds chirping, the smell of flowers, poetry, love, human rights, humans helping humans, the original “Zionist dream” “to build a utopian society of a majority of Jews living free from anti-Semitic injustices and free to create a humanitarian, benevolent peace loving democracy that would be a light unto the nations”—might seem like what providence intended, but we might miss that which we cannot conceive. For example, just imagine what the recent news might mean about NASA being directed “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage Muslim nations.” I can imagine (per news stories) NASA’s outreach to Muslims lifting their self-esteem for psychological reasons and creating a positive friendly outlook towards the West in Muslims and in Muslim nations. By letting Muslims be inspired by the NASA space program and by letting Muslims fly inside the Spacelab, it could counteract and transcend the Taliban’s reasoning behind their ban on kite flying. Eventually, this could have an effect on Middle East borders. From outer space, perhaps borders can’t be seen which might inspire Muslims to live together in peace with Israel and/or with Jews. Hypothetically, NASA can start a tradition of Muslims joining the West and possibly nip in the bud future Muslim collaboration with “bad” countries like Iran or North Korea—which could have an effect on any future wars and on future maps changed by war. However, using my over active imagination, I can also imagine NASA’s outer space Mars exploration software, which was originally designed for the independent Mars rover “robots”, being adapted for artificially intelligent computer viruses to be used in cyber space defense and attacks on, manipulation of, or hijacking of Arab and Iranian internet computers and what they control utilizing language specific spyware gained from Arab speaking Muslims working for NASA, and plausible denial based on “Skynet” Terminator science fiction similarities and laugh factor. So, perhaps intermingling with Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims can be beneficial in any case.
Who did God choose to be his beloved people - the Jews or the Palestinians?
God loved Israel,then those who lived in Israel are the ones who are the rightful owners of Israel - be it Jews or Palestinians, because God loved ISRAEL and not JEWS or Palestinians. God loves everything he created on earth and in the universe and little earth is of no consequence - be it Jews/Palestinians/Indians/Africans/dogs/cats.fish/plants/birds etc
Up until 1948 the Zionists went to Palestine and bought land with money, so they should not be compared with invaders such as Europeans who went to North America and forced the native Americans and Mexicans from their ancestral lands. In 1948 many Palestinians fled Israel because the Muslim countries told them they would be killed if the Jewish people gained control. They were kept in camps in those Muslim countries in order to prolong their dissatisfaction and make them willing to join in the following wars against Israel.
I’ve noticed that interest in this Jimmy Akin topic seems to have ended about the same time that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s July 6th visit with President Obama in the U. S. ended. I don’t know if it is just coincidence or what. People’s interest seems to depend on our level of emotions (like with Helen Thomas), apathy, ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), circumstances, coincidences, and timing. So, do the issues really have any timeless, universal, philosophical, and concrete (anchor-like, conservative) meanings, or are they all only temporal, happenstance, and as empty as a bag (blog or newspaper) that is filled with only whatever is put into it which is dumped out and refilled depending on the occasion? I hope that such speculation is guilt free and inevitable. Furthermore, I would not have discovered Jimmy Akin’s blog if not for my computer and the internet. Our “horizon” limits our knowledge, but our horizon is increased with computers and the internet, another temporal happenstance. What is the implication of this? Do the happenstance, timing, and “bag principle” of meaning apply to all of the concepts that Jimmy Akin discusses above about land ownership in Israel, justice, and etc? I am sure that this would be what the religious right calls “relativism.” Hypothetically, if the Bible is the main source for Israel’s righteousness and territorial claims, then what about the legitimacy of those claims and sentiments based on the threat of ADD, apathy, emotions, and my reflection on timing, the bag principle, and relativism? My observation about timing is unpretentious, natural, very obvious, and almost stupid. There are a lot of other competing interpretations and meanings to everything biblical including military which is other than plain old speculation, speculation like what Jimmy Akin and I have been doing. I am glad that we live in a so-called free country where we can still speculate in public.
Are the opinions waxing and waning (shifting), which would probably be a form of relativism, or is the level of passion used to express/defend those opinions what is waxing and waning?
The primary comments seem to be from June 27 to July 67h. By my estimation, this comment thread lived drastically beyond the average life span for the comment section of a blog. It died of old age, and yet I guess you and I are keeping it just barely alive. :o)
A very good, balance article. However, it seems to me that two different issues need to be separated:
1. Where there ethical grounds for the creating of Israel 62 years ago. (I have thought about it long and hard, and came to the conclusion that no, there weren’t any. Many arguments in this article coincide with mine).
2. 60 years after its creation, does Israel have the right to continue to exist? We have to recognize that this is a separate question. A “no” to question 1 does not automatically mean a “no” to question 2. A new generation has been born in Israel. These people certainly shouldn’t be punished for the sins of their ancestors. If Israel is “dismantled”, where will the Israelis go?
Which leads us back to Question 1. Precisely because the creation of Israel leads to unanswerable Question 2, it shouldn’t have been created in the first place. It has created a quagmire that the whole world had to deal with now.
We should not support the Isreali occupation just because pro-life republicans do.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.