Further, Zionism is a militaristc movement that has, from the period of time shortly after its birth, waged a campaign of terror against the Indigenous Middle Eastern populations it has encountered.
Totally, bro. All I hear from Jews is "we're going to drive them into the sea!" All those Jewish suicide bombers that get on buses in Palestine, the homemade rockets Jews fire into Palestinian neighborhoods, I mean, they're obviously terrorists. Unless I have that shit backwards, in which case you're an idiot. The existence of Israel isn't really the topic of debate at this point, or it shouldn't be, rather what the fuck all the "refugees" are going to do with their lives. Since Israel probably isn't going anywhere it might be a smart thing to do to get a fucking job or something.
Further, Zionism is a militaristc movement that has, from the period of time shortly after its birth, waged a campaign of terror against the Indigenous Middle Eastern populations it has encountered.
Totally, bro. All those Jewish suicide bombers that get on buses in Palestine, the homemade rockets Jews fire into Palestinian neighborhoods, I mean, they're obviously terrorists.
My grandfather served in the army and was in Israel as part of the peace-keeping/overseeing force the British sent to smooth things over with the Palestinians. He spent most of his time being shot at by snipers, avoiding landmines, carbombs and related sabotage by Israeli[/b] extremists. The fact that a large number of his fellow soldiers who had put their lives on the line against the Nazis were then killed by Jewish idiots left him with a lasting hatred of Jews. I personally think this was a mistake for him to put a whole group of people into the same bracket as a few religious nut-balls, but that's what ingratitude will do.
On a related note, after the 6 day war, Israel had the chance to build the temple upon the mount. Forgive me if I'm getting things wrong, and plaese[/b] somebody feel free to clear this one up for me, but isn't the whole claim to Jerusalem about the temple upon the mount? If it's built there, some Hollywood light-show from the sky will bring world peace or a second-coming, right? The reasons I've heard so far as to why Israel did not build the temple in the immediate after-math of the 6 day war is that they didn't want to stir up any further resentment. If the temple had been built, and lo and behold absolutely nothing happened[/b], to which I'd bet every penny I own, then religious claims to the land go down the toilet.
Please clear this up, as I am confused. I'm not against Jews, Israelis, Palestinians or even the French, but bollocks is bollocks.
Further, Zionism is a militaristc movement that has, from the period of time shortly after its birth, waged a campaign of terror against the Indigenous Middle Eastern populations it has encountered.
Totally, bro. All those Jewish suicide bombers that get on buses in Palestine, the homemade rockets Jews fire into Palestinian neighborhoods, I mean, they're obviously terrorists.
My grandfather served in the army and was in Israel as part of the peace-keeping/overseeing force the British sent to smooth things over with the Palestinians. He spent most of his time being shot at by snipers, avoiding landmines, carbombs and related sabotage by Israeli[/b] extremists. The fact that a large number of his fellow soldiers who had put their lives on the line against the Nazis were then killed by Jewish idiots left him with a lasting hatred of Jews. I personally think this was a mistake for him to put a whole group of people into the same bracket as a few religious nut-balls, but that's what ingratitude will do.
On a related note, after the 6 day war, Israel had the chance to build the temple upon the mount. Forgive me if I'm getting things wrong, and plaese[/b] somebody feel free to clear this one up for me, but isn't the whole claim to Jerusalem about the temple upon the mount? If it's built there, some Hollywood light-show from the sky will bring world peace or a second-coming, right? The reasons I've heard so far as to why Israel did not build the temple in the immediate after-math of the 6 day war is that they didn't want to stir up any further resentment. If the temple had been built, and lo and behold absolutely nothing happened[/b], to which I'd bet every penny I own, then religious claims to the land go down the toilet.
Please clear this up, as I am confused. I'm not against Jews, Israelis, Palestinians or even the French, but bollocks is bollocks.
GTFOHWTBS. Sad to see such ignorance come up in this thread again. Whatever negative experience your grandpa had in the army, you don't know a thing about anything else you said, and, what's more, it's pretty offensive to be chiming in out of nowhere with your ill-informed "opinions" on other peoples' religious beliefs.
When Moshe Dayan heard that the Old City had been liberated and that Israeli troops were on the Temple Mount, he immediately went over, told everyone to get out and handed the keys back to the waqf (the Muslim trust that to this day administers the Temple Mount). The waqf has been in control of the Temple Mount ever since. Dayan was no idiot; he realized that, should the Temple Mount remain in Jewish hands, there would develop within Israel an extremist movement to destroy the Mosques and rebuild the temple. He was right; there is such a movement and estimates range as to how many such Israelis there are that believe this (hundreds). Dayan understood the historical significance of the Mount to Jews but knew all hell would break loose if he didn't let the Muslims remain in control of it. Dude was a pragmatist (and it helped that he was secular and probably didn't really believe in the inherent holiness of a geographic location.)
It should be said that there is a general consensus among religious Jews also that to set foot on the Mount is forbidden since the exact location of the Ark of the Covenant is no longer known and treading on top of the Mount risks walking on top of that spot. So even most rabbis agree that Jews are forbidden from walking on the Mount (so much for your ignorant explanation above).
Never mind that the Temple Mount is the single holiest site in all of Judaism, the site of the 1st and 2nd destroyed temples, on top of which the Muslim invaders deliberately built a mosque. Never mind that there are also plenty of Jews who want nothing more than to pray on the Mount since it represents the closest spot to the destroyed Temples. But at the end of the day the fear of Muslims going apeshit trumps any religious claims; Jews are officially forbidden from praying up there. Instead they have to settle for the Western Wall, part of the retaining wall built around the 2nd temple by Herod, which sits directly below the Temple Mount and where praying Jews are subject to occassional volleys of rocks from the Muslims on top of them.
Further, Zionism is a militaristc movement that has, from the period of time shortly after its birth, waged a campaign of terror against the Indigenous Middle Eastern populations it has encountered.
Totally, bro. All those Jewish suicide bombers that get on buses in Palestine, the homemade rockets Jews fire into Palestinian neighborhoods, I mean, they're obviously terrorists.
My grandfather served in the army and was in Israel as part of the peace-keeping/overseeing force the British sent to smooth things over with the Palestinians. He spent most of his time being shot at by snipers, avoiding landmines, carbombs and related sabotage by Israeli[/b] extremists. The fact that a large number of his fellow soldiers who had put their lives on the line against the Nazis were then killed by Jewish idiots left him with a lasting hatred of Jews. I personally think this was a mistake for him to put a whole group of people into the same bracket as a few religious nut-balls, but that's what ingratitude will do.
On a related note, after the 6 day war, Israel had the chance to build the temple upon the mount. Forgive me if I'm getting things wrong, and plaese[/b] somebody feel free to clear this one up for me, but isn't the whole claim to Jerusalem about the temple upon the mount? If it's built there, some Hollywood light-show from the sky will bring world peace or a second-coming, right? The reasons I've heard so far as to why Israel did not build the temple in the immediate after-math of the 6 day war is that they didn't want to stir up any further resentment. If the temple had been built, and lo and behold absolutely nothing happened[/b], to which I'd bet every penny I own, then religious claims to the land go down the toilet.
Please clear this up, as I am confused. I'm not against Jews, Israelis, Palestinians or even the French, but bollocks is bollocks.
GTFOHWTBS. Sad to see such ignorance come up in this thread again. Whatever negative experience your grandpa had in the army, you don't know a thing about anything else you said, and, what's more, it's pretty offensive to be chiming in out of nowhere with your ill-informed "opinions" on other peoples' religious beliefs.
When Moshe Dayan heard that the Old City had been liberated and that Israeli troops were on the Temple Mount, he immediately went over, told everyone to get out and handed the keys back to the waqf (the Muslim trust that to this day administers the Temple Mount). The waqf has been in control of the Temple Mount ever since. Dayan was no idiot; he realized that, should the Temple Mount remain in Jewish hands, there would develop within Israel an extremist movement to destroy the Mosques and rebuild the temple. He was right; there is such a movement and estimates range as to how many such Israelis there are that believe this (hundreds). Dayan understood the historical significance of the Mount to Jews but knew all hell would break loose if he didn't let the Muslims remain in control of it. Dude was a pragmatist (and it helped that he was secular and probably didn't really believe in the inherent holiness of a geographic location.)
It should be said that there is a general consensus among religious Jews also that to set foot on the Mount is forbidden since the exact location of the Ark of the Covenant is no longer known and treading on top of the Mount risks walking on top of that spot. So even most rabbis agree that Jews are forbidden from walking on the Mount (so much for your ignorant explanation above).
Never mind that the Temple Mount is the single holiest site in all of Judaism, the site of the 1st and 2nd destroyed temples, on top of which the Muslim invaders deliberately built a mosque. Never mind that there are also plenty of Jews who want nothing more than to pray on the Mount since it represents the closest spot to the destroyed Temples. But at the end of the day the fear of Muslims going apeshit trumps any religious claims; Jews are officially forbidden from praying up there. Instead they have to settle for the Western Wall, part of the retaining wall built around the 2nd temple by Herod, which sits directly below the Temple Mount and where praying Jews are subject to occassional volleys of rocks from the Muslims on top of them.
B*n comes through with some for the people.
It's sad to know that such prejudicial thought is around in this day and age. Furthermore this goes to show how hatred is passed down from generation to generation
Further, Zionism is a militaristc movement that has, from the period of time shortly after its birth, waged a campaign of terror against the Indigenous Middle Eastern populations it has encountered.
Totally, bro. All those Jewish suicide bombers that get on buses in Palestine, the homemade rockets Jews fire into Palestinian neighborhoods, I mean, they're obviously terrorists.
My grandfather served in the army and was in Israel as part of the peace-keeping/overseeing force the British sent to smooth things over with the Palestinians. He spent most of his time being shot at by snipers, avoiding landmines, carbombs and related sabotage by Israeli[/b] extremists. The fact that a large number of his fellow soldiers who had put their lives on the line against the Nazis were then killed by Jewish idiots left him with a lasting hatred of Jews. I personally think this was a mistake for him to put a whole group of people into the same bracket as a few religious nut-balls, but that's what ingratitude will do.
On a related note, after the 6 day war, Israel had the chance to build the temple upon the mount. Forgive me if I'm getting things wrong, and plaese[/b] somebody feel free to clear this one up for me, but isn't the whole claim to Jerusalem about the temple upon the mount? If it's built there, some Hollywood light-show from the sky will bring world peace or a second-coming, right? The reasons I've heard so far as to why Israel did not build the temple in the immediate after-math of the 6 day war is that they didn't want to stir up any further resentment. If the temple had been built, and lo and behold absolutely nothing happened[/b], to which I'd bet every penny I own, then religious claims to the land go down the toilet.
Please clear this up, as I am confused. I'm not against Jews, Israelis, Palestinians or even the French, but bollocks is bollocks.
GTFOHWTBS. Sad to see such ignorance come up in this thread again. Whatever negative experience your grandpa had in the army, you don't know a thing about anything else you said, and, what's more, it's pretty offensive to be chiming in out of nowhere with your ill-informed "opinions" on other peoples' religious beliefs.
When Moshe Dayan heard that the Old City had been liberated and that Israeli troops were on the Temple Mount, he immediately went over, told everyone to get out and handed the keys back to the waqf (the Muslim trust that to this day administers the Temple Mount). The waqf has been in control of the Temple Mount ever since. Dayan was no idiot; he realized that, should the Temple Mount remain in Jewish hands, there would develop within Israel an extremist movement to destroy the Mosques and rebuild the temple. He was right; there is such a movement and estimates range as to how many such Israelis there are that believe this (hundreds). Dayan understood the historical significance of the Mount to Jews but knew all hell would break loose if he didn't let the Muslims remain in control of it. Dude was a pragmatist (and it helped that he was secular and probably didn't really believe in the inherent holiness of a geographic location.)
It should be said that there is a general consensus among religious Jews also that to set foot on the Mount is forbidden since the exact location of the Ark of the Covenant is no longer known and treading on top of the Mount risks walking on top of that spot. So even most rabbis agree that Jews are forbidden from walking on the Mount (so much for your ignorant explanation above).
Never mind that the Temple Mount is the single holiest site in all of Judaism, the site of the 1st and 2nd destroyed temples, on top of which the Muslim invaders deliberately built a mosque. Never mind that there are also plenty of Jews who want nothing more than to pray on the Mount since it represents the closest spot to the destroyed Temples. But at the end of the day the fear of Muslims going apeshit trumps any religious claims; Jews are officially forbidden from praying up there. Instead they have to settle for the Western Wall, part of the retaining wall built around the 2nd temple by Herod, which sits directly below the Temple Mount and where praying Jews are subject to occassional volleys of rocks from the Muslims on top of them.
B*n comes through with some for the people.
It's sad to know that such prejudicial thought is around in this day and age. Furthermore this goes to show how hatred is passed down from generation to generation
The existence of Israel isn't really the topic of debate at this point, or it shouldn't be, rather what the fuck all the "refugees" are going to do with their lives. Since Israel probably isn't going anywhere it might be a smart thing to do to get a fucking job or something.
OK, I'll get right on CCing that message to the "refugees." Pray tell, on what side of the razor wire enclosure do the best jobs lie? Best way for a "refugee" to dress for success? Will shoes covered in sewage be viewed as a liability?
Also, let me comment that I like your "cut the fat" approach re: the conflating of terms "Israeli" and "Jew." Did Israel advance the notion that "the Israelis"= "the Jewish people at large" first? Did the Palestinians . . .err "those people"? Really, why dwell on matters as trivial as language and its social implications? JOBS!-- Gainful employment is the answer and by Allah those surly, ungrateful bastards need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and take advantage of the conucopia of opportunities that await the Good Arabs.
Never mind that the Temple Mount is the single holiest site in all of Judaism, the site of the 1st and 2nd destroyed temples, on top of which the Muslim invaders deliberately built a mosque. Never mind that there are also plenty of Jews who want nothing more than to pray on the Mount since it represents the closest spot to the destroyed Temples. But at the end of the day the fear of Muslims going apeshit trumps any religious claims; Jews are officially forbidden from praying up there. Instead they have to settle for the Western Wall, part of the retaining wall built around the 2nd temple by Herod, which sits directly below the Temple Mount and where praying Jews are subject to occassional volleys of rocks from the Muslims on top of them.
Your talk of "Muslim invaders" and "Muslims going apeshit" kinda reveal your bias. Do you believe that the temple is more important to Jews than it is to Muslims? Why?
Further, Zionism is a militaristc movement that has, from the period of time shortly after its birth, waged a campaign of terror against the Indigenous Middle Eastern populations it has encountered.
Totally, bro. All I hear from Jews is "we're going to drive them into the sea!" All those Jewish suicide bombers that get on buses in Palestine, the homemade rockets Jews fire into Palestinian neighborhoods, I mean, they're obviously terrorists. Unless I have that shit backwards, in which case you're an idiot. The existence of Israel isn't really the topic of debate at this point, or it shouldn't be, rather what the fuck all the "refugees" are going to do with their lives. Since Israel probably isn't going anywhere it might be a smart thing to do to get a fucking job or something.
Ignorance is bliss.
The existence of Israel is not the topic here, as it has every right to exist, but how their leaders are doing it (and have been doing it) is questionable to say the least. It would be a good start for the pro-Israel people on this board to condemn the Gaza situation as criminal. All I hear is silence.
AreDouble: it's pointless to use terms like "Indigenous Middle Eastern populations", since these peoples do not exist, at least anymore. Jewish people have inhabited the Palestinian land since ca. 1200 BC, but when they arrived there were already people living there. It is possible that they were the ancestors of current Palestinians, but it cannot be proved. My point: "xxx were there first" -arguments are silly.
it's pretty offensive to be chiming in out of nowhere with your ill-informed "opinions" on other peoples' religious beliefs.
When Moshe Dayan heard that the Old City had been liberated and that Israeli troops were on the Temple Mount, he immediately went over, told everyone to get out and handed the keys back to the waqf (the Muslim trust that to this day administers the Temple Mount). The waqf has been in control of the Temple Mount ever since. Dayan was no idiot; he realized that, should the Temple Mount remain in Jewish hands, there would develop within Israel an extremist movement to destroy the Mosques and rebuild the temple. He was right; there is such a movement and estimates range as to how many such Israelis there are that believe this (hundreds). Dayan understood the historical significance of the Mount to Jews but knew all hell would break loose if he didn't let the Muslims remain in control of it. Dude was a pragmatist (and it helped that he was secular and probably didn't really believe in the inherent holiness of a geographic location.)
It should be said that there is a general consensus among religious Jews also that to set foot on the Mount is forbidden since the exact location of the Ark of the Covenant is no longer known and treading on top of the Mount risks walking on top of that spot. So even most rabbis agree that Jews are forbidden from walking on the Mount (so much for your ignorant explanation above).
I was given the above explanation by somebody else, somebody who could only describe the Palestinians as 'blood-thirsty animals'. He also gave me the brief explanation about the Temple-upon-the-mount. Thank you for a slightly more informed account of it's importance to the religious.
1. Basically, my point was that if religious claims over Jerusalem/Israel/Palestine were cast aside, this is basically about land, and if it was agreed by both parties (Palestinians and Israelis) that this is all it's really about, then the playing field might be a bit more level.
2. The general belief that the Palestianians started the urban terrorist thing in the area is bullshit though, and the hypocrisy of this notion stinks.
Ideas 1 + 2 do not mean I'm anti-semetic. Maybe ill-informed as to the religious importance of the Israeli or Muslim claim on the land, but I'm an aetheist and feel that using make-believe bullshit to justify bloodshed should have finished in the dark ages.
It's sad to know that such prejudicial thought is around in this day and age. Furthermore this goes to show how hatred is passed down from generation to generation
I only just noticed this. You are more fucked in the head than the deniers you're lambasting. I wrote that I didn't[/b] agree with my grandfather's blanket discrimination - how else do I need to put that for you, you schmuck. I can hardly say that he was wrong to be pissed off at the individuals trying to kill him and his fellow soldiers that were lucky enough to survive WW2. What the fuck do you want from me? An apology on behalf of the prejudice of my grandfather? I'm sorry he hated Jews for what happened to him in Palestine & Israel. I'm not sorry for your sake, I'm sorry for him as that was a stupid reaction - it's not something I typed out of pride. Sheesh.
If I don't know the history of a particular school of brainwashing, how is that prejudicial thought? If I think that religion is a bullshit excuse to kill or covet land, how is that prejudicial thought? I'm not against Israelis having land anymore than the Palestinians, but the status quo is fucked, imho.
Hatered passed down from generation to generation? You fucking moron. Fucking moron. If I'm going to be labelled as racist or full of hatred, then I might as well teach my children to hate Guzzo for being an ass-wipe, as he obviously won't read and understand any of this anyway.
"Always remember, Guzzo is an ass-wipe. Do not question this, ever! ... oh, and pass it on"
If I think that religion is a bullshit excuse to kill or covet land, how is that prejudicial thought?
I don't care about any religious claims. Who gives a shit about god? I haven't been to a shule in years and have no plan to visit one in the future. I'm happy for the existance of Israel simply because its a safe haven from Gentiles who use their religious devotion as excuse to kill you or from people who use Jews as scapegoats for society's ills. If some maniac riles up the gentile masses & tries to organize a pogrom, it brings me peace of mind to know there's a nation with a lot of bombs, weapons, and highly trained killers that will protect you. In short, Israel protects us from people like you and your familiy!
Never mind that the Temple Mount is the single holiest site in all of Judaism, the site of the 1st and 2nd destroyed temples, on top of which the Muslim invaders deliberately built a mosque. Never mind that there are also plenty of Jews who want nothing more than to pray on the Mount since it represents the closest spot to the destroyed Temples. But at the end of the day the fear of Muslims going apeshit trumps any religious claims; Jews are officially forbidden from praying up there. Instead they have to settle for the Western Wall, part of the retaining wall built around the 2nd temple by Herod, which sits directly below the Temple Mount and where praying Jews are subject to occassional volleys of rocks from the Muslims on top of them.
Your talk of "Muslim invaders" and "Muslims going apeshit" kinda reveal your bias. Do you believe that the temple is more important to Jews than it is to Muslims? Why?
The truth hurts I guess. The Muslims invaded. (Just like the Romans, Mamlukes, etc.). That's what happened. Do you seriously deny this?
As for the apeshit comment: While I could have been more polite in my language, the essential truth remains: Were it not for fear of widespread violence, Jews would have the right to pray at their holiest spot.
Welcome to the Middle East, where the so-called "oppressors" occupy less than one-sixth of one-percent of the land and have to draft every citizen over 18 just to protect their right to live in their own holiest city.
Never mind that the Temple Mount is the single holiest site in all of Judaism, the site of the 1st and 2nd destroyed temples, on top of which the Muslim invaders deliberately built a mosque. Never mind that there are also plenty of Jews who want nothing more than to pray on the Mount since it represents the closest spot to the destroyed Temples. But at the end of the day the fear of Muslims going apeshit trumps any religious claims; Jews are officially forbidden from praying up there. Instead they have to settle for the Western Wall, part of the retaining wall built around the 2nd temple by Herod, which sits directly below the Temple Mount and where praying Jews are subject to occassional volleys of rocks from the Muslims on top of them.
Your talk of "Muslim invaders" and "Muslims going apeshit" kinda reveal your bias. Do you believe that the temple is more important to Jews than it is to Muslims? Why?
The truth hurts I guess. The Muslims invaded. (Just like the Romans, Mamlukes, etc.). That's what happened. Do you seriously deny this?
As for the apeshit comment: While I could have been more polite in my language, the essential truth remains: Were it not for fear of widespread violence, Jews would have the right to pray at their holiest spot.
Welcome to the Middle East, where the so-called "oppressors" occupy less than one-sixth of one-percent of the land and have to draft every citizen over 18 just to protect their right to live in their own holiest city.
PS PM me if you are serious about the "Temple is more important to Jews than it is to Muslims" question. It sounds like a joke but I'd be happy to talk to you about it if you're serious.
It's sad to know that such prejudicial thought is around in this day and age. Furthermore this goes to show how hatred is passed down from generation to generation
I only just noticed this. You are more fucked in the head than the deniers you're lambasting. I wrote that I didn't[/b] agree with my grandfather's blanket discrimination - how else do I need to put that for you, you schmuck. I can hardly say that he was wrong to be pissed off at the individuals trying to kill him and his fellow soldiers that were lucky enough to survive WW2. What the fuck do you want from me? An apology on behalf of the prejudice of my grandfather? I'm sorry he hated Jews for what happened to him in Palestine & Israel. I'm not sorry for your sake, I'm sorry for him as that was a stupid reaction - it's not something I typed out of pride. Sheesh.
*sigh*
My grandfather served in the army and was in Israel as part of the peace-keeping/overseeing force the British sent to smooth things over with the Palestinians. He spent most of his time being shot at by snipers, avoiding landmines, carbombs and related sabotage by Israeli extremists. The fact that a large number of his fellow soldiers who had put their lives on the line against the Nazis were then killed by Jewish idiots left him with a lasting hatred of Jews.[/b] I personally think this was a mistake for him to put a whole group of people into the same bracket as a few religious nut-balls, but that's what ingratitude will do.
this is what you wrote. I'm sorry you can't see the bias in your own words. Perhaps it would be better for you not to speak if this is the case.
A few things you should really think about with your above statement
1. Do you really think your grandfather, or the British military really gave a fuck about the Jewish people? It's not like the UK has a great history of equality. But if you want to think that your grandpa was part of mission to "smooth things over" than perhaps you should read this article from FrontPageMagazine.com
2. What part of your use of the term "Jewish idiots" is supposed to show your open minded non-influenced equality beliefs?
3. What do you really know about British actions in Palestine pre-1948? Hate is spread by listening to people you trust and having them tell you things from their perspective. Babies aren't born with hate of a race or peoples, they are taught it and believe it or not it usually isn't outright. It comes in their actions, their mannerisms, their slightly off-color remarks and the like.
4. In your full post you talk about how the Jews were supposed to rebuild the temple on the mount but didn't due to a fear of their religion being proved false with no coming of a biblical figure. Do you really think there are millions of Jews in Israel waiting for some construction on a building to begin? Perhaps they are seeking refuge from a Jew-hating world, ask your grandpa about that.
the fact that you could only see religion as the only reason Jews would want Israel shows an ignorance of a really high level. I have little doubt that some of this didn't come via your grandfathers influence. It may hurt to hear that but, literally, it's all written out.
If you want to get insulting that???s on you. Maybe you should think a little more on my single statement about how hate is passed through the generations instead of lashing out cause the statement was made.
Never mind that the Temple Mount is the single holiest site in all of Judaism, the site of the 1st and 2nd destroyed temples, on top of which the Muslim invaders deliberately built a mosque. Never mind that there are also plenty of Jews who want nothing more than to pray on the Mount since it represents the closest spot to the destroyed Temples. But at the end of the day the fear of Muslims going apeshit trumps any religious claims; Jews are officially forbidden from praying up there. Instead they have to settle for the Western Wall, part of the retaining wall built around the 2nd temple by Herod, which sits directly below the Temple Mount and where praying Jews are subject to occassional volleys of rocks from the Muslims on top of them.
Your talk of "Muslim invaders" and "Muslims going apeshit" kinda reveal your bias. Do you believe that the temple is more important to Jews than it is to Muslims? Why?
The truth hurts I guess. The Muslims invaded. (Just like the Romans, Mamlukes, etc.). That's what happened. Do you seriously deny this?
As for the apeshit comment: While I could have been more polite in my language, the essential truth remains: Were it not for fear of widespread violence, Jews would have the right to pray at their holiest spot.
Welcome to the Middle East, where the so-called "oppressors" occupy less than one-sixth of one-percent of the land and have to draft every citizen over 18 just to protect their right to live in their own holiest city.
Well, yes they "invaded", but from Christians, not Jews. This happened 800 hundred years ago. Before that there had been Romans, Israelites and Canaanites. Whose land is it?
Would you give the US back to Native Americans? They were there first, you know.
roisto, I was referring to the specific act of building a mosque on top of the ruins of the Temple. it's a common practice (Hagia Sophia, Joseph's Tomb in Nablus). even the Kabah in Mecca is built atop a pagan holy place.
what makes the Jerusalem situation unique, I think, is that those for whom this site was originally holy -- the Jews (in this case Israeli Jews) -- now "control" this area geographically once again, which is a rare case.
and yet they still have the good sense to let the Muslims continue to exert de facto control over their holy site.
the arrangement clearly has its drawbacks: free of Israeli oversight, the waqf has tunneled extensively under the Temple Mount and built a third underground mosque. the excavations have been described as one of the worst losses in archeological history, with the waqf authority going so far as to use mechanized earth movers to dig out hundreds of tons of earth thought to contain untold archeological treasures.
and then there is the obvious injustice of Jews being barred from entering what is their single most holy site.
and for this unprecedented attempt to protect Muslim dominion over the site, it's the Israelis who are deemed occupiers. shit is twisted.
so yeah, I was originally responding to the Temple Mount post and hopefully this cleared some shit up.
AreDouble: it's pointless to use terms like "Indigenous Middle Eastern populations", since these peoples do not exist, at least anymore. Jewish people have inhabited the Palestinian land since ca. 1200 BC, but when they arrived there were already people living there. It is possible that they were the ancestors of current Palestinians, but it cannot be proved. My point: "xxx were there first" -arguments are silly.
It's not pointless, Roisto. Your argument is based on the assumption that by saying "Indigenous Middle Eastern populations" I'm implying that there wasn't a Jewish population in the area. Not so. History clearly illustrates that there was a Jewish presence in the region-- And what's more, as Judaism is the earlier of the two Abrahamic religions, people in the area were Jewish (and Christian, and pagan, etc.) before they were Muslim.
and for this unprecedented attempt to protect Muslim dominion over the site, it's the Israelis who are deemed occupiers. shit is twisted.
Cosmo,
The overarching charge of occupation is not so much focused on this or any one site, but rather the occupation of territory at large. We can only speculate how the site might look absent the context of broader occupation. We can, however, look to see whether the site was cause for religious contention (of the sort we now see) between indigenous-- and if this term is contentious, "non-newly immigrated"-- Jews and Muslims prior to the formation of Israel. As someone who has illustrated a good deal of historical knowledge about the region, I think you'd agree that it wasn't.
*edit: Wanted to further clarify re: "We can, however, look to see whether the site was cause for religious contention . . ." -- I mean for a few centuries or so before the formation of modern day Israel. Peace.
AreDouble: it's pointless to use terms like "Indigenous Middle Eastern populations", since these peoples do not exist, at least anymore. Jewish people have inhabited the Palestinian land since ca. 1200 BC, but when they arrived there were already people living there. It is possible that they were the ancestors of current Palestinians, but it cannot be proved. My point: "xxx were there first" -arguments are silly.
It's not pointless, Roisto. Your argument is based on the assumption that by saying "Indigenous Middle Eastern populations" I'm implying that there wasn't a Jewish population in the area. Not so. History clearly illustrates that there was a Jewish presence in the region-- And what's more, as Judaism is the earlier of the two Abrahamic religions, people in the area were Jewish (and Christian, and pagan, etc.) before they were Muslim.
Don't get it twisted.
Who's been there and who belongs or /have the right to live there can be discussed forever. But the Zionist's can't claim to that land according to history- look you learn something new from the net.
AreDouble: it's pointless to use terms like "Indigenous Middle Eastern populations", since these peoples do not exist, at least anymore. Jewish people have inhabited the Palestinian land since ca. 1200 BC, but when they arrived there were already people living there. It is possible that they were the ancestors of current Palestinians, but it cannot be proved. My point: "xxx were there first" -arguments are silly.
It's not pointless, Roisto. Your argument is based on the assumption that by saying "Indigenous Middle Eastern populations" I'm implying that there wasn't a Jewish population in the area. Not so. History clearly illustrates that there was a Jewish presence in the region-- And what's more, as Judaism is the earlier of the two Abrahamic religions, people in the area were Jewish (and Christian, and pagan, etc.) before they were Muslim.
Don't get it twisted.
Who's been there and who belongs or /have the right to live there can be discussed forever. But the Zionist's can't claim to that land according to history- look you learn something new from the net.
I understand that some of the most vocal opposition to zionism comes from some religious Jewish communities, but the the group jewsnotzionists make some pretty troubling (and I'd say outright wrong/fucked up) assertions. Namely "They intentionally infuriated the German people and fanned the flames of Nazi hatred, and then helped the Nazis, with trickery and deceit, to take whole Jewish communities off to the concentration camps,"
That quote is deeply deeply troubling. . . And it goes without saying that I reject the group's religious rationale.
Welcome to the Middle East, where the so-called "oppressors" occupy less than one-sixth of one-percent of the land and have to draft every citizen over 18 just to protect their right to live in their own holiest city.
Welcome to the Middle East, where the so-called "oppressors" occupy less than one-sixth of one-percent of the land and have to draft every citizen over 18 just to protect their right to live in their own holiest city.
That's a poor quote because we're talking specifically about Israel/occupied Palestine. Noone is contesting that Israeli geographic control is over a remarkably small portion of the Middle East at large. Straw man argument.
That's a poor quote because we're talking specifically about Israel/occupied Palestine. Noone is contesting that Israeli geographic control is over a remarkably small portion of the Middle East at large. Straw man argument.
Sorry duke. You can talk "specifically about Israel/occupied Palestine" all you want. What I posted was "specifically" in response to this:
Welcome to the Middle East[/b], where the so-called "oppressors" occupy less than one-sixth of one-percent of the land and have to draft every citizen over 18 just to protect their right to live in their own holiest city.
Comments
Iran, or the Iranian leadership?
Iranian leadership, they are making mockery of the history and culture of Persia.
Totally, bro. All I hear from Jews is "we're going to drive them into the sea!" All those Jewish suicide bombers that get on buses in Palestine, the homemade rockets Jews fire into Palestinian neighborhoods, I mean, they're obviously terrorists. Unless I have that shit backwards, in which case you're an idiot. The existence of Israel isn't really the topic of debate at this point, or it shouldn't be, rather what the fuck all the "refugees" are going to do with their lives. Since Israel probably isn't going anywhere it might be a smart thing to do to get a fucking job or something.
My grandfather served in the army and was in Israel as part of the peace-keeping/overseeing force the British sent to smooth things over with the Palestinians. He spent most of his time being shot at by snipers, avoiding landmines, carbombs and related sabotage by Israeli[/b] extremists. The fact that a large number of his fellow soldiers who had put their lives on the line against the Nazis were then killed by Jewish idiots left him with a lasting hatred of Jews. I personally think this was a mistake for him to put a whole group of people into the same bracket as a few religious nut-balls, but that's what ingratitude will do.
On a related note, after the 6 day war, Israel had the chance to build the temple upon the mount. Forgive me if I'm getting things wrong, and plaese[/b] somebody feel free to clear this one up for me, but isn't the whole claim to Jerusalem about the temple upon the mount? If it's built there, some Hollywood light-show from the sky will bring world peace or a second-coming, right?
The reasons I've heard so far as to why Israel did not build the temple in the immediate after-math of the 6 day war is that they didn't want to stir up any further resentment.
Please clear this up, as I am confused. I'm not against Jews, Israelis, Palestinians or even the French, but bollocks is bollocks.
GTFOHWTBS. Sad to see such ignorance come up in this thread again. Whatever negative experience your grandpa had in the army, you don't know a thing about anything else you said, and, what's more, it's pretty offensive to be chiming in out of nowhere with your ill-informed "opinions" on other peoples' religious beliefs.
When Moshe Dayan heard that the Old City had been liberated and that Israeli troops were on the Temple Mount, he immediately went over, told everyone to get out and handed the keys back to the waqf (the Muslim trust that to this day administers the Temple Mount). The waqf has been in control of the Temple Mount ever since. Dayan was no idiot; he realized that, should the Temple Mount remain in Jewish hands, there would develop within Israel an extremist movement to destroy the Mosques and rebuild the temple. He was right; there is such a movement and estimates range as to how many such Israelis there are that believe this (hundreds). Dayan understood the historical significance of the Mount to Jews but knew all hell would break loose if he didn't let the Muslims remain in control of it. Dude was a pragmatist (and it helped that he was secular and probably didn't really believe in the inherent holiness of a geographic location.)
It should be said that there is a general consensus among religious Jews also that to set foot on the Mount is forbidden since the exact location of the Ark of the Covenant is no longer known and treading on top of the Mount risks walking on top of that spot. So even most rabbis agree that Jews are forbidden from walking on the Mount (so much for your ignorant explanation above).
Never mind that the Temple Mount is the single holiest site in all of Judaism, the site of the 1st and 2nd destroyed temples, on top of which the Muslim invaders deliberately built a mosque. Never mind that there are also plenty of Jews who want nothing more than to pray on the Mount since it represents the closest spot to the destroyed Temples. But at the end of the day the fear of Muslims going apeshit trumps any religious claims; Jews are officially forbidden from praying up there. Instead they have to settle for the Western Wall, part of the retaining wall built around the 2nd temple by Herod, which sits directly below the Temple Mount and where praying Jews are subject to occassional volleys of rocks from the Muslims on top of them.
B*n comes through with some
It's sad to know that such prejudicial thought is around in this day and age. Furthermore this goes to show how hatred is passed down from generation to generation
OK, I'll get right on CCing that message to the "refugees." Pray tell, on what side of the razor wire enclosure do the best jobs lie? Best way for a "refugee" to dress for success? Will shoes covered in sewage be viewed as a liability?
Also, let me comment that I like your "cut the fat" approach re: the conflating of terms "Israeli" and "Jew." Did Israel advance the notion that "the Israelis"= "the Jewish people at large" first? Did the Palestinians . . .err "those people"? Really, why dwell on matters as trivial as language and its social implications? JOBS!-- Gainful employment is the answer and by Allah those surly, ungrateful bastards need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and take advantage of the conucopia of opportunities that await the Good Arabs.
Just look at the Indian success story.
Your talk of "Muslim invaders" and "Muslims going apeshit" kinda reveal your bias. Do you believe that the temple is more important to Jews than it is to Muslims? Why?
Ignorance is bliss.
The existence of Israel is not the topic here, as it has every right to exist, but how their leaders are doing it (and have been doing it) is questionable to say the least. It would be a good start for the pro-Israel people on this board to condemn the Gaza situation as criminal. All I hear is silence.
AreDouble: it's pointless to use terms like "Indigenous Middle Eastern populations", since these peoples do not exist, at least anymore. Jewish people have inhabited the Palestinian land since ca. 1200 BC, but when they arrived there were already people living there. It is possible that they were the ancestors of current Palestinians, but it cannot be proved. My point: "xxx were there first" -arguments are silly.
I was given the above explanation by somebody else, somebody who could only describe the Palestinians as 'blood-thirsty animals'. He also gave me the brief explanation about the Temple-upon-the-mount. Thank you for a slightly more informed account of it's importance to the religious.
1. Basically, my point was that if religious claims over Jerusalem/Israel/Palestine were cast aside, this is basically about land, and if it was agreed by both parties (Palestinians and Israelis) that this is all it's really about, then the playing field might be a bit more level.
2. The general belief that the Palestianians started the urban terrorist thing in the area is bullshit though, and the hypocrisy of this notion stinks.
Ideas 1 + 2 do not mean I'm anti-semetic. Maybe ill-informed as to the religious importance of the Israeli or Muslim claim on the land, but I'm an aetheist and feel that using make-believe bullshit to justify bloodshed should have finished in the dark ages.
What happened to the enlightenment?
I only just noticed this. You are more fucked in the head than the deniers you're lambasting. I wrote that I didn't[/b] agree with my grandfather's blanket discrimination - how else do I need to put that for you, you schmuck. I can hardly say that he was wrong to be pissed off at the individuals trying to kill him and his fellow soldiers that were lucky enough to survive WW2. What the fuck do you want from me? An apology on behalf of the prejudice of my grandfather?
I'm sorry he hated Jews for what happened to him in Palestine & Israel. I'm not sorry for your sake, I'm sorry for him as that was a stupid reaction - it's not something I typed out of pride. Sheesh.
If I don't know the history of a particular school of brainwashing, how is that prejudicial thought?
If I think that religion is a bullshit excuse to kill or covet land, how is that prejudicial thought?
I'm not against Israelis having land anymore than the Palestinians, but the status quo is fucked, imho.
Hatered passed down from generation to generation? You fucking moron. Fucking moron. If I'm going to be labelled as racist or full of hatred, then I might as well teach my children to hate Guzzo for being an ass-wipe, as he obviously won't read and understand any of this anyway.
"Always remember, Guzzo is an ass-wipe. Do not question this, ever! ... oh, and pass it on"
I don't care about any religious claims. Who gives a shit about god? I haven't been to a shule in years and have no plan to visit one in the future. I'm happy for the existance of Israel simply because its a safe haven from Gentiles who use their religious devotion as excuse to kill you or from people who use Jews as scapegoats for society's ills. If some maniac riles up the gentile masses & tries to organize a pogrom, it brings me peace of mind to know there's a nation with a lot of bombs, weapons, and highly trained killers that will protect you. In short, Israel protects us from people like you and your familiy!
peace
h
Let me get this straight... I'm going to call Guzzo an ass-wipe, and your response is a nation of trained killers with weapons and bombs?
Great response. I see where you're coming from.
Loads of sympathy with that one.
"Always remember, Guzzo is an ass-wipe - but don't tell anyone, they have weapons and they know how to use them... pass it on"
The truth hurts I guess. The Muslims invaded. (Just like the Romans, Mamlukes, etc.). That's what happened. Do you seriously deny this?
As for the apeshit comment: While I could have been more polite in my language, the essential truth remains: Were it not for fear of widespread violence, Jews would have the right to pray at their holiest spot.
Welcome to the Middle East, where the so-called "oppressors" occupy less than one-sixth of one-percent of the land and have to draft every citizen over 18 just to protect their right to live in their own holiest city.
The truth hurts I guess. The Muslims invaded. (Just like the Romans, Mamlukes, etc.). That's what happened. Do you seriously deny this?
As for the apeshit comment: While I could have been more polite in my language, the essential truth remains: Were it not for fear of widespread violence, Jews would have the right to pray at their holiest spot.
Welcome to the Middle East, where the so-called "oppressors" occupy less than one-sixth of one-percent of the land and have to draft every citizen over 18 just to protect their right to live in their own holiest city.
PS PM me if you are serious about the "Temple is more important to Jews than it is to Muslims" question. It sounds like a joke but I'd be happy to talk to you about it if you're serious.
*sigh*
this is what you wrote. I'm sorry you can't see the bias in your own words. Perhaps it would be better for you not to speak if this is the case.
A few things you should really think about with your above statement
1. Do you really think your grandfather, or the British military really gave a fuck about the Jewish people? It's not like the UK has a great history of equality. But if you want to think that your grandpa was part of mission to "smooth things over" than perhaps you should read this article from FrontPageMagazine.com
http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=50746
2. What part of your use of the term "Jewish idiots" is supposed to show your open minded non-influenced equality beliefs?
3. What do you really know about British actions in Palestine pre-1948? Hate is spread by listening to people you trust and having them tell you things from their perspective. Babies aren't born with hate of a race or peoples, they are taught it and believe it or not it usually isn't outright. It comes in their actions, their mannerisms, their slightly off-color remarks and the like.
4. In your full post you talk about how the Jews were supposed to rebuild the temple on the mount but didn't due to a fear of their religion being proved false with no coming of a biblical figure. Do you really think there are millions of Jews in Israel waiting for some construction on a building to begin? Perhaps they are seeking refuge from a Jew-hating world, ask your grandpa about that.
the fact that you could only see religion as the only reason Jews would want Israel shows an ignorance of a really high level. I have little doubt that some of this didn't come via your grandfathers influence. It may hurt to hear that but, literally, it's all written out.
If you want to get insulting that???s on you. Maybe you should think a little more on my single statement about how hate is passed through the generations instead of lashing out cause the statement was made.
Well, yes they "invaded", but from Christians, not Jews. This happened 800 hundred years ago. Before that there had been Romans, Israelites and Canaanites. Whose land is it?
Would you give the US back to Native Americans? They were there first, you know.
what makes the Jerusalem situation unique, I think, is that those for whom this site was originally holy -- the Jews (in this case Israeli Jews) -- now "control" this area geographically once again, which is a rare case.
and yet they still have the good sense to let the Muslims continue to exert de facto control over their holy site.
the arrangement clearly has its drawbacks: free of Israeli oversight, the waqf has tunneled extensively under the Temple Mount and built a third underground mosque. the excavations have been described as one of the worst losses in archeological history, with the waqf authority going so far as to use mechanized earth movers to dig out hundreds of tons of earth thought to contain untold archeological treasures.
and then there is the obvious injustice of Jews being barred from entering what is their single most holy site.
and for this unprecedented attempt to protect Muslim dominion over the site, it's the Israelis who are deemed occupiers. shit is twisted.
so yeah, I was originally responding to the Temple Mount post and hopefully this cleared some shit up.
It's not pointless, Roisto. Your argument is based on the assumption that by saying "Indigenous Middle Eastern populations" I'm implying that there wasn't a Jewish population in the area. Not so. History clearly illustrates that there was a Jewish presence in the region-- And what's more, as Judaism is the earlier of the two Abrahamic religions, people in the area were Jewish (and Christian, and pagan, etc.) before they were Muslim.
Don't get it twisted.
Cosmo,
The overarching charge of occupation is not so much focused on this or any one site, but rather the occupation of territory at large. We can only speculate how the site might look absent the context of broader occupation. We can, however, look to see whether the site was cause for religious contention (of the sort we now see) between indigenous-- and if this term is contentious, "non-newly immigrated"-- Jews and Muslims prior to the formation of Israel. As someone who has illustrated a good deal of historical knowledge about the region, I think you'd agree that it wasn't.
*edit: Wanted to further clarify re: "We can, however, look to see whether the site was cause for religious contention . . ." -- I mean for a few centuries or so before the formation of modern day Israel. Peace.
Who's been there and who belongs or /have the right to live there can be discussed forever. But the Zionist's can't claim to that land according to history-
look you learn something new from the net.
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Koestler13thTribe.htm
And here is a perspective on "Zionism" from a real believer of Judaism.
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/
I understand that some of the most vocal opposition to zionism comes from some religious Jewish communities, but the the group jewsnotzionists make some pretty troubling (and I'd say outright wrong/fucked up) assertions. Namely "They intentionally infuriated the German people and fanned the flames of Nazi hatred, and then helped the Nazis, with trickery and deceit, to take whole Jewish communities off to the concentration camps,"
That quote is deeply deeply troubling. . . And it goes without saying that I reject the group's religious rationale.
That's a poor quote because we're talking specifically about Israel/occupied Palestine. Noone is contesting that Israeli geographic control is over a remarkably small portion of the Middle East at large. Straw man argument.
Sorry duke. You can talk "specifically about Israel/occupied Palestine" all you want.
What I posted was "specifically" in response to this:
A simple cosign.
That is all.
So ease back.