This presumes that Hezbollah is a truly independent entity. As I understand it, they are being backed heavily by the Iranian government which is why so many of the Arab states have come out condemming Hezbollah for attacking first. That in itself is an astounding occurence.

"I wrote a long account of this episode in June 2003, in the context of the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Mahmud Abbas and his control (well, lack of control) over Hamas."

LOL. That was right when I wrote mine. Maybe we'd both read the same essay on some blog....

I don't think Israel is trying to start a civil war. Israel really wants to stop any group that wants to set up at its border with long-range rockets. If there is a cicil war in Lebanon, that will just be a side-effect of truly rooting out Hizbullah.

It would be much more in Israel's interests for Lebanon to be free and prosperous, but as long as Hizbullah is encamped there, that won't happen either.

I just looked back on my 2003 post. An op-ed in the NYTimes on May 30th, sparked this discussion in the blogosphere.

So it looks like Israel is doing the Lebanese civil war for them.

If the losses are less with Israel doing the job then Lebanon should count it as profit. Presently they are squealing like stuck pigs. I think they are backing Hizbollah.

Thus getting exactly what they deserve.

I see this war as Darwin in action.

M. Simon:

I don't see it quite the same way. The Lebanese gov't is forced to sit at the table alonside their barely contained pit bull, and they've been hoping that they could tame it. They have found that Hezbollah is better armed and trained than their own army. They've been hoping to talk them down to no avail, and hoped thatthe Syrian pullout would weaken them. It hasn't.

I thin if the Israelis has just marched across the border and engaged Hezbollah on the ground, the Labanese gov't would have "protested" a little, but they couldn't have stopped it. Nor do I think they would have wanted to stop it.

As it stands now, I think the gov't of Lebanon is hoping the Israelis destroy Hesbollah before they finish dismantling Beirut.

Off Topic:

I've heard the Israelis moved Patriot batteries to Haifa. Can the Patriot (at least the version the Israelis have) intercept a Katyusha?

The Israelis field the PAC-2 GEM+ version of the Patriot, a larger missile that uses a proximity fuse as opposed to the smaller, hit-to-kill PAC-3 the USA has been deploying. See this DID article for background.

If they're being deployed near Haifa, the concern isn't Katyushas but the larger Fajr short-range ballistic missiles from Iran. The PAC-2s had a poor intercept record in the Gulf War, but have been more successful in recent tests. It depends on how "enhanced" the Israelis' "Guidance Enhanced Missiles" (GEM) are.

The assumption here is that the Hezb' Allah occupied area is part of Lebanon. When was the last time this assumption could have been said to be true de facto as opposed to de jure? How does the analysis change if it, instead, is assumed to be an Iranian colony or protectorate?

OneVoice is a grassroots, non-partisan Israeli-Palestinian group working to empower moderates to stand up against extremism and seize back the agenda for conflict resolution. At a time when extremists are once again dominating the agenda, its need to exist and to deliver could not be more crucial.

From OneVoice Youth Leaders, Saed Bilbeisi and Elad Dunayevsky

Dear International Friends of OneVoice,

There are rockets flying into Israel’s Northern towns as far down as Haifa as we write this, while the people of Gaza are in fear for their homes and lives, without electricity and running water. People are suffering, people are dying and people are afraid. It’s a crisis. We are writing to tell you though not to give up on us, or to give up on hope for an end to the conflict.

The situation today makes it very difficult to talk about conflict resolution - to see an end to the conflict. Sometimes it is easy to see the light at the end of the tunnel, at the moment the tunnel is dark. But this crisis and this conflict will end, and we say that with sobriety and rationality. As much as we feel helpless today, as rational people we must see any crisis as an opportunity to rise up and overcome the reasons that brought that crisis.

The situation will come to an end, when we do not know. In the meantime both people suffer so badly. Believe us that no-one is happy with this life. We want everyone around the world to know that we, and many friends and colleagues like us at OneVoice, are working to change this situation. We are ready. We are ready to do anything necessary to help end this situation. We have done so many activities and introduced so many people to OneVoice and it always gives them hope and energy. We can not and will not lose all of this however hard it is at this moment. We will strive to improve this life.

A resolution to the conflict may seem like a dream, but let us dream it and keep helping us do whatever we have to do to make it a reality. The day will never come when Israelis and Palestinians are prepared to accept living with this situation. How far we are from the day when we have a situation we will accept is hard to say, but we will work for it, even as the fighter jets and rockets go overhead, we will work for it.

Thank you,

Saed and Elad

Saed has been involved with OneVoice for around a year. He visits the OneVoice office to meet with other youth leaders and staff at least once a week and has even pioneered his own workshops on OneVoice in Ramallah, which have recruited many new volunteers. He spoke about OneVoice in Synagogues, community centers and campuses during OneVoice’s International Education Program tour to Canada.

Elad has also been volunteering for around a year. He uses his Arabic and Hebrew language skills to speak with both Arabs and Jews about the work of OneVoice and has served to educate and recruit activists in the Region and also in the US, where he spoke at over 10 venues on behalf of OneVoice during their International Education Program tour to New York.

I thin if the Israelis has just marched across the border and engaged Hezbollah on the ground, the Labanese gov't would have "protested" a little, but they couldn't have stopped it. Nor do I think they would have wanted to stop it.

It would have been nice if they'd been able to do this, but it would have been A) extremely costly in Israeli blood and B) ineffective. (Those more experienced in military affairs feel free to correct me if I've read the setup there wrong, but ...). Hezballah is, as someone mentioned, a military force that is better trained and equipped than the Lebanese army. While Robert Fisk's tonguebath elevation of them to veritable gods of war is as ludicrous as most of his pontifications, they are a very competent military force. Southern Lebanon is also their turf and has been for many years. They know it well and have had plenty of time to make it a killing ground for infantry and armor. I very much doubt they've been scrupulously observing any anti-mine treaties, for example (not that they've bothered to sign one). All that in itself is bad enough. Then factor in their being able to bring in resupply and reinforcement -- plus retreat virtually intact when the going finally got tough -- via the roads/bridges and airports Israel neutralized, and the reasoning becomes pretty clear. Right now they've got Hezballah more or less cornered and cut-off. It's imperfect, as the arms shipments from Syria they've been taking out demonstrate, and the infrastructure of Lebanon has taken a savage beating in the process, but it's the best they can do. Engagement on the ground will eventually take place (there have already been some skirmishes), but the air campaign was, and remains, an unfortunate but vital prepratory step.

Does it not occur to you that the violence of Israel may create a united lebanese rather than a civil war. United in their determination to cause much more trouble for Israel that a few rockets. and then wht/ Invade lebanon/ syria? iran? where will this mess end? israel is playing a dangerous game to push Hizbullah back twenty miles.

oh and M Simon, darwin? you are a poor biologist if you believe nonsense like that

I read the following - is it true?

A group of prominent Jewish rabbis have asked the Israeli army not to flinch from killing Palestinian civilians in the context of the ongoing military campaign against armed groups resisting the occupation.

The rabbi, Dov Lior, argued that non-Jewish lives had no sanctity, especially during the time of war. Lior has publicly praised and eulogised Baruch Goldstein, an American Jewish settler who in 1994 mowed down 29 Arab worshippers who were praying at Hebron's Ibrahimi Mosque. Calling Goldstein a "great saint", he said a "thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew's fingernail".

Talmudic maxim

Earlier this year, Lior enthusiastically supported the killing of Palestinian civilians in Rafah in southern Gaza, saying that "it is very clear in light of the Torah that Jewish lives are more important than non-Jewish lives".

In formulating their theological positions, Lior and other like-minded rabbis rely on an old Talmudic maxim which states that it is a mitzvah (imperative religious duty) to kill enemy civilians in war time.

The same rabbis also often quote Torah verses in which God is shown instructing the ancient Israelites to annihilate the Canaanites in ancient Palestine.

Comment: If we ALL (Christians + Jews + Muslims) worship the 'God of Abraham' why would God tell on of his flock to kill another one of his flock? Unless there is no god and we just use his name for political power.

[ Zed Zed: As I noted on another recent thread (comment #5), the habit of posting lengthy quotations of dubious provenance unaccompanied by a valid link to your source borders on trolling. Whatever its intended purpose, this conduct is detrimental to on-topic discussion. Don't continue with this behavior in Winds' comments. --Marshal Festus, July 20, 2006 06:43 PM ]

#11 Zed Zed, "I read the following - is it true?"

Wouldn't it be awfully nice to mention where you read it? What's the source? Is it a quote?

Let me introduce you to one of the wonderful tools on the Internet. Have a look at Yahoo's Y!Q, a query by example search engine. The neat thing about it, is you can easily find other copies or near copies of just about anything that's been posted on the net.

Suppose, for instance, you went there and pasted in the third paragraph in comment #11 above, the one starting: "The rabbi, Dov Lior..." Why then you'd get a nice long list of other places on the net where that text had been copied or quoted. In fact, the first entry on the list is at a site called The National Vanguard. For those not familiar with that organization, you can see what they say. Hint: The first sentence ends: "...organization that stands up for the interests of White people." Not much further down the Y!Q hitlist are other well-known objective sources as Indymedia and and Palestine-Info. Try it yourself.

A little digging around shows that most citing a source, rather than simply cut-and-pasting, point back to this original at Al-Jazeera. The byline is "Khalid Amayreh in Hebron". Here is Khalid Amayreh's autobiography on the net. Again, judge for yourself.

I leave to the reader to decide whether we have here a genuine attempt at discussion, a troll, or something worse.

Tim Orem - you insinuate that I might be "Something Worse".

What might that be? Are you planning on using "The Trump Card"? to shut down someone that you disagree with?

I am NOT saying anything against the Jewish religion. I am commenting on issues which would prevent a "real solution" to this problem. If the Israeli government is actually driven by religious zeal as much as the Islamic side is driven by religious zeal and the desire to kill 'non-believers'. Religious zeal will eliminate a real solution.

Do you understand this?
Or will I be the next victim of a 'hate campaign'?

What scares me is the following:

1. The Talmud is more important than the Torah (Bible)according to some.
2. From Talmud - Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog = "Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed".
3. This leads to Rabbi Yaacov Perrin saying, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6).

If this is part of the cultural foundation then can a real peace solution be found where both sides can live in harmony.

Note: I am not an anti-Semite because I do not promote hatred against any religious group.

Not having admin privileges here, I do not have the power to 'shut you down'. I'm simply giving the other readers a bit of context for your post. It's theirs to judge.

What's worse than a troll? We all believe in information operations, don't we? So let's just call it 'enemy combatant'. Mind you, I don't have a dog (directly) in the current fight - I'm neither Jewish nor Israeli. But there is a war on, and as a US citizen, I'm not at all neutral to moral equivalence arguments for Islamic terror, oblique or otherwise.

Is you want to be taken seriously, don't just do a drive-by cut&paste of something lifted from Al Jiz or hate sites. Maybe you could try addressing the issue that Donald and Yehudit are raising: What's the appropriate response when a non-state actor uses the territory of one sovereign nation to launch acts of war on another? What are the implications when those attacks can be launched at a distance as well as across a land border? Pitch in, and we'll see if you're serious.

The argument against states having a monopoly on the use of violence was linked on this website yesterday by a commentor:

The article was titled: If Israel has the right to use force in self defence, so do its neighbours.

I agree with the title, but here is the salient point in that piece:

And if the Arab states are unable or unwilling to do so then the job should fall to those who can.

Westphalia gives way to vigilantism. Can one imagine a greater recipe for chaos and barbarism? What could justify such extremism?

But what is at stake here is not proportionality or the issue of self-defence, but symmetry and equivalence.

Israel must be defeated and whatever is needed to accomplish that goal, by definition, is fair.

Ahmad Samih Khalidi is a senior associate member of St Antony's College, Oxford, a former Palestinian negotiator and the co-author, with Hussein Agha, of A Framework for a Palestinian National Security Doctrine (Chatham House, 2006)

Oh, of course, Zed Zed was the one that linked yesterday to the article (#17) legitimizing Hamas and Hizbullah as self-defense vigilantes.

"The Talmud is more important than the Torah (Bible)according to some."

The talmud is the oral law, handed down from sinai - it completes the Torah to traditional Jews. You should read it.

". From Talmud - Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog = "Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed"."

Thre rabbi in question was persecuted by the Romans, and responded emotionally. The Talmud records thousands upon thousands of comments by rabbis, not just on questions of law or religion, but on whatever popped into their heads. Its a VERY long text, with lots of material. The above is NOT a legal statement, and has NO impact on Jewish law. It is, however, trotted out by antisemites whenever they want to claim that the Talmud is a hateful book. Their specialty is taking a huge book, and searching it for the hateful sounding verses, and taking those out of context.

It is largely due to my experience from folks like that, that I discount it when Islamophobes do the same to the Koran and Hadiths.

". This leads to Rabbi Yaacov Perrin saying, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6)."

A hateful thing to say, and i oppose it. Now who the hell is Rabbi Perrin, and what influence does he have?

"If this is part of the cultural foundation then can a real peace solution be found where both sides can live in harmony."

Racist hatred is not part of the cultural foundation of most Israelis.

"If the Israeli government is actually driven by religious zeal as much as the Islamic side is driven by religious zeal and the desire to kill 'non-believers'. "

A. The Israeli leadership is primarily secular, and is not driven by religion at all.

B. The Orthodox Jews in Israel include a minority that is in fact dovish (google on Meimad) and most of the rest are hawkish, but not particularly racist. There is a minority within the religious minority that is racist, mainly the Kahanists. The Kahanists were excluded from the Knesset due to their racism. They do not, however, AFAIK, rely on the verse you mention, since, as I say elsewhere, it has no legal meaning, and is not consistent with most of the rest of the Talmud.

C. The quoting of that verse, as if it were typical of the attitude of the Talmud (Which elsewhere says that "The righteous among the gentiles will have a place in the world to come") is something that is typical of antisemites. Saying so is NOT an attempt to squelch debate - it is merely a statement of fact.

The Lebanese Minister of Defense warned Israel Thursday that if IDF ground forces are sent into southern Lebanon, Lebanese troops will fight along with the Hizbullah against Israel.

Ah, so now the Lebanese government is willing to act as a sovereign state and fight against the most advanced and seasoned army this side of the Atlantic?

Fair enough, perhaps. The prospect of the Lebanese army taking on Hezbollah could well split the army along sectarian lines - a situation Iran and Syria would surely use to extend and reassert (respectively) control.

I even understand their willingness to get involved in a ground war against the IDF. Israel has bombed the hell out of Lebanese infrastructure, and killed a lot of Lebanese.

However, Lebanese infrastructure - particularly roads, bridges and Beirut airport - are also Hezbollah infrastructure. Those Iranian rockets are brought in through Beirut airport with the full knowledge of the Lebanese army and government. The roads between Syria and Lebanon (and obviously within Lebanon) are Hezbollah's line of supply and retreat.

It is a damned shame that it came to this. Lebanon is the best hope for a stable, pro-Western modern democracy in the Arab world. It is perhaps the next state likely to sign a peace treaty with Israel.

The central Lebanese government might have been able to build up enough strength to take on Hezbollah after a few years. In the real world, however, Hezbollah and their controllers and allies were unlikely to sit on their hands for that long. Alas.

As for the potential success of any Israeli invasion with ground forces, if Hezbollah's defences are so advanced that the IDF cannot breach them without serious losses, that's concerning.

Kudos to Olmert for not taking this blow lightly.

Does it not occur to you that the violence of Israel may create a united lebanese rather than a civil war. United in their determination to cause much more trouble for Israel that a few rockets.

David, yes, of course that possibility has occured to us and doubtless the Israeli government. Other factors outweigh it, however:

1) The Lebanese government was doing nothing to neutralize Hezballah. By even the most optimistic assessments, they weren't going to be able to do so for the foreseeable future, if ever.

2) Say they do decide to unite behind Hezballah. It would be stupid of them, but Goddess knows they've been stupid before. So? All that really does is give the IDF/IAF a more target-rich environment. Then Israel can go back to Big Boy's Rules and dispense with trying to winnow out the Hezballah-guys-with-guns from the Lebanese-army-guys-with-guns.

Basically, Lebanon has a choice to make. They can start acting like a real country repudiate the terrorist group they've made a home for all these years, or they can join it in getting the pasting Israel is well-known for delivering to Arab countries two, three, or five at a time. Either way, they're coming down off that fence.

liberalhawk - "Racist hatred is not part of the cultural foundation of most Israelis."

Thank you for the responses. As I said previously I am not an anti-Semite. I read widely and am trying to understand the psychology of the two sides. As I go from info-point to info-point on the Internet I come across some quite disturbing. That is why I asked the questions.

I wonder what the underlying cultural foundations for the Israeli psycholgy to be so brutal is. Why can't they allow Palestinians to live on the land - inside Israel - where they have lived for centuries.

I see hateful things being quoted from the Koran. The vast majority of Muslims state that their religion is not based on those hateful quotes yet most non-Muslims still believe that Islam is based on those types of hateful quotes.

With that said - my thinking was from what I read was that if the Israelis/Jews 'hate' the Muslims and the Muslims 'hate' the Jews then there will be no real peaceful solution in the region no matter what is tried diplomatically.

I am Roman Catholic. I quite honestly don't care too much for the Old Testament and the philosophy of "An Eye for an Eye". I live my the New Testament "Love Thy Neighbor". Even with this though my religion has caused quite a bit of strife but it is also my religion that in Europe and North America created the first pluralistic, multicultural democracies where everyone can live in peace.

Maybe the modern day moderates should work to have those quotes deleted from their respective Holy Books. Maybe then we can have peace. Since we all believe in the 'God of Abraham' maybe we should try to find a "Grand Unified Theory of God" just like in physics we are trying to find the Unified Theory of Physics.

Note: Please don't misconstrue anything as being anti-Semitic.

Tim Oren - "What's worse than a troll? We all believe in information operations, don't we? So let's just call it 'enemy combatant'."

I am a non-religious white boy of European descent in Canada. The only think I am an enemy of stupidity.

What I see as stupidity is people claiming that their god wants 'his' people to kill the other people. Stupidity is both sides polarizing their positions and claiming to be victims and using that as rationalization of brutallizing the other side.

Let's call a spade a spade. Let's see things as they are - admit mistakes and fix those mistakes. Pro-Israel proponents are also using 'information operations' to make themselves look like the victims and that their action is just. If one side is too successfully then the other side will feel disenfranchised. The problems have existed for centuries due to this polarization. If the polarization exists and there is no compromise then the problem will exist for centuries to come.

Interesting the differing veiwpoints elsewhere in Canada. Maybe you should go to
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313800

and counter the 'information operations' going on there.

Zed Zed:

The vast majority of Muslims state that their religion is not based on those hateful quotes yet most non-Muslims still believe that Islam is based on those types of hateful quotes.

Unfortunately, whenever you scratch the surface of 'moderate' Islamic groups, their leaders and members are quite frequently supporters of terrorism and/or Sharia law in Western countries, and occasionally active members of Islamic terrorist groups (ie, the American Muslim Council's Abdurahman Alamoudi - an alleged senior al-Qaeda member, or many of the CAIR leaders, involved in setting up fronts for Hamas).

Typically, Muslim groups deny that there is any radical Islamic ideology - for instance, Asghar Bukhari of MPAC-UK says it outright: "there is no ideology" at play, just anger at Western foreign policy. Quite why Muslims are so frequently tempted by suicide terrorism (an interesting choice for someone who is simply angry).

By the way, in #23 you say you are a Roman Catholic. In #24, you say you are a 'non-religious white boy'. Maybe you had a serious crisis of faith in the 17 minutes between posts...?

I am Roman Catholic - because that is the way that I was baptized - I had no choice in that... but I am also not very religious. Maybe I should have said 'not very religious' as opposed to non-religious. I don't go to church except when I have to for family reasons. I have never read the Bible from start to finish. The Catholic upbringing gave me a foundation fo respect for everyone but I can see religion for the BS that it is.

Be aware the religion is different from spirituality.

"Basically, Lebanon has a choice to make. They can start acting like a real country repudiate the terrorist group they've made a home for all these years, or [...]"

Realistically, can they?

"I am Roman Catholic. I quite honestly don't care too much for the Old Testament and the philosophy of "An Eye for an Eye". I live my the New Testament "Love Thy Neighbor". Even with this though my religion has caused quite a bit of strife but it is also my religion that in Europe and North America created the first pluralistic, multicultural democracies where everyone can live in peace."

Finally, a basis for a discussion with you.

There is no conflict between the 'Eye for an Eye' and 'Love Thy Neighbor as Theyself' mandates.

Or rather, to the extent that there is a conflict it is the conflict between the state and the individual.

'Eye for an Eye' is a mandate for the state whose purpose is to provide justice. We don't have to rely on the Old Testement for this viewpoint. Paul in Romans 13 discusses the theological basis for this distinction. He writes of the government:

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor." - Romans 13:1-7, emphasis added

And what does he say next? He immediately moves on to discuss how this relates to individual responsibility:

"Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:8-10, emphasis added

So what we see is that the state is charged with providing justice so that the individual will not be helpless in the face of evil, but that the individual is in turn charged with being merciful and compassionate. This is the tension that keeps the whole system working. Without that tension, justice without mercy turns into something other than justice, and compassion without justice turns into something other than compassion. For how can you say you have compassion, when you allow the helpless to suffer in the hands of evil doers? And how can you say you have justice when your retribution knows no bounds?

"Maybe the modern day moderates should work to have those quotes deleted from their respective Holy Books."

Which one would you delete? Are you so certain that your morality and insight are superior?

"The Catholic upbringing gave me a foundation fo respect for everyone but I can see religion for the BS that it is."

"If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." James 1: 26-27

All the rest is just ritual and tradition at best, and politics and infatuation with this world at worst.

I don't know if I just wasted my breath or not. You apparantly have a disturbing tendency to mine information from shall we say dubious sources.

Celebrim - Thank you for your wise words. I appreciate the time you took to come up with the cogent insights.

Pertaining to "moral superiority" - I think that some things that were written 2,000 years ago are a bit embarassing today. Some people even stated that the hateful quotes are not widely accepted today. Since all social institutions are open to evolution / change over time then why not eliminate the few outrageous quotes which extremists can use to justify extreme actions.

As for where I mine information - I look for truth everywhere because there is a bit of truth everywhere. One party may try to hide embarassing weakness while another party will try to bring them to light and so you must seek for information everywhere. I don't believe everything that I read. As for the truth and validity of the quotes - so far noone has stated that the quotes are false just that "we don't really live by that".

What should be deleted? I find these types of comments disturbing. Passages such as should be easy to delete:

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.
Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.
Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

Quran 9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful,"
Quran 2:191 Fight for Allah: "And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Sorry - I was not able to find anything nasty from the New Testament but we still managed to have the Dark Ages, Crusades and the Inquisition along with believing that God really meant us to believe that the world is flat and punish those who wanted to show that it is round.

Why are these quotes important? Power-mongers abuse these quotes to whip up religious zeal to make their minions do their bidding. As you can now plainly see - I am not an anti-Semite - but more a cynic of all religious institutions.

Last thought - if the English and French can live together in Canada and the Blacks and Whites can live together in the US then why can't the Palestinians and the Jews live together in Israel?

Solution for political disagreements.

Set up a "military playfield" there the sides that have a disagreement send in a team of lets say 1,000 'soldiers'. On this military playfield the two 'teams' would fight a military fight. I mean real life and death fight but using only conventional weapons.

Establish rules on how to win. Resolution of the disagreement goes to to victor. A world tribunal holds teams to the terms of the victory. Rematches are possible only after 5 years.

The 'battle' would be televized. Imagine the ratings and best of all no collateral damage or civilian deaths.

The benefit is that even the smallest 'David' country can fight a 'Goliath' country and have a fair shot at winning. Terrorism is a tactic of the underdog. If there is no underdog then there is no terrorism.

Thoughts?

"Pertaining to "moral superiority" - I think that some things that were written 2,000 years ago are a bit embarassing today."

I find the assumption that we've progressed all that much to be rather dangerous. We've advanced in alot of way - in alot of important ways. But in some ways we are no better than they were, and in some ways no doubt our ancestors would rightly condemn us. Let's exert a little humility and remind ourselves that our judgement, intelligence, frailties are just the same today that they were 2000 years ago. I've certainly seen nothing to convince me that you have the moral superiority to judge what is embarassing and what isn't, and for my part, I accept the text so that tells you what I think of my own judgement.

"Some people even stated that the hateful quotes are not widely accepted today."

Some people state alot of things. It doesn't necessarily make the right or wise.

"Since all social institutions are open to evolution / change over time then why not eliminate the few outrageous quotes which extremists can use to justify extreme actions."

Because just about anything can be made in the hands of an extremist to justify thier behavior. They don't need justification. They just need an excuse to do what they would have done anyway. I'll give you an example of this in a moment.

"As for where I mine information - I look for truth everywhere because there is a bit of truth everywhere."

Except where there isn't. My favorite saying is, "There is no such thing as a simple truth." Of course, since that is itself a simple truth, for that to be true, there must also be exceptions to the rule. The truth is always too complex to be described simply, except of course - when in order to maximize the complexity of describing things - it can. It's the same with your quest for truth. There is a bit of truth in most things. But there are some things which are just wholly false.

"As for the truth and validity of the quotes - so far noone has stated that the quotes are false just that "we don't really live by that"."

I for one I have already questioned the validity of some of your "quotes" on several occassions. You say that you don't believe everything you read, but you seem awful eager to believe somethings which common sense ought to urge you to question strongly.

"What should be deleted? I find these types of comments disturbing. Passages such as should be easy to delete:"

I find both sets of passages disturbing as well. But, the two sets aren't comparable. The first set is in fact easily deleted. Some branches of Judaism very likely have already done so. But the passages you quote regarding Judaism do not belong to the Torah, but (I presume) to the commentary on it. Deleting the commentary on a sacred text is fairly easy, because its not the primary text.

But its impossible to delete the passages from the Koran. You must either accept them, or else delete the Koran (literally or figuratively). (I must insert here that the truth is more complex than that, but its sufficiently complex to utterly derail the discussion and send it off on a long tangent.)

"Sorry - I was not able to find anything nasty from the New Testament..."

Then you are neither very familiar with the New Testament nor are you very imaginative. The very passage I cited in Romans 13, in the hands of critics or of extremists, is turned into a 'hateful quote'. Twisted and taken out of context, it becomes the foundation for 'the Divine Right of Kings' and an excuse for abusing the power of government. It should be obvious that Paul - who was subject to any number of mock trials and unjust punishments - did not actually have a niavely simple view of government, but quoted in short and without the rest of the text it is the pretext for tyrants acting as tyrants are want to do. And the, of course, blaming thier own tyranical impulses on a sacred text - as if they really needed prompting.

I would also like to assert that it isn't only the overtly 'hateful' quotes which when twisted and taken out of context led to trouble. In America, I believe that we've suffered a great loss in morality by twisting the overtly compassionate quotes like 'Judge not...' and 'Love thy Neighbor...' and taking them out of context. The result is a trite sort of self-centered self-righteous morality which doesn't I think stand up very well in a trial.

"...but we still managed to have the Dark Ages, Crusades and the Inquisition..."

Yes. Which just goes to show that anything can be twisted to serve our purposes when we wish to do evil. Although...

"...along with believing that God really meant us to believe that the world is flat and punish those who wanted to show that it is round."

I'm not sure what version of history you are reading but I can't recall there being much contriversy in the Christian church over the roundness of the world. My suspicion is that you don't know as much history as you think you do, and I should say at this time that if what you know of the Dark Ages, the, Inquisition and the Crusades comes from the same places that tell you that people thought the world was flat and punished those that thought it was round, then you've alot of learning - and unlearning - to do.

"Why are these quotes important? Power-mongers abuse these quotes to whip up religious zeal to make their minions do their bidding."

So what. They can do so with or without the quotes. In the case of Christianity, I think they succeed using the quotes mainly with the sort of people that have never really read the text or thought very deeply about it.

"As you can now plainly see - I am not an anti-Semite - but more a cynic of all religious institutions."

I don't plainly see anything about you yet. You remain a person I know very little about.

"Last thought - if...the Blacks and Whites can live together in the US then why can't the Palestinians and the Jews live together in Israel?"

This is a question I could devote pages and pages to, but since I've already written quite abit I'll risk an overly simple but still I think quite accurate answer.

Rev. Martin Luther King.

If the black community in America had decided as a community to resolve the wrongs committed against it through force of arms, then I think it would be now impossible for blacks to live alongside whites. I do not know what the shape of the nation would look like, but I do know for certain that we would not be - as I think we are now - healing the old wounds. We'd be too busy making new wounds to learn to trust and love each other.

If the Palestinians had decided to adopt the methods of the Rev. Martin Luther King and chosen passive rather than armed resistance, there is little doubt in my mind that they would either have thier own state and peace, or the majority vote in a greater united Levant state and peace. But, that is not the choice that they made. They chose war. War on Israel. War on Jordon. War on Lebanon. (Read the history of the PLO if you don't believe me.) They are daily reaping the consequences of those repeatedly tragic choices.

"The benefit is that even the smallest 'David' country can fight a 'Goliath' country and have a fair shot at winning."

This is precisely why it wouldn't work.

I think that you have a pretty niave idea which is based on the unspoken assumption that there is never anything more at stake during a war than is at stake in a football game.

Wars are fought to impose the will of one people on another group of people, for reasons that can be either noble or base, valid or unreasonable, good or evil.

At stake in your mock wars would be things like...

a) The losers be the slaves of the victors.
b) The losers population agrees to be exterminated.
c) The losers population agrees to obey the laws of the victors.
d) The losers population agrees to be absorbed into the victors population.
e) The losers population agrees to give up thier language, thier culture, and thier identity in favor of the winners.

And so forth.

Does your idea still sound reasonable? I tell you what, if you still like the idea, the first game can be Canada vs. Iran. If you lose, you give up your socialist democracy, your children must learn Persian, you must convert to Islam and send 30% of your earnings to Iran. America is fielding a team of Southern Babtists who wanted play the winner, victory conditions to be as stipulated. Sound fair?

Beyond that, even if we could get everyone to abide by the rules (and noone would, even the ones that say they would would be lying), your plan would guarantee that wars would be more frequent rather than less. It's the very terribleness of wars which prevents them from happening all that often. Part of the reason that the Middle East is still at war is that for the most part the wars have not been very terrible (relatively speaking), so noone has really learned thier lesson and decided to choose peace.

New thread:
Does anyone have a reference to a summary of the post-WW2 scenario that resulted in the creation of Israel and a Palestinian state, the latter of which was subsumed by other Arab states almost immediately?

I read something about a year ago, but by hard drive crashed and I lost the article.

Thanks
Mike

#6,

Joe,

I had heard they were being used for their radar as an early warning system.

Zed,

This one is for you:

A German government official said on Thursday that letter written by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to German Chancellor Angela Merkel asks her to help solve the Palestinian problem and deal with Zionism.

Iran Asks Germany - Fix the Zionists

And another cutie:

Article 7 of the Hamas Charter concludes with a verbatim reiteration of the apocalyptic hadith alluded to earlier:

“The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: `Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him’; but the tree Gharkad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.” (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985).

Apocalyptic Muslim Jew-hatred

BTW Jewish Law these days interprets "an eye for an eye" as meaning just compensation. Not an eye poking contest.

You want to read something really interesting try the Talmud section on torts and oxen.

#34,

Short version:

The State of Israel as concieved was a means to separate Arab and Jewish populations.

The Arabs had been doing pogroms since the early 20s and the Jews had been responding in kind.

Look up Jabotinsky (spelling?) and Palmach and Haganah, Rabin, and Begin for starters.

Here is a link to Haj Amin:

Palestinian Role In the Holocaust.

Arafat called Amin "uncle".

"I wonder what the underlying cultural foundations for the Israeli psycholgy to be so brutal is."

We call that a "when are you going to stop beating your wife" kind of question.

"Why can't they allow Palestinians to live on the land - inside Israel - where they have lived for centuries."

20% of Israeli citizens are Arab "Palestinians." Jews have also lived in that land for centuries. (If you want to learn some history go here.) However, Jews can't be citizens of what is now the "West Bank," where they lived for centuries. In fact, the Israeli government is supposed to help them all leave.

"I am Roman Catholic. I quite honestly don't care too much for the Old Testament and the philosophy of "An Eye for an Eye". I live my the New Testament "Love Thy Neighbor"."

Where do you think "Love Thy Neighbor" came from? Oh That's right, you haven't read the whole Bible.

"it is also my religion that in Europe and North America created the first pluralistic, multicultural democracies where everyone can live in peace."

Using the Old Testament as inspiration.

The "love thy neighbor" verse in context: Leviticus 19. Some other precepts from that chapter, that I think we can all sign onto:

And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.
Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.
Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor; I am the LORD.
Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him.
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD.

Zed Zed, I think you are getting a lot of your quotes from "The Talmud Exposed" - Here is a debunking of it.

(To get around the spam protection, in this URL, replace the "*" with an "o")

Also The Real Truth About the Talmud.

(Spam protection, such a wonderful thing. sigh. In this URL, replace "*" with "e")

I have seen enough. I think I will pass on participating here anymore. I can see that - like in a lot of places - noone is really interested in finding solutions but rather the typical "I am right + You are Wrong" thinking.

It is clear that the hardcore participants here appear to want to crush the enemy - eliminate the enemy because it is their god given right.

Sadly it is the emotionally and spiritually least immature and lesat wise that hold the most physical power to attain their goals.

Zed Zed,

Catching up on the discussions you've been involved with at Winds of Change in the past 18 hours or so, I would suggest that your comment #40 is a caricature that says more about the artist than it does about his subjects. Other readers will draw their own independent conclusions on this point. That thought might provide you with solace, or with dismay. As the case may be.

AMac - great comeback "No I am not - You are"

Zed zed, you have a chance to learn some Talmud and Torah and you're leaving?

Well, if you decide you want to learn . . .

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz

Aish Das.

Daily Gemara.

Yehudit: He was never interested in learning. He's positive that he's wiser than any teacher.

Not long ago someone else I was talking to boasted that anyone - presumably most of all himself - could write a more moral book than the Torah or the Bible.

What is there to teach a world that believes everyone is a finer law giver than Moses, and a better Rabbi than Jesus? Who is like such a one? Where else can you find such wisdom, such emotional and spiritual maturity? Surely one such as that, his own strong right hand can save?

You see why I think things are about to fall apart.

Ahh well. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.