You know, reading the quotes in the original post, you almost make it sound as if the Nazis were NICER about it.

chucksc

No, please that's not what I'm saying at all....

I made 2 statements stating 2 truths.

Why has Isreal been at war with its neighbors ever since its creation in 1948?

What happened...what did the mighty and powerful Isreal do? Being attacked by Arabs and defending themselves is one thing.  But it's quite another thing that Isreal didn't stop at defending themselves but Isreal actually went much futrther ...they took over the land as their own and occupied and populated it with their own people.

CHUCKSC POSTS:

Can you imagine if the mighty and powerful Americans would have done that same thing in Iraq after defeating Saddam Hussein? Can you imagine if Americans would have moved there, taken over the land as our own and populated it with our own people?

SIN is the real cause of wars and the world's ills.

I have never heard of one.

There was Rabbi Kahane who advocated an Arab-free Israel. He didn't advocate the killing of them. In the great scale of things that makes him the equivalent of the "moderate" Arab leaders who advocate Jew-free Arab states (like Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, and the PLO's "Palestine").

His political party (Kach) has been outlawed in Israel after Kahane's death in 1994 and perhaps rightly so.

Israels' foreign minister pursues a strategy of changing the border to annex Arab towns to the PLO state and Jewish towns in the West-Bank to Israel. But he doesn't draw the line between Jews and Arabs but between those loyal to the state and those not. (And his party has considerable support among Israeli Arabs.) One problem with that strategy is that most Israeli Arabs do not want to live under PLO rule.

Those two are the worst I know of.

You will easily find supporters of the Palestinian cause who will tell you that all Zionists (or most or many of them) advocate the extermination of Arabs (in fact there is a lot of "master race" talk in that crowd). But I dare say that you will have difficulty finding a Zionist who will actually believe in that ideology.

And if you don't believe me you can try it out. Travel to the most Zionist place in the world (I recommend Tel Aviv, the first Hebrew city) and pretend to be an Arab. Then travel to an Arab city and pretend to be a Jew. That way you can easily find out what each side wants to do to the other if given half a chance.

But I have to warn you. My own experience sharing a university dorm with Arabs in Haifa on the one hand and being told by a Kurdish soldier not to tell anyone I was Jewish in the Arab part of Iraq on the other suggests that perhaps the theory of moral equivalence between the two positions has a weak spot.

No Arab country anywhere does bag checks at the entrance to shopping malls or cinemas because of the fear that a Zionist might smuggle in a bomb and blow up the building. It's just too rare an event to justify being overly careful.

We covered that: for the same reason as all non-Arab communities have been at war with the Arabs. Arab nationalism does not accept non-Arab societies in the Midde-East and North-Africa.

Show me ONE non-Arab community in the former Ottoman Empire outside today's Turkey that is not at war with the Arab rulers and we can identify the difference between that community and the Jews to figure out the why.

And which land would that be?

There are but a few ten thousand Jews in the West-Bank, some of whom live in communities that have been Jewish for over 3000 years. Doesn't look like "populate with their own people" to me. Jews buy land in the territories. Arabs sell it to them and the terrorists don't like it. Did you know that there is a death penalty for selling land to Jews in the West-Bank?

As I said before Israel offered the occupied land bank just after the six-day war in exchange for peace. The Arabs rejected it.

But at some point I think it must be legitimate to settle land won in war. If not, what legitimacy would the Arabs have to live anywhere outside Arabia? And how we justify the Polish ownership of Silesia or the existence of the country of Australia?

Like you did with Louisiana, Texas, California, Oregon, Hawaii and Alaska?

Yes, I can imagine.

But that's a bad example really, because Americans can live freely in America. Middle-eastern Jews cannot live anywhere but Israel. And there is absolutely no reason for why a Jew should not be allowed to buy a house in East-Jerusalem or get the house back that the Arabs stole from him in 1948.

And Jews have lived in Israel (including the West-Bank) for literally thousands of years. Europeans only arrived in America 500 years ago yet you make up more than 90% of the population of North-America including the slave population you imported.

I have to laugh at you Lula on this.  This is the pot calling the kettle black.  The Talmud is Jewish tradition and opinion written by their Rabbis thru the centuries.  It's absolutely NO different than the RCC traditions only instead of Rabbis it's Popes!!   

You've got to be kidding me!!! 

KFC,

 You're jumping at straws again.

Yes, my dear KFC, there is a difference....a huge difference between the Talmud's oral traditions of Rabbinic (man-made) Judaism and Apostolic Sacred Tradition.

But the first point to drive home is the difference between Jewish oral Tradition of God-made OT Judaism and Talmudic oral tradition of man-made Rabbinic Judaism.

 Jewish oral Tradiiton of God-made Judaism during the time of Moses and Aaron expressed through its priesthood was authoritative truth, not opinion.  That ended though with the coming of the prophecied Messias, in the Divine Person of Jesus who instituted a New Covenantal priesthood in the order of Melchesidech and the new Sacrifice (clean oblation=Holy Eucharist) predicted by Malachais chapter 1. You really ought to read it for true understanding.

 On the other hand, the Talmud is an extensive, rabbinical compilation of of very diverse doctrinal and ritual opinions, interpretations, and disucssions of thousands of Rabbis beloinging to various schools. The Talmud consists of the Mishnah ( traditional oral law reduced to writing in 200AD)and the 2 Gemaras, the Palestinian and the Babylonian, which are bodies of traditional lore, legends, anecdotes,  develolped into commentary that minutely governs the way od life of Orthodox Jews.

lula posts:

The Talmud is of the Jewrey that has ceased to have an Aaronic priesthood, Temple with its Holy of Holies, or a Sanhedrin. HENCE, the Talmud originated in a Jewry that was devoid of any God--given authority.

 Apostolic Tradition of the Church is doctrinal truth from authoritative ordained priests guided by the Holy Spirit as were "the Apostles and the ancients" at the first Council at Jerusalem in 49AD Acts. 15.

Lula, Leauki's right on this one.  Totally. 

This is nothing more than anti-semetic talk Lula.  You've been brainwashed here.  Totally.  Your premise is the RCC has replaced Judaism and that is so not true. 

You and your belief system is exactly the same type of system that Paul fought when he went after the Judaizers since he was one himself before his conversion. 

Consider what he said to the Phillippians in chap 3 fighting the Judaizers:

"For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God who glory in Christ Jesus and who put no confidence in the flesh though I myself have reasons for such confidence.  If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh I have more:

circumcised the 8th day, of the stock of Israel of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews as touching the law a Pharisee.  Concerning zeal, persecution the church touching the righteousness which is the law blameless.  But what things were gain to me those I counted loss for Christ. 

Originally he was prideful.  He thought he was right in his being a Pharisee.  He was the creme de la creme.  He came from great stock.  Had it made in the shade.   The ex-Catholics can say the same here to the practicing Catholics today just as converted Paul said to the Judaizers except they would say it this way:

"For it is we who are the baptized, we who worship by the Spirit of God who glory in Christ Jesus and who put no confidence in the flesh though I myself have reasons for such confidence.  If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh I have more: 

baptized the 8th day, of the stock of the Roman Catholic Church, a Catholic of Catholics as touching the traditions of the Holy Catholic Church a, Eucharist Minister,  Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, Pope, Saint (fill in the blank).  Concerning zeal, persecuting the true church (the universal church) touching the righteousness which is the Cathechism blameless.   But what things were gain to me those I counted loss for Christ. 

In other words, leaving those things behind, while they were worldly gain for me belonging to such a group of people, I left them, taking a loss to my personal well being for Christ.  I died to self to live for Christ.  I left the traditions of men for the cross of Christ. 

My very Catholic mother in law, bless her soul, also talked like Paul did only in her Catholic traditional way.  She sorrowed that our children were not being brought up in the traditon of the RCC saying they would lose their inheritance.  She talked alot about inheritance and tradition.  As they grew older she spoke less of this as she saw a Godly spirit in them that she didn't see in the rest of her grandchildren who were attending the RCC.  She couldn't help but see a difference.  What my kids had was real and it was manifested in them.  They talked about Jesus as tho he was their best friend and a real presence in their lives.   What the other grandkids had was superficial, fleshly, and empty and it too was manifested in their behaviors.   Now all in their 20's not one of the 12 other cousins attend their RCC today but two of my three children are very Godly attending church every single Sunday.  They are spiritual young men although my third one vaccilates not willing to give up what he perceives to be complete control to another.  I still pray for his return and I believe God will answer that prayer.   

I'd rather be wrong than replaced.

kfc posts:

I can assure you your Protestant forefathers being apostate Catholic priests, knew the difference between "traditions of men" and "Sacred Tradition", which Tradition St.Paul told us to steadfastly hold. Earlier in the same letter, he said, "We charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they received of us." 2Th. 3:6.

What  is Sacred Tradition? Since all the Apostles shared the universal mission the infallibility of all was a logical necessity if the teaching Christ had commanded was to be protected. Their consciousness of this corporate infallibility came from the Apostles and the ancients" Acts. 15:23 who said at the Council of Jerusalem, "it hath seemed good to the Holy GHost and to us.." 15:28,. Well, the bishops who teach in union with the Pope of the teach with the very same guarantee agaisnt error.

We know Christ never told His followers to write anything or us to read anything. Rather, Christ said, "He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me." We see nowhere in Scripture any hint that the same men whom Christ sent as though He Himself were the speaker and preacher, or their successors were to be deprived of their God-given authority.

Furthermore, there is nothing in Scripture that were to be replaced with some written account of some of the preeaching of some of them.   

Before a word of Sacred Scripture had been set down Christ commanded His APostles, and by extension their successors, to teach the whole world all the things He had commanded. The method by which His teaching would be passed on was chosen by Christ...and we cannot improve on the order in which He proceeded...from the Chruch to the Bible.

All doctrines relating to Faith and defined by the Apostolic Succession are to be believed as truths, whether or not they are explicitly found in the Bible. There  can never be a contradiction between what the Holy Ghost says here, and what He says there. God's Revelation of salvation history includes both Sacred Scripture and taht Apostolic Tezaching which was preserved in practice, called Tradition.

These bodies of written and oral Truth is passed on through the authoritative teaching of an infallible Chruch. "Many other signs also did Jesus in sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book."

Christ came on earth to teach a true doctrine which will last for all time. He establishe dHis Chruch and took the means to prevent His Chruch to which He committed the continuation of His work from ever falling into error and therefore corrupting His doctrine.

Now, the Scriptural proofs of the Chruch's infallibility are so numerous that it's hard to see how anyone can deny them. I'll cite just one..."Know how thou ought to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Chruch of the living God, the pillar and ground of Truth." Unless the Church were infallible, St.Paul would be a liar and you know for sure that he isn't.  Without infallibility there would be no absolute certainity or finality in regard to any of the truths which are of the very essence of Christianity. The fact, for instance, that the Chruch condemned Arius at the Coundl of Nicea in 325 for denying the divinity of Christ would have absolutely no weight unless the condemnation could be regarded as certanly free from error. That's Sacred Tradtion.

On Sacred Tradition, if Luther and Calvin and now you are right, St.Paul is wrong.

Your Protestant forefathers knew well that Apostolic teaching preserved in Sacred Tradition is infallibility of the Church..and that's why they denied Sacred Tradition and established their own religion of Protestantism.

The simple truth is, the un and the Jewish settlers moved into an existing country, whose population was of mixed races, however redominately Palestinian. The jewish people who now inhabit Israel, are not Isralites, instead predominately European and American. This is not the creation of a home for a people from here, rather a home for anyone who is of the Jewish religon. These people have taken land from others, based purly on the premise that they are the chosen people, and who cares about the people they displace. I would say the Palestinian people have every reason to be angry. The state of Israel is not a real state based ethnic origin, rather a state based on religon, in this case Judaism. Does this give every christian and Muslim the right to live in Israel, or at least have our own personal states where all christians can live, sounds rather stupid when you think about it. Buy the way the original ISRALITES where an ARAB tribe led by Abraham, not European or American, these people have an attachment to Israel, the rest don't, so sorry no sympathy for your treatment, you reap what you sow, and the treatment metered out to the Palestinians is akin to that of Hitler and his treatment of the Jews, you would think they above all people would understand the plight they have caused their neighbours, the Palestinians.

On the whole Israel has not acted as a good citizen, since it's inception it has been at war and is still at war.

Anyone who thinks the treatment of Palestinians by Israel is fair and warrented needs to take a reality check, who would you react if the UN took your home away and gave it to someone else?

Here is something I wrote about the relationship between Israel and the Akkadian/Assyrian language:

http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Not_A_Linguist/Not_A_Linguist_Blog/Entries/2009/6/8_The_Assyrian_Language.html

Akkad, Ashur, and Babylon were three cities in Iraq north of Sumeria. They spoke different dialects of East-Semitic languages, today referred to as Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonians. The remnants of the Assyrian people are Iraq's Christians. They are not "Arabs" either. And while we are at it, neither are the native people of North-Africa "Arabs".

I think some people believe that just because the Arabs ruled an area, all the ancient peoples in that area are suddenly "Arabs". But that notion does a grave injustice to the other, non-Arab peoples of the Middle-East.

The Imazighen (Berbers), Israelites, Kurds, Assyrians, Aramaeans, and Phoenicians are _not_ and never have been Arabs. They have (or in some cases had) their own language, have their own culture, and they should have their own countries.

Unfortunately only the Israelites have been granted that honour. And no, today's Israelis are not the zombies of European Jews. They are in fact a mixture, after several generations, of European Jews who immigrated, sometimes fled from the Holocaust, "Arab" Jews who were hunted down in Arab countries and fled to Israel, the remnant of the native local population of Israel that survived the invasions of the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, and British, and 140,000 Ethiopian Jews most of whom arrived in the late 70s and early 80s.

I find it amazing that in the 21st century there still exist people who really have no idea about the cultural wealth you can find in the Middle-East once you get over the idea that everybody there is really the same from Abraham to "King" Saud.

For some Europeans (including Americans) the world really looks like "lots of nations in Europe, everybody else is either black or Indian or Chinese or Arab", doesn't it?

Good point and question.

You miss one important point, you displaced these people with the creation of the state of Israel, no matter what your background, Israel did not exist before 1949 (in the modern world), you displaced the people living there and still do, so as far as I'm concerned you people are treating the Palestinens just as badly as you yourself were treated, you have displaced these people just as once you were displaced, and show no compassion for their plight. So why should the world treat you any better. They kill 13 people, you kill 1600., seems fair (NOT). You build a wall just like east germany, you say you didn't start the fight, it's a good thing there is so much sand over there so you people have somewhere to bury your heads. As for you saying all people in Israel are Mizrachim and Sephardim predomintely, is interesting when you look at the many people who imigrated to Israel, from all over Europe, you included, not forgetting the US.

Remember one thing sunshine, even if some of my facts were wrong, and I acknoledge that, you people have displaced many people all because of a need to "Come Home", and given that you did this you would at least expect a little compassion towards those you displaced, as should be expected in any country where the origional people have been displaced.

One last thing, the world in general is not supporting your country as much as once happened, and it's because of your treatment of "Arabs". To continue down this path will only incure the condemnation you have recieved. I am also more than aware that there were many Jewish people in northern africa, who migrated to Israel. 

I don't have an issue with the existence of your country, I do however think you people need to change the way you treat your neighbours, not to mention the fact that you flout international conventions and laws, and yet put your hand up to say you are a good citizen, sorry it dosen't work that way.

Just for the record, my grandmother was Jewish, she converted to Christianity when she married my Grandfather (Lilly), her family came from Lithuania, and she has always filled me in on the history of her forfathers, she also was a strong supporter of Israel, but like me, was offended by the treatment of non Jews. Many of my family on my Mothers side are still Practising Jews, which makes for some interesting family parties, mostly the stories they tell about their Journey to Australia, from Lithuania via England, all during the 2nd world war, and the ensuing Russian anexation. My Grandmother's parents came out here much earlier, and my GM was born here unlike many of her brothers, who decided to stay untill things got too much. Of course there were things we never discussed, eg: the Camps, where many of her family died, Ironically those that were living here already fought in the WW2, a horrible time for all.

Just so you understand, I do not condem the existence of Israel.

Leauki, I by no means expect our little chat will solve the problems of the world, far from it, I just wonder how long the people on both sides will take to come to the realisation that they will not solve their differences with the spilling of blood.

You must get sick of the fighting, and the rockets and suicide bombs. The current path you are taking is just breeding hatred between the two nations and extremism, and the harder each side pushes the worse the backlash gets.

As for the Arab thing will check, and will certainly acknoledge any error, so watch this space my friend, don't like getting facts wrong, makes one look a fool.

Actually there were still many palestinians there when the area was formed into the state of israel.The palestinians/Arabs in the area rejected it - i believe - because they felt it wasn't right that the Jews were getting a leg up politicall, as well as some other reasons (division of districts, lack of an arab state, etc.) It really ended up being a mess.(btw, don't quote me on this, im recalling it from distant memory)

~AJ