Very thought provoking question. As you know, the Old Testament was reduced into writing 1) several hundred years after the events it claims to describe 2) several different phases [it wasn't written in one book but in differing phases similar to the chronological distance between the Hindu Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Upanishads] 3) edited mostly by scribes [not rabbis but ordained priests of the Temple]. Based on these facts, the ongoing narrative of the Old Testament sought to explain the rising and falling fortunes of the Jews through their relationship with God. Basically, if some historical event was good ...it was because of man's loyalty to the covenant. If something crappy happened its because the Jews did not stay true to the word.

This rampant historicism [reminiscent of recent Black scholarship's take on US history--rewriting/re explaining the past to pursue today's political goals] all operated from the basic premise that God was eternally present in human affairs. Piss Him off, he punishes you. Love Him and stay loyal to Him and he rewards you. Unfortunately, the reality of history does not follow the scriptural calculus of reward and punishment. Good people get killed. Really crappy things happen to pious and compassionate people. Bad people are not always punished. So the Hellenistic scribes of the Old Testament really painted historical figures as cartoons--the standard model being, King XXXX was faithful to the Law [God] when he ascended the throne, then he fell into wickedness and was destroyed. People are not cartoons--they are an existential and troubled mix of good, bad, and uncertainty. This is what makes them people. That is why relying on the Old Testament either as 1) a historical compass or 2) an accurate compass in appraising people can lead to problems.

Another source of the manipulation of history in the Old Testament was that its editors were always THREATENED. Assyria swallowed the Kingdom of Israel and dispersed/culturally destroyed the 10 northern tribes. Babylon conquered Judah. The Bile was written under intense military and political uncertainty about the continuation of a Jewish state/culture. This affected its writing--the Old Testament focused on the Wrath of God and the Power of the Law against infidels and wrongdoers.
Maybe in light of its waning and precarious political fortunes, the editors of the Old Testament played up the wrathful God theme to at least make themselves feel good about Israel's past military glories [the conquest of Moab, the fall of the Canaanites, the destruction of Amalek, etc]?

Moreover, the Bible was written in historical periods where Jews were outnumbered by differing cultures and differing religious beliefs. Hence, its filled with proscriptions against cultural assimilation [everything from eating shellfish to pork and sex between men were deemed as "abominations"]. Interestingly the practices proscribed were practiced by their neighbors and the once and future rulers of the Eastern Mediterranean--the Greeks and Romans. So, as related in the Old Testament, when Israelite leaders begin to assimilate they are punished either by political misfortune or by disease.

Bottom line: the experience and conception of God has to be personal for it to be real. It cannot be based solely [or as some argue, even partially] on a document that suffers from historical, editorial, and philosophical issues......such as the Old Testament and the whole social complexes built around them.

Interestingly enough, Chinese philosophers [Confucius and Mencius in particular] employ the same historicist approach as the editors of the Old Testament--remake the past to explain the present and provide guidance for the future. Hence, not unlike the Book of Kings, Chinese dynasties are founded by strong and virtuous men only to crumble under the rule of perverted and weak men out of touch with the Mandate of Heaven. Similar historicism....similar impact on moral guidance. The humanity of the actors are stripped out so they can be turned into cartoon models for proper morality [which often upholds moral values at the time of their recharacterization].

What fucking comments have you made???

Here are the facts...

Jews were given the land as a direct result of WWII. Arabs were displaced. They hate each other. They will kill each other until one party does not exist.

The majority of the world recognizes Isreal as a "state"... and to most "Palastine" does not exist. Guess what... if current trends continue "Palastine" will never exist.

It's a fucking useless discussion...

If they use them, chemical, biological weapons or nukes.. They are history... And I do think you can bank that...

I find Labret's arguments too one sided and polysyllabic. Let me simplify:

Jews bad. Palestinians bad.

Pick a side. :ak47:

Nz

Labret, can you explain what was the reason behind the 9-11 attack?

What an interesting debate...quote what history you will, the fact remains that the Arabs want thier land back and Jews aren't going to give it back.

Why don't catastrophic things happen in Israel? That's easy, having spent four years in field ops in SE Asia and Africa and working with a number of different elite intelligence units. Israel has one advanatage over the Arabs in one specific area. The Mossad are among the most ruthless and well informed intelligence agencies in the world. They have done a remarkable job in past years, and the present, of quietly eliminating international threats to thier countries safety. They even have a trade mark, .22 long in the back of the head...the Mossad.

You all argue about what ought to be or what is fair, who gives a fuck...since the beginning of time might makes right. Empires come and go and the world keeps on spinning. Israel has little to worry about in terms of nukes, their capabilities outnumber all Arab nations combined. Chemical weapons, have you every been to Israel, the entire population has been trained how to handle a chemical attack and equipped with equipment to do so.

Saddam a threat, apparently not much...he got close once and Israel blew the plant into the stratosphere....rest assured they know exactly where Saddam is in terms of capabilites to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

Personally, if I was an Arab, I wouldn't fuck with them much, you may have notice in the last months the targeted attacks on specific Hamas leaders. Coincidence? I think not. Self preservation and superior intelligence gathering. We could learn a little.

Except it was never theirs..

Again, who cares, it's thiers now and that's all that matters.

I believe that Israel has shown remarkable restraint in using the tremendous military capabilities they pocess. Lets face it, fifty sorties and 150 marverick missles would pretty much make Saudi Arabia a useless desert.

Money, power, greed...that's what runs the world. Is it right? I don't know...I just know it has always been that way and what has happened in the past often has little to do with todayl

We aren't giving the Indians back all thier lands, we aren't going to compensate every black American because of the injustices of slavery...on and on it goes.....is it right? Probably not...maybe I am jaded from spending so many year behind a sniper rifle...you learn not to worry about right and wrong....you try to stay alive.

I am not smart enough to settle the Arab and Israeli differences, the are deep seated and have a already well documented history...none of it really means shit, tho. Israel has the capabilities we gave them and could run all 500 million Arabs to Ethiopia if they choose, too. I have no answers, apparently alot real smart guys don't either...cause it goes on and on. I can remember being briefed in some ops we were considering in Syria and they sound the same today...same countries, same problems, same solutions...same ops...that was twenty years ago...like I said...the world keeps on spinning.

Have you heard the one about Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Chairman Yasir Arafat finally sitting down to negotiate? Sharon opened with a "biblical" tale.

"Before the Israelites came to the Promised Land and settled here, Moses led them for 40 years through the desert. One day, miraculously, a stream appeared. They drank and then decided to bathe. When Moses came out of the water, he found all his clothes missing.

" 'Who took my clothes?' Moses asked. 'It was the Palestinians,' replied the Israelites."

"Wait a minute," interrupted Arafat. "There were no Palestinians during the time of Moses!"

"All right," smirked Sharon, "now that we've got that settled, let's start talking."

Haha is that true? Where did you get that info from?

No - its not true - just an old joke

if it's such a useless discussion, why are you wasting your time taking part in it?

You're not really one for coherent contributions are you? I know you have to live up to your name ... but don't you have a freehost TGP to build or something?

Please don't forget that it still costs a little to live in trailer. I wouldn't want social services to send your kids to live with me. The dental work itself would bankrupt me ...

hmmm maybe it is people called jammyjenkins and not foe that are idiots.


79.9% of Palestinians say they should support Iraq if attacked by US

Palestinian support of suicide attacks

68% in favor of suicide attcks

Before you start spouting off about freehosts and "social" services... do a little homework.

You are apparently as dumb as you sound...

I entered the discussion to clear up some facts. What have you provided?

....

That's what I thought.

Nite.

:Graucho

I have read the entire thread, and there has been some considered, intelligent and interesting input. Of course, some of the usual uninformed dummys have their idiotic input.

I will not make any statements about the subject as I have already made my position known multiple times. I have presented my, considered, solution to the problem.

[Labret] is knowledgeable about the subject and is brutally frank, but for the most part is correct, and this basic correctness has never been refuted by anyone, anytime he has posted about the subject.

Personal attacks to not refute the truth of a statement/statements and uninformed idiotic statements do not constitute a refutation of the truth.

The wheel continues to turn.

yes, i'm still waiting for another opinion worth reading.

Blah blah blah...

[labret]'s point is that Jew's have no claim to the land...

* News flash *

They live there!

By his own arguments they have the right to defend it! Why is the "western" world so intent on preventing them from using any force necessary???

.

Drumsicle,

Foe wrote the following:

"Palestinians are a bunch of terrorists 60% support suicide bombings 80% support Saddam Hussein"

Pay close attention to the word "are".
Your links merely show how many Palestinians support the attacks against Israel, therefor the links you provided are irrelevant. I would like to know how many people are actually involved in terrorist activities.

And it is no suprise that the Palestinians would support Iraq in case the US attacks them.

I don't know what board you've been reading, but I've seen his "basic correctness" and limited knowledge of the mideast and its history refuted many times. Most of the time though, there isn't even anthing to refute -- He just doesn't like Israel, is hoping for it's destruction, and seems to take delight in the murder of its citizens. People can draw there own conclusions as to why.

drumsicle - i think you are one of the more intelligent posters on gfy. if you disagree with labret's basic thesis, please refute it, point by point.

Please do so?

Those links are in response to jammyjenkins' problem with foe's statistics. He wasn't challenging foe calling them terrorists, nor were the links supporting that. They were sources for the statistics that foe cited. So I think that they are indeed relevant.

Agreed - I'd like to see that.

.

I don't think you can possibly serious. ;)

Allright. My error, I thought they were somehow posted to prove that the Palestinians are a "bunch of terrorists" as posted by Foe.

Quite:

I was reffering to you asking Drumsicle to refute point by point.

I'm not going to jump in, but its nice to see people who have some understanding of the theological and historical underpinnings of the Palestinian/Jewish conflict debating the issue.

Unfortunately the major US middle eastern policy decisions are being made by shallow fools who do not have the sort of broad historical background and commitment to objectivity it takes to render a reasonable judgement on the issue.

scathing

how will i ever recover from such an attack?

where are your facts?

I seem to have missed them among the deluge of shit you post

That's because for our leaders the interest in this situation is purely an economic one. No one cares about the history of this dispute. Israel has deep economic ties to us - Palistine doesn't. Israel is a 'beach-head' ally for us in the mideast that allows our military units to continue to step in and keep control of our oil interests. Why should we care about Palistine? As stated before, it's all about survival.

For the record, I'm not in favor of either country and I would like to see them work this out or blow each other to bits already.

where were his links?

to my eyes he just quoted random statistics, with no intelligent comment or background information.

It's just like me saying:

75% of Jews support the extermination of Palestiniens

It has no basis in fact. I've just disguised my opinion with some made up numbers.

So you side with Labret because he provides some historcial facts?

Well, ***NEWS FLASH***

There are ethical truths as well (at least most people think so).
Such as, murdering of thousands of innocent people by mass destruction weapons is wrong - and thus, if you cheer for mass destruction of innocent people, you are wrong - ethically.

uh oh... [runs]

who is this question for?

My opinion is I think both the Palestiniens and Israeli's are acting like idiots, and murdering innocent people in the process.

That's it.

Neither side is right ... I just hate the fact that the media tries to paint one side as doing the right thing, when they're patently not.

More objectivity from the US Gov and the Media (especially US) would be a big step in helping resolve the ME situation.

dude, you need to separate his argument from 'cheering for the death of some group'

if i make a coherent argument for anything under the sun, then state that i wish all retarded people were dead, that doesn't take *anything* away from my argument - ad hominem sucks.

lol

The argument goes like this

a.. blaa blaa
b.. Moses blaa blaa
c... United Nations blaa blaa

====
conclusion: Mass desctruction in the area would be right.

But we know that the conclusion is wrong, thus some of the premises must be false, if he is giving a valid argument like you are suggesting.

His basic thesis seems to be that the Jews have no claim to the land other than a bogus religious one -- Zionism.

But Zionism is no longer the issue and hasn't been the issue since Israel became a state.

Let's even say he is right and that Zionism is a bunch of misguided hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo bullshit.

It doesn't matter.

They still have a completely legitimate claim to the land. It is the only claim that anybody anywhere has to any land. It is that they are there. They ARE there. They are not moving in and trying to take over. They already did that and if you were opposed, the time to stop it was then. Now it is spilled milk.

That doesn't mean that the Palestinians or and/or other Arabs, or anybody else for that matter, can't TRY to conquer that piece of land and keep it for themselves. They can and in a limited way they are.

And that's where we've stood for over fifty years with this. The Israelis are holding the hill and the Palestinians are trying to take the hill.

Now Labret doesn't like the way they took the land from the Brits. Fine, but it doesn't mean that they aren't there now, just the same. THEY ARE. Did he like the way the Brits took the same land from the Ottoman Turks? Who gives a fuck?

Truthfully, I don't see that he really has much of a thesis. His thesis seems to be that he doesn't like the way the Jews laid claim to the land, THEREFORE, THEY CAN'T HAVE IT. Where is the thesis? So after the Israelis apologize to Labret for offending his sensibilities, they will go right on defending that little piece of land they call home.

As to the only other point I can seem to find in his anti-Israel rants, that the Jews are a group of genocidal maniacs posing as victims -- 1. He can't possibly think that Jews have some kind of monopoly on killing in the name of religion. 2. They hardly have a monopoly on victim status either. 3. It has absolutely nothing to do with Israel anyway.

enjoy your DVD player labret

Ethical?

Those so called "ethical truths" are not relevant to this discussion.
People bring those up when they have no facts to present or arguments to come up with.

There's no question about it ...

Zionism IS a bunch of misguided hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo bullshit.

Like all religion.

according to your break down, the conclusion should not be able to escape more blah, blah, blah.

Dude, if we talk about RIGHT to a piece of land, we need to define RIGHT. Eventually we need ethics. ok?

If Labret says someone has a RIGHT to a piece of land, he is already assuming that ethical truths exist. Ok?

ethics?

"You're either with us ... or against us!"

That's what shrub considers ethics.

Therefore the US should bomb:

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, France, UK (more and more), China...etc etc.

That could cost a bit.

I think that the only country that hasn't actually disagreed with the US since 9/11 is Australia.

i'll leave this for labret lol

Living in the US and arguing the land rights of people from thousands of years ago is kind of funny.

I entered to clear up the fact that 737s could not have been and were not the a/c used on 9/11...

no more -- no less.

You looking for an argument?

haha hardly an attack. Just pointing out that foe was approximately correct in his statistics according to the sources in the links I posted. The links that is, which you don't seem to be able to see.