Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I fail to understand why anyone would say in one breath: "The Jews should have their own state", but then say in the next breath that those European countries, that are NOT Muslim, should open their arms to Muslims or they're racist/xenophobes/haters/etc.
Can't have it both ways people. Either you allow each religion to have their own state, or you don't.
Technically speaking, Islam HAS its own state, its "place of birth" - and it's Saudi Arabia with its Mecca and Koran for Constitution.
Are you advising to send all Jews to Israel then, and all Muslims to Saudi Arabia?
Technically speaking, Islam HAS its own state, its "place of birth" - and it's Saudi Arabia with its Mecca and Koran for Constitution.
Are you advising to send all Jews to Israel then, and all Muslims to Saudi Arabia?
You again?
Sounds to me like that's what they want. Only Jews in Israel. So, if that's the case, then why can't Europe have ONLY Christians or Catholics, as they want?
As I wrote a response on another thread, I thought this post deserved its own thread. I modified it slightly.
The Jewish New Year comes, as it always seems to come, after a "long hot summer" of warfare, human catastrophe involving the Middle East, and gloom over solutions. The Reform Jewish sermons focus on this suffering and our duty to help alleviate it.
A lot of negative attention seems to focus on Israel. Israel is sometimes out and out blamed for the problems. Now, some have suggested that Israel should let itself be swamped by refugees. Many people seem to have a problem with the Jews having a state. Because of the lingering guilt over the Holocaust this difficulty is expressed as support for "Palestinian rights" or now the needs of refugees from surrounding failed states such as Syria and Iraq.
On the other side I have seen Jews use the argument that "we were there first," pointing to Biblical history. Whatever the truth of that is (and I give the Bible a good amount of credit as a largely accurate oral history) I think it is a very bad idea to use "who was here first" as an argument. If there was any validity the Great Rift Valley of Africa would be a very crowded place.
Early on, the Neanderthals lost out to Cro Magnum man, and those to modern homo sapiens. Since the Great Rift Valley (or if you're Biblical Garden of Eden) days there have been numerous movements of people throughout the globe. It's a fact that the more advanced people, intellectually and otherwise, usually win the inevitable contests. The Native Americans (or if you're Canadian First Nations) lost to the incoming Europeans, big time. Some such as the Taino and the Arawak in the Caribbean did even worse. The Australian Aboriginals lost to the Europeans. Throughout Asian history there have been conquests and slaughters.
More recently, I just read last night that 12 million German speaking people were expelled from Czechoslovakia (as it was then known), Poland, Ukraine and the Balkans after WW II. This was in theory in retaliation for German brutality during WW II. Which brutality was in retaliation for Versailles. And so it goes.
Getting to the bottom line I find it particularly abhorrent that the one movement of people, that of Zionist Jews in the early 20th Century and the post-WW II movement of Jews to the land of Israel is subject to particular Western, self-righteous attack. I don't know if it's a sudden spasm of "conscience," Western self-loathing or a reincarnation of anti-Judaism (I think the latter). But Jews, as always, lose out. Hopefully they lose out only on university campuses and on the pages of elite newspapers. I worry that developments such as the Iran treaty show that it could wind up being far worse.
IF ( and only IF) you bring bible in conversation, then your own argument that "it's a very bad idea to use who was here first argument" becomes flawed. Because bible says ( very specifically at that) that 1. Jews are chosen people ( as in "set aside" for certain purpose I assume,)
and 2. Bible very specifically points at the land that has been given to them by God himself.
No one else in the "Great Rift Valley of Africa" has been specified in the bible in the same manner in this respect.
So...if we are talking in a biblical context of it, then that's the reason Jews claimed their land in specific place and that's the reason they've received it ( otherwise England (or rather English Queen) who agreed on the deal of Jewish settlement in Palestine) would have denied the bible and hence - Britain's own Christian Church.
But if God doesn't exist, and bible is just another hoax, then Jews might have asked for their "home land" in Madagascar - it wouldn't have made any difference.
Overall you might find this read on a subject interesting; to me it was quite enlightening.
Sounds to me like that's what they want. Only Jews in Israel. So, if that's the case, then why can't Europe have ONLY Christians or Catholics, as they want?
Yes its' me again - I'm sure you are glad to see me.
As for your question why can't Europe have ONLY Christians - I'd say that hypothetically speaking they can. The only problem is, they'll get into their own trap, because officially they are secular states.
I'm a Jew and believe in many things that happened in the Bible. I do believe Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people given to us by God. There's even archaeological evidence proving its existence as a Jewish kingdom for centuries before Christianity existed, and 2000 years before Mohammed was born. That said, who cares about whose land it was before? Israel is there now as a Jewish state and has every right to continue existing there as such. Protesting Israel's existence does nothing but expose anti-Semites.
As I wrote a response on another thread, I thought this post deserved its own thread. I modified it slightly.
The Jewish New Year comes, as it always seems to come, after a "long hot summer" of warfare, human catastrophe involving the Middle East, and gloom over solutions. The Reform Jewish sermons focus on this suffering and our duty to help alleviate it.
A lot of negative attention seems to focus on Israel. Israel is sometimes out and out blamed for the problems. Now, some have suggested that Israel should let itself be swamped by refugees. Many people seem to have a problem with the Jews having a state. Because of the lingering guilt over the Holocaust this difficulty is expressed as support for "Palestinian rights" or now the needs of refugees from surrounding failed states such as Syria and Iraq.
On the other side I have seen Jews use the argument that "we were there first," pointing to Biblical history. Whatever the truth of that is (and I give the Bible a good amount of credit as a largely accurate oral history) I think it is a very bad idea to use "who was here first" as an argument. If there was any validity the Great Rift Valley of Africa would be a very crowded place.
Early on, the Neanderthals lost out to Cro Magnum man, and those to modern homo sapiens. Since the Great Rift Valley (or if you're Biblical Garden of Eden) days there have been numerous movements of people throughout the globe. It's a fact that the more advanced people, intellectually and otherwise, usually win the inevitable contests. The Native Americans (or if you're Canadian First Nations) lost to the incoming Europeans, big time. Some such as the Taino and the Arawak in the Caribbean did even worse. The Australian Aboriginals lost to the Europeans. Throughout Asian history there have been conquests and slaughters.
More recently, I just read last night that 12 million German speaking people were expelled from Czechoslovakia (as it was then known), Poland, Ukraine and the Balkans after WW II. This was in theory in retaliation for German brutality during WW II. Which brutality was in retaliation for Versailles. And so it goes.
Getting to the bottom line I find it particularly abhorrent that the one movement of people, that of Zionist Jews in the early 20th Century and the post-WW II movement of Jews to the land of Israel is subject to particular Western, self-righteous attack. I don't know if it's a sudden spasm of "conscience," Western self-loathing or a reincarnation of anti-Judaism (I think the latter). But Jews, as always, lose out. Hopefully they lose out only on university campuses and on the pages of elite newspapers. I worry that developments such as the Iran treaty show that it could wind up being far worse.
I had no ideas on why there were people against the Jews. And I still don't.
I believe the state of Israel was established to prevent the Jewish hollocaust ever happens again. In fact, the state of Israel was planned to establish in China. But the then Chinese president CKS refused on the basis that the Chinese lands were of the ancestarl possessions. Afterall, the Western Imperial encrouchments spooked the Chinese.
However, I still have no idea why the state of Israel shall not be established. Israel was such a pillar of the world history. I believe in some places, even a complete crap or lie, get a shrine or musem.
I'm a Jew and believe in many things that happened in the Bible. I do believe Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people given to us by God. There's even archaeological evidence proving its existence as a Jewish kingdom for centuries before Christianity existed, and 2000 years before Mohammed was born. That said, who cares about whose land it was before? Israel is there now as a Jewish state and has every right to continue existing there as such. Protesting Israel's existence does nothing but expose anti-Semites.
They have a right to it as long as they can hold and defend it.
When they can no longer do that, the right to that land is terminated...God or no God (which is bogus anyway).
And they are holding onto it, quite successfully. Nobody in the region can challenge them because no country in that region has a nuclear arsenal (besides Israel) or a military as strong, or stronger, than Israel.
And they are holding onto it, quite successfully. Nobody in the region can challenge them because no country in that region has a nuclear arsenal (besides Israel) or a military as strong, or stronger, than Israel.
Every world power has fallen in world history and the reason for their eventual and inevitable fall is simple: they existed in the first place.
The United States will fall one day as a world and regional power, and so will Israel, China, Russia, and so on. Ask England, France, Portugal, Spain, Japan, or Turkey about it. They'll tell you firsthand how downfalls come about.
Every world power has fallen in world history and the reason for their eventual and inevitable fall is simple: they existed in the first place.
The United States will fall one day as a world and regional power, and so will Israel, China, Russia, and so on. Ask England, France, Portugal, Spain, Japan, or Turkey about it. They'll tell you firsthand how downfalls come about.
So please...stick your chest back in.
There was never in the whole history a country with nuclear power that was occupied by outside enemies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
