Example:
Thus, for instance, those who oppose the state of Israel often point out that Jews were a minority in the Holy Land prior to 1948, as if the question of the ethnic make-up of the region at that particular moment in history should settle the question of who controls the land in perpetuity. But, of course, the history of nearly any region is the history various cultural and ethnic groups moving in, gaining dominance, and fading in their turn. England, for instance, was invaded by Romans, by the Angles, Jutes and Saxons, by the Danes, by the Normans. Greece and Asia Minor have a long history of back-and-forth stretching back into mythology with the Trojan War, and ending with the mutual expulsion by modern Greece and Turkey of each other's ethnic groups in the '20s -- ending at least 2800 years of Aegean polyglot history with the stroke of a modern border-drawing pen.
(Almost everything he writes is this good....)
12 comments:
its a good peice, and what more, he agrees with me. :)
"But to the extent possible, I think it's better to avoid extending the promise that every group which can identify itself as a distinct group in some sense "deserves" it's own separate nation state.
And at a certain point it seems like it's important to have international opinion accept the status quo in a region rather than trying to restore some particular past state. Cleaning up the mess and helping the victims, once war or disruption is over, is probably a better international activity than trying to reset things."
in the jew-arab dispute, i am decidely Catholic in my opinon, which differes greatly from the millenial christianity that is most influential on our political body.
there is no Jew or Gentile anymore, only Baptised and unbaptised. the Scriptures say as much. if i had to pick a side, which i avoid doing, upon some religious line of demarcation, the jews (and muslims) are decidely on the wrong side of that line.
using biblical based theology, including the NT many protetsants forget to read, the only group with a right to the land would be Christians. but that is only AFTER one can not accept that the 'promised land' for God's people is not geographical.
as a Catholic, i believe the promised land is no longer geographical, and will never be again. to take a side in this conflict based upon who God wants to give the land to is theologically absurd in light of catholic understandings.. but, such is the basis for 90% of support for Jewish domination over the region... even expecting the indigenous Christians (the Baptised) to accept this domination (at the hands of the unbaptised) willingly and pacibly.
how can such expectation be right? or even workable, minus massive amounts of innocent blood being spilled. and the blood spilling of innocents we already know to be unacceptable, and a work of evil.
my official postion: every honorable man has the right to live peacably and unmolested in his own 'home', and the right to defend it when breached.
The term "freaking mess" was coined as a polite understatement of the history of the middle east.
I don't bring religion into the Israel deal-- I look more at "who is LESS likely to kill us, their neighbors and their own people?" than the Promised Land thing (in that order, sadly-- basically on the responsibility to protect those you're responsible for). Matter of who would let Christians live there, and who would try to destroy all evidence of other religions come into it, too.
interesting that you would side with the jews, then. last time the jews were allowed that power, they sought to wipe out christianity to the last believer.
they are, 1 for 1, in that regard, but still batting 1.000. they also destroyed all evidence of pagan faiths that inhabited the area before them, but that was after snuffing all the believers.
after 1400yrs of islamic domination, a large and propagating christian minority thrived.
we know the holy sites, and can visit them, because the muslims allowed their preservation, and at times, encouraged it.
mainstream islam, throughout its history, has generally never had issue with christians living as christians so long as political power was in islamic hands. i'm not saying it is 'right' to think that way, but it is an improvement over how christans and jews have reacted to similar strangers in their midst throughout their histories.
i'm neutral in this conflict, but when others have attempted to change that neutrality, or tax my resources to advance their lack of, i tend to push back a bit, and poke a few holes where i can.
if i'm sympathetic, it would tend toward the palestian people who are denied the things that we in this country say democracy, and the (not very) democratic Israel, are all about... while we make excuses for jews to do things we would never allow of arabs, and criticise the chinese for.
but the jew justification for their acts is based on their religion, so they get a pass...
but not the jihadists.
Last time I checked, the Jews haven't had anything close to prime power in the middle east as long as Christianity has existed. Unless you're going to try to claim the Romans were under Jewish control? I'd like to see an objective source for those claims.
Islam, on the other hand, was founded with Christian vigor in the existing culture and has been rather nasty every since-- it spread, clear up into Europe, and would have taken it all if it hadn't been beaten back. For crying out loud, Africa use to be Christian.
If you care about the "Palestinian" people, you should be angry at Jordan, Egypt, all the surrounding Arab states.
Israel: not slaughtering Christians.
Arab states: 'nuff said. It's a big deal when someone ISN'T treated like crud.
Israel: not wiping out history to make themselves look better
Islamic extremists: lots of ka-boom.
Israel isn't perfect, but it's civilized. The rest... hey, civilized people don't execute the rape victim.
On Jordan.
On this-century Jews in Arab states.
time span regardless...
you havent refuted that jews, when they've had primacy, have not been tolerant.
nor have you refuted the continued preservation of christian life under centuries of islam.
i did not say muslims have always been nice, but you havent refuted that they have been nicer with a larger % of their time in charge.
and much of what conflict there has been tween muslims and chrisitians (and jews) centered around politics/culture/power/etc... not the name invoked in prayer..
muslims say: sit in the corner and shut up, pray quietly.
christians, too ofetn, have said: convert, or die.
jews have only said: die.
did i even once hint that i was happy with jordan, egypt, syria et al, in regards to treatment of palestians? nope. they are just as guilty as israel.
but everybody seems to think its up to arab states to take in the palestinians. i dont. i think they should be allowed to peacably return to their farms and villages, and fully partake of the democratic process....
instead of being treated like pawns by neighboring despots...
manipulated by thugs and crooks among their own... (a direct result, if not design, of israeli policies)
or treated as less-chosen-people by those who claim to be Chosen.
i find the status quo unacceptable, and i refuse to side, or defend, or make excuses for either political entity.
your opinion may differ...
you havent refuted that jews, when they've had primacy, have not been tolerant.
You have not proven your claim that they "sought to wipe out christianity to the last believer."
For that matter, I explicitly said that I was looking for the least bad of all options, not the one most historically pure to your mind, not the vague group that had the best tract record by your estimate, not the one that is most sympathetic.
i did not say muslims have always been nice, but you havent refuted that they have been nicer with a larger % of their time in charge.
Yeah, conversion by the sword or just by the old rape-and-claim, expulsion, invasion, slavery-- nice neighbors.
It's still irrelevant, since we're supposedly dealing with what is, not some historical grief-match. A grief match that we don't have a lot of data on, since dead people don't write histories.
You gravely misrepresent what Islam actually required, as well as using weasel-words for what Christians have done (A single time would be "too often"), you flatly misrepresent what the Jews have done, AND you're doing a group guilt thing to top it off.
but everybody seems to think its up to arab states to take in the palestinians
Check the first link to see why. They GOT a two-state solution, when the British Mandate of Palestine was broken into Israel and Jordan. Jordan even called itself Palestine. 20% of Israel is "Palestinian Arab," while none of Jordan's population is Jewish. Surrounding Arab states have largely expelled their Jews, but they've also largely expelled their "Palestinians."
Gee, it's almost like breaking everything up into tiny sub-groups makes stuff go to bits!
you want my solution to the topic at hand, were i dictator and could make it happen?
israel would revert to pre-war 1948 boundries, since that was the mandate by which they claim legitimacy.
the rest is Palestine.
both nations would be allowed a 10,000 man defense force limited to small arms only, for the sake of keeping peace among ethnic groups.
btw: it is unreasonable to assume the jews will promptly revert to snuffing christians in their midst. the bad press would cut off all the free money the USA throws their way to prop them up.
oh, sure, there would still be a few evangelical apologists defending and explaining away all their sins, but not enough to matter.
(oh, and what was Paul headed out to do on the road to tarsus?)
I thought you said that the right solution was to GTFO and pick up the pieces when it's over.
Your view on Israel, thus far, isn't particularly Catholic. You keep talking about how the Jews treated the pagans when they got to the Promised Land-- ignoring Who ordered it.
Oh, another reason I'd take Israel over Islam-- the half of the population lacking a Y chromosome isn't property.
If you must keep dragging history into it, the outrages on the female half of the population should probably be figured in.
btw: it is unreasonable to assume the jews will promptly revert to snuffing christians in their midst.
Still haven't shown this.
the bad press would cut off all the free money the USA throws their way to prop them up.
Yeah, because the money we gave to all the other places sure has kept folks under control!
(oh, and what was Paul headed out to do on the road to tarsus?)
He was sent out by Caiphas (Caiaphas) to go capture all these incredible heretics who claimed that the promised savior could die a criminal's death. Can you imagine the insult? The rage? Christ on the Cross was a horrible dishonor at the time, far beyond even being born in a barn to a woman who did not yet live with her husband when the child was conceived.
The same misunderstanding that is at the root of the disagreement between the Jews and Christians to this day?
Again, though, you try to blame all for the acts of a few.
first off: i said IF i was a dictator and could make it happen. thats two very big if's, kinda like 'wish upon a star', ya know... and i dont see an apointemnt in my future, do you?
"Again, though, you try to blame all for the acts of a few."
look in the mirror.
and like i said, i find the status quo unacceptable, and i refuse to side, or defend, or make excuses for either political entity.
your opinion may differ...
Before that, you said: "you want my solution to the topic at hand".
No, not especially.
"Again, though, you try to blame all for the acts of a few."
look in the mirror.
I actually have to EXPLAIN why opposing tyrannical systems is not collective punishment?
The acts ordered by a religion as a basic component are justifiably put on those who claim membership; outrages committed in the name of this or that, on the other hand, don't.
Caiaphas was wrong by his own beliefs. He rejected the savior he was supposed to be a big aid to. Thus, his opposition to Jesus has jack to do with Jews in general. The IRA was doing things that were very against what they claimed to believe; ditto the Mafia; neither should be held against all of the Church.
Sharia, OTOH, is in the footsteps of its founder and follows traditions from that day, and when it does so can be held against those who practice whatever variation supports the action.
Another example:
Marines doing war crimes are not representing their orders, and thus aren't applicable against the US gov't in general. Those whose job is to rape virgins before their execution are carrying out their orders, and thus are validly held against their gov't in general.
Post a Comment