Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comAn attempt by Hamas police to detain a woman walking with a man in the beach has raised alarms that the Islamic militant group is seeking a stricter enforcement of Islamic law.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
'Legendary' Beau Sancy diamond sells for $9.57 million at Sotheby's auction'We still need to live': Jaded Mexicans find distractions to horrors of violenceTeacher raises $10K, will shave her headU.S., Pakistan on verge of reopening supply linesUS-led imperative in peril as trained Afghans turn enemyNo-bake emotipopsChicago braces for violence at NATO summitPoliticsNation, Thursday, April 26, 2012Romney wins Nebraska presidential primary'King Tut' makes last stop in Seattle
Leave a Comment:
"....Hamas denies any crackdown is under way. Since taking power, it has said it would only try to lead by example and not impose its views on anyone...."
We think Hamas meant that..."they would try to lead by MAKING an example of anyone not in agreement with their views...."
Wow! Islam the peaceful religion! Its immoral for a woman to walk on the beach with a man! It is immoral to drive a car. It is immoral to show your your face! It is immoral to talk to any man other than your husband. It is immoral to do anything but what your husband tells you to do! Islam the most intolerant religion on the face of the earth. Glad to know that Obama signed a bill to bring thousands of these people to the United States on our Tax dollar.
Burger; it goes way beyond that; we are bringing into this country persons who, will not accept our way of life, will not become tolerate of others belief, will not take up arms against a fellow Muslim, will not abide by our laws if it conflicts with their belief, will not say the pledge , but will attempt to destroy the fabric of our society, and re-make it under Muslim law. we must be crazy to trust these people in out society, look at the havoc they have caused in Britain,France,Netherlands,Germany and any other country where they are allowed to set up their brand of world domination.
Yes, we are Hamas. We are Muslims. We are then naturally enemies of human rights and freedom. We have our eye on the West and we will eventually strip you of your god given human rights unless you resist us. You won't resist us. You will be easy pickings. We will use your own freedoms against you until we are in control and then we will eliminate those freedoms and you will answer to us. THE foregoing is their plan which will be implemented unless we wake up and resist.
This is for saxon, you have heard of a thing called the constituation? Do you really think that it would be overthrown? Btw my husband is a US soldier and a muslim. So will not take up arms, yeah you would be surprised at how many muslims are in the military. Are you? Will not say the pledge? There are several christian groups that will not say it either. So there you go.
For d burger the Orthodox Jews don't want men and women together in public and they do have the "clout" in Israel to make that happen. And those Muslims that are coming over here are those that have gone against the "hardliners" and so their lives are in danger. Don't be on the welcoming committee. As for being the most intolerant religion in the world? Well I would have to cast my vote for the Baptist. I have some encounters with them and intolerance is to nice of a word for them.
Now before anyone says anything I don't like the Hamas or what they are doing, but I do see a lot of ignorance in some posts. Education is key for all, including Americans.
Oh gary, really not funny. Kind of dumb actually.
mmhaq is right; it is stupid to lump all Muslims together and stereotype them according to their most extreme lunatic-fringe groups. That would be like saying all Christians are polygamist wife-beating snake-handling faith-healing apocalyptic Bible-thumping crosseyed inbred hillbilly river-baptizing tent-meeting xenophobes.
Which we are not. And neither are Muslims as you so broadly paint them.
Bethlehem - Ma’an - The mayor of Kiryas Joel, a village within the town of Monroe, New York, whose residents are entirely Hasidic Jews including many holocaust survivors, sent a letter of support to US President Barak Obama urging him to continue pushing for regional peace, including on his call to halt settlement construction, and end the “senseless bloodshed” in the Middle East.
“As an American of the Jewish faith, and as a mayor of the largest village inhabited by Orthodox Jews, I am writing to support your noble efforts,” Mayor Abraham Wieder opened the letter.
According to a statement from a group called True Torah Jews, which is working to spread the message of the village mayor, “The letter was written in reaction to the anti-Obama rhetoric of some religious pro-settler organizations, which have become increasingly vocal in recent weeks as the Obama administration continues to push the Israeli government to curb settlement growth in the West Bank as a prerequisite for a peace settlement.”
The letter rejects Israeli-Zionist claims that no part of the holy land can be relinquished, calling the religious basis for the claims “wholly fallacious!” and explains that “after the destruction of Israel in 69 CE, Jews were commanded to await divine redemption and prohibited from conquering the land.”
Rabbi Dovid Shlome Eckstein called the letter timely and important in an era “when many Jews in our community are upset over the militant Zionist groups who appear to be representing Orthodox Jews.”
***Add Ma'an to your Facebook News Feed: Click here to become a fan.
Why do Muslims hate women so much?
All patriarchal gods hate women.
It's fear,lust and envy and they hide it with those ridiculous laws. Hamas, the Taliban and the extreme Islamics fanatics feel women are to be shoved into a lower classes, a subhuman level. It's total denial on their part, because if they are complaining how a woman is dressed, than they would have a heart attack how women in the Western dress for the beach. The young woman was wearing shirt and jeans,... come on at a beach? Not very alluring in Western and European standards. Here in America women wear bikinis, thongs and next to nothing.
They're hiding their sexual frustrations by terrorizing women with this double standard stuff. They all need to take cold showers or go out and date women than listening to those old clerics.
My family and I were on a cruise once. It was hot and we all went swimming, snorkeling and sunbathing. One day at the pool on the cruise ship, there was a family we noticed wearing heavy clothes. The 3 teenage girls were wearing jeans and long sleeve shirts and the father and mother wearing sweat shirts and jeans and sweats. A group of men walked by and one of them was drunk and asked, "Why you'll wearing such heavy clothes? Geesh it's more than ninety degrees out here? Let your kids go swimming at least. Buy them a bathing suit."
Basically it wasn't the man's business to ask such a question. However, you could help but wonder why sit in the hot sun with 16 layers of clothing on? The man with his family stood up and replied, "It's against our religion and it's forbidden to show our skin, especially the females." The drunk guy said, "Yeah so why isn't you wife were a scarf on her head?" The man said, "We're not that extreme. Good day."
The drunk man's friends coaxed him to come back with them and left the family alone. My family and I, and the other families around that area all looked at each other, quietly. You know, we were all thinking the same thing too.
We were thinking why wear such so many clothing on a hot day, is what we were all thinking. Not the scarf thing. Just wanted to clarify that.
Because they are insecure.
Islam, "The religion of peace".
Yeah they peacefully beat their women and treat them like garbage. It's ridiculous and sad for the women to accept that kind of treatment from any human much less their own families. Can't talk to a guy unless he's your husband? Geez, I guess they think all American women are just whores. How pitful and sad this religion is.
A brave woman, in a land of pigs.
I don't think all Muslims hate women. I have a few friends that are and they are very devoted to women, as they are wives and mothers. However, like any faith there are extremes and people who use a book to push the message they want. Sadly, what we hear in the media is only the bad. Look at both books and you will find passages that women are second class humans. If you want to make something fit you can force it.
both books?
which other book?
Kama Sutra.
Jesus did not treat his women followers any different then his men. No where in the new testament does it say a women is below a man.
These are the people Obama and Hillary are going to give 1.2 million dollars to. I wonder with that much money,how many police they can hire to inforce their stupid laws . CHANGE we can believe in.
truly amazed --- Both books are the Koran and the Hadith.
truly amazed --- Both books are the Koran and the Hadith.
truly amazed --- Both books are the Koran and the Hadith.
truly amazed --- Both books are the Koran and the Hadith.
Joe904290 - Perhaps a re-read of your bible is in order? There are, quite literally, dozens of books in both the old AND new testaments of your gods bible which depict women as inferior and subjugate to men. For new testament examples, might I point you to the books of corinthians, ephesians, timothy, peter, and titus. I do believe you are correct in your interpretation that Jesus dealt with all people equally. However, his followers and those who later bent his teachings to their own desires for power did not. And still do not today.
fieldtheory is 100% correct. all religions with a patriarchal image of god depict women as weaker and inferior.
Women are easy targets and so are children, see the Bible, it was created in the Middle East and distorted/modified in the West and used for all sorts of deviant purposes by the Church (organized religion).
Example:
The Malleus Maleficarum(Latin for "The Hammer Against Witches", or "Der Hexenhammer" in German) is a famous treatise on witches, written in 1486 by Heinrich Kramerand Jacob Sprenger, two Inquisitors of the Catholic Church, and was first published in Germany in 1487.
This was derived from the bible by men and so the evolution of world religion, run by men, some where a long long time ago some man in the middle east came to the conclusion that women are smarter than men for the most part. Therefore in order to"keepem down" they evolved this branch/shiest/belief that women (Humans) are property unlike nature.
The girls are very smart guys they were here first, so if they tell you pull over for directions, you might want to, just a hint. As for the middle eastern red necks they will get their "cum-uppins" don't worry, evolution has a way of taking care of that.
Well, this is absolutely no different from Christians trying to deny equal rights to gays. So, until we clean off our own doorstep, we need to stay out of other countries' business where such behavior is concerned.
Really and have you seen what muslims do to gays? America is the most tolerant nation in the world.
L.J.Rhodes,
you brought this up...
Christians are NOT denying "equal rights" to gays, they are denying SPECIAL rights to gays.
you want a civil union with your partner? fine. you want all the benefits of a "marriage" with that? fine. but it is NOT marriage, it is, and will be a civil or domestic union.
marriage, throughout history has been for procreation. advancement of the species.
no, i am not a right wing religious extremist, but i firmly believe "marriage" is between a man and a woman. i dont deny your rights, but i will deny you the legal term of marriage.
Wanting the exact same rights as everyone else is not wanting special rights. Where the hell do you people keep getting the nerve to call them "special?" That's just a not-based-on-reality buzzword, and using it makes is foolish, to say the least. Also, marriage has never been necessary for procreation. Otherwise, it would be impossible for people to reproduce out of wedlock.
Marriage is an institution, created by man, to legally enslave partners to each other (though it was actually more created to enslave women to men). But, if straights can do it, then so can gays. Besides, you can't stop us from calling ourselves married, anyway, since all those who claim marriage is actually a religious institution are bound by the first amendment to allow others to practice their own religions as they see fit, and if I want to call my union a marriage, religiously entered or not, there isn't a damned thing on Earth you can do about it.
L.J.Rhodes,
i didnt say marriage was NECESSARY for procreation. why do you seem to have a lack of comprehension when a statement is made in opposition of your view?
i dont care what you call it personally. but i will continue to deny you the "legal term" marriage. sorry if i dont see it your way, though i know you could care less about seeing it the Lord's way...
homosexuality is not a religion.
i also NEVER claimed marriage was a religious institution. again, try using comprehension when reading. please.
d burger,
It is, is it? So, how do you explain Canada, Spain, and all the other countries where same-sex marriage is legal--where women also have all the same rights as men, religious freedom is also observed, and racism and other such unequal and unethical treatments of humans are also forbidden? They seem to have pretty much all the same freedoms and protections for their citizens that the U.S. does...and then some.
We're one of the most tolerant, but we're certainly not the most tolerant. And what's with this "tolerant" business, anyway? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Tolerance is what one shows a nuisance like mosquitoes and flies. Gays are fully functioning, fully contributing members of society. We're not looking to be tolerated, because we're every bit as integral and important a part of this country as anyone else. We're to be fully respected and accepted. And, until that happens, expect to keep hearing from us, 'cause we'll keep calling you out for your untoward behavior toward us.
That being said, seeing how Americans continue to oppress certain groups of people and basing that oppression on religious doctrine, we've no right to look down our noses at other countries where religious doctrine is used in the same way, yet that's exactly what this article is doing.
Truly Amazed,
Who are you to deny me anything, least of all the legal term "marriage?" I didn't give you that right, and I certainly don't have to ask for your permission to do anything. If wanting the term "marriage" to legally describe my union to my partner is wanting a special right, then it's a special right that you already have, so it's still simply an equal right I'm after. And what makes you so special that you should be given this right while I'm denied it? I work just like you do. I pay taxes just like you do. I spend money and support the economy just like you do.
Hell, I even volunteer in nonprofit organizations. I teach people about art, technology and a host of other subjects completely free of charge to help them better themselves. I donate my time and efforts in soup kitchens to feed the poor and homeless. I frequently help total strangers when I see them in need of assistance, whether it be to change their tire on the side of the road or fix their bike when I'm out on the trails and they decided to venture out unprepared.
So, tell me, what makes you any better than I? What makes you any more deserving of the rights you have that I don't? Do you do all the things I do? A vast majority of Americans actually don't. So, again, tell me why they deserve more rights than I have. I don't just claim to be a good, deserving person by wearing my religious beliefs on my shoulder. I actually work to be a good person. I actually prove I'm a good person. If anything, I deserve the right to marry more than most of the people who tell me I don't deserve it at all.
"marriage, throughout history has been for procreation. advancement of the species"
That certainly makes it sound like you meant marriage is a precursor for procreation. And while I agree marriage isn't a religious instituion, for you to say so makes me wonder why you have a problem with it in the first place.
So, gay marriage should be banned just because Truly Amazed says so. TA, aren't you intelligent enough to give one logical argument to defend your position?
I dare you to use the bible, incest, marry farm animals, polygamy, pedophiles, procreation. Bring it on. I dare you.
PS just announced on news today scientists can make sperm from female stem cells
TA, you are confused about definitions. A right extended only to a certain group is a special right, therefore STRAIGHT MARRIAGE is the Special Rights group. A right withheld based on religion, race, creed, sexual preference is DISCRIMINATION.
L.J.Rhodes,
congratulations to you. your post 6.6 makes you out to be a caring person concerned about the welfare of others, i applaud you for that.
who am i to deny you anything? well, i am a citizen of the U.S. and am entitled to my opinions, same as you. i am also of the belief that the "radical gay leftists" are purposefully attempting to usurp the term to play "legal games" with Christians. after confiscating the term "marriage" the extremists will be attempting to have laws changed to "force" churches into marrying homosexuals.
my opinion, and i am entitled to it.
actually, no i dont do all that you do. i am not an artist, (unless stick figures count) nor do i pretend to be one. but i donate my time to various causes and concerns including assisting those in need, much the same as you. (hey, we both are people with hearts, imagine that) who would have thought that a Christian and a homosexual would have more in common than just humanity (i mean besides me)
i never said you (or other gays) are better or worse than myself
nj to miami,
you have the right to get married, same as every american.
choose a member of the opposite sex, and get married. no discrimination involved.
the Bible is my logical argument, and i am not interested in your "spin" on it.
side note: i am not the only one to hold the view that marriage should be between a man and a woman
Truly Amazed,
Christians used to use the bible to justify slavery. Then, when they lost slavery, they used it to justify denying blacks equal rights. When blacks got them anyway, they used the bible to justify banning interracial marriage. Once again, society took the humanitarian rather than religious approach and legalized interracial marriage.
Now, it's gay marriage. And, rest assured, we're going to gain that, too. You claim that you're against legalizing same-sex marriage out of fear of what will come next--that churches will be forced to marry gay couples. However, even to this day, churches are free to refuse to marry interracial couples. They're free to refuse to marry couples of different nationalities. They can claim religious beliefs for refusing to perform any ceremony they want, and courts will side with the churches in almost every instance of lawsuits of being filed.
People have a right to marry and have it be legally recognized, and for the purposes of legal marriage, we have courthouses that will step in and perform the ceremony for both couples who aren't religious and don't want to get married in a church and for churches who don't want to perform any particular ceremony.
However, even now there're plenty of churches that already perform religious unions for gay couples, and they do so willingly and with great enthusiasm. Hell, it's extra money in their pockets, if nothing else. But, those same churches will also step up to perform legally recognized marriages when the time comes, so your precious church, should it be one of the ones that doesn't want any part of such ceremonies, can breathe easy knowing another church down the street will gladly perform the ceremony (and collect the subsequent cash), but even when another church can't be found, the justice o' the peace will do it instead, and all will be well in your place of worship.
So, now that I've laid your fears to rest, what other justification do you have for refusing to extend equal rights to gays? And simply saying it's your religious belief that they not be given such rights isn't a valid reason, because you're forbidden by federal law to codify religious beliefs into law.
incorrect.
the Bible does not condone slavery in the context of european/american slavery. people do. and actually, the middle easterners were the first to subjugate the africans.
the Bible does not justify banning of interracial marriage. people do.
i can take almost any book and put enough spin to make almost anything seem justifiable, even if it isnt.
if "churches" read: PEOPLE wish to misinterpret the Bible, the onus is on them, not me. i must answer for myself only.
you have the right to practice religion, same as every american.
choose a form of Christianity and practice it. no discrimination involved.
So according to your logic, Jews, Buddists and Muslims would have to convert to Christianity if they want to practice religion and Gays have to convert to heterosexuality to become married. You are an idiot.
NJto Miami,
????
your post makes no sense, you make no sense AND you choose to insult me.
C.O.H.
have a great life.
I dare you to quote the bible verse that bans Gay marriage. The bible never mentions gay marriage. You know why? Because God wants Gays to marry.
You love your twisted version of the bible so much then spend your days getting laws passed banning divorce, adultery, and birth control. But I guess you wouldn't be interested in that because these items directly affect you and outlawing them would cramp your straight life style.
You are an idiot and a coward.
Truly Amazed,
If you must only answer for yourself, then what the hell do you care if I marry my same-sex partner? If it is a sin for me to be gay, that's on me, not you. If it is a sin for me to marry my same-sex partner, that's on me, not you. So, unless my committing what you consider sins actually harms you in some quantifiable way (and not just that it's an affront to your personal taste), how do you legally justify preventing me from doing it and you not actually be infringing on my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? You do know, don't you, that you forfeit your own rights when you infringe upon the rights of others?
L.J.Rhodes,
again, post 6.2 -- with comprehension this time:you want a civil union with your partner? fine. you want all the benefits of "marriage" with that? fine.
i dont consider it marriage, if you do, fine. i consider it a civil union/domestic partnership between two consenting adults. you have no idea about me, nor who my friends are (several are gay, and are well aware of my personal feelings) -- since i treat them with respect, and have known them longer than they have known my beliefs, they "know" my true feelings. and they are o.k. with that.
Truly Amazed,
But almost all the laws, both federal and state, that grant legal protections for "civil unions" do not use the words "civil unions." They only use "marriage," and that one particular word is what determines whether or not legal protections can be enjoyed by two people in a committed relationship. If they're not "married" on paper, they don't get the benefits that come with the government's various laws that afford them to "married" couples.
Which is easier and cheaper? Allowing same-sex marriage, or changing each and every law, from the bottom to the top, to include the phrase "civil unions?" It would take years to decades and millions to billions of dollars to make all those changes, whereas it would take one Congressional session and a few thousand bucks to legalize same-sex marriage across the board if done at the federal level.
Are you saying you want to put our country at an even greater economic disadvantage just to appease your personal preferences for vocabulary usage?
Incidentally, Massachusetts has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. Now that an actual state has launched legal proceedings, things are really going to get interesting.
Good for her for refusing to go with them! And good for the man for coming forward even after he was detained and beaten! The only way things will change is if the people speak out, no matter what.
Bravo!
I agree 100%!
These guys suck & they need to be toppled out of power..
Like Christian fundamentalists they are trying to force their own interpretation of a book of mythology on everyone else.
nothing like it at all.
but, judging from you post history, i dont expect you to understand this.
go to Gaza, and see if their "force" is the same as the Christian fundies.
side note: the Bible is not a book of mythology, no matter how often you call it one.
Wait...the stories in the Bible are true? So there IS a Santa Clause?
first, it is "Santa Claus" no "e"
second, show me the verse in the Bible regarding santa claus(e)
maybe you are simply ignorant?
Yes...true about the "e".
Better being ignorant than just being "simple"...ignorance can be overcome.
And since you apparently didn't quite "get" it...it was a dig as we were comparing one myth to another :-) It's not so funny when you have to explain it though.
If it wasn't a book of mytholology then there woud be some proof to back it up. Faith alone does not fact make. Aesop's fables teach alot of the same lesson's as the bible, but thats just what they are, fables. Stories developed to explain things that coudn't be understood at the time or to give epople comfort in their own short existence.
Keithsn,
there is proof, AND much evidence to back up the veracity of the Scripture's.
if you choose, you can study and verify. or not.
it is your choice
Theres also proof and scientific evidence to support evolution. You can study and verify, or not, it is your choice. I will provide references for studies that have been done in regards to this that lay out the evidence showing its validity if you give me the same for the bible. Can you do the same thing with the bible? If so, give me just a handful, and I garantee I will study and verify. And saying that there was a person named Jesus who lived 2000 years ago, is not proof, I'm sure there were lots of Jesus's back then. I still say that the story of Jesus walking on water actually took place in the winter and the water was frozen so he walked on ice, that is as close as I can come to saying that stuff is logical.
This is not so much an indictment against Hamas. They certainly have a basket full of evils they already dispense. This is one more reason that religion should be totally divorced from civil and public involvement. Those that depend on some ancient pronouncements for their source of morality and guidance are without the scruples to recognize decent treatment of others on their own. Emulating the life and philosophy of Yeshua (Jesus' real name) Mohamed, Buddha or any other spiritual leader is a cop-out on personal responsibility. Yes, they all had useful viewpoints and ideas, and no, I wouldn't want any of them in public office or positions of great influence. They also lived in times where the considerations of modern life did not exist, therefore they provide little guidance in many of today's interactions. Above all, these are providers of philosophy and not rules that should be enforced on others. Governments and religion form a toxic mix.
They also deny using schools and hospitals as staging areas for rocket attacks on Israel.
what amazes me the most is that women in muslim world are just as religious as men. well all women for that matter. it is pretty clear that all religions were created by men to control other men and their families.. so if women all over the world want to be free then the first thing they should do is to change themselves. grow up and realize that you are in charge of your lives.
What a great religion this is, denies everything to a woman and says it is the great religion of all religions, give me a break. It is strickly a control concept, religion has nothing to do with it, there is no hatred in religion, control of human rights in true religion, it is a political control idea that will die, like all other ideas of this sort have done, evil always looses to the good side of human existence.
Hamas, like all militant Muslim groups, needs to be exterminated, the sooner the better.
It's a slippery slope--we, as U.S. citizens, believe in freedom of religion, which is what is happening--in Gaza, they are practicing their religion. On the other hand, it seems more than unfortunate that the authority in Gaza has nothing better to do than act as Orwellian Thought Police; there are starving citizens in their front yard, and they're frittering their time and resources away on something like this. It is, however, their right--right?
I believe you will find in case law in the U.S. that the common good and basic civil rights trump anything religious orders can cook up. Of course, not so in many other countries. Respect for those practicing their religion begins with their respect for basic human and civil rights.
PW ---Freedom of religion is not happening in Gaza. Their government is Islamic. The government imposes Islam on everyone. Freedom of religion is not allowed. There are less than 2000 Christians there and no synagogues. When Gaza was returned to the Palestinians they burned all existing synagogues. There are over 1,500,000 Palestinians in Gaza.
Hey, why would anybody want to get married? It's a death sentence for Sex
Yeah, who invented marriage anyway - what a sucker punch that was! Thanks for the laugh.
They can talk till they are blue in the face about these kinds of things having to do with their religion but, in reality its far more about control than anything else. That and a pathological fear of women and change. And any western woman who becomes a Muslim and hasn't lived in a strict Islamic society has no business trying to tell anyone at all how wonderful and liberating it is to wear layers and layers of clothing, keep their heads covered or completely cover their faces, maybe leaving just the eyes out. These kinds of restrictions and abuses of power will continue and increase until those who live under this type of ridiculously barbaric and backward rule stand up in enough numbers and put a stop to it. And not just the women, the men also have to see it for what it is.
Hey rider-83, educate yourself.
This was contributed by another poster. I don't recall his name.
"A brief history lesson is in order:
The legal basis of the establishment of the modern state of Israel comes from the League of Nations, which in its Mandate for Palestine (July 24, 1922) recognized the right of the Jewish People to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory (which originally included all of what is now Israel and Jordan). Britain, the Mandatory power (a mandatory is a form of a trusteeship), for her own power-play reasons, soon withheld from Jewish settlement the 80% of the Mandated territory that eventually became the Arab state of Jordan. In other words the dispute we have today is over only the remaining 20% of the land set aside for a Jewish Homeland.
The League of Nations committed itself to the Jewish return to Israel explicitly based upon the Jewish historical connection to Israel.
The preamble to the Mandate states: “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;”
This point of the Jews historical, in addition to, religious, connection to the land was heavily discussed at the time, and its inclusion in the preamble to the Mandate is deliberate.
The Jewish right of settlement in all of the land west of the Jordan river (pre-1967 Israel, the disputed territories, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip), was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated, and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the UN Charter, "the Palestine Article," which provides that the Mandatory for Palestine, a trust established on behalf of the Jewish people by the now-defunct League of Nations, would remain in force as a legal document of the United Nations. The “settlements” are thus entirely legal under international law. Furthermore the “settlements” are fully allowable under the Oslo agreements, which say that the status of the ‘settlements” will be determined in final status negotiations (which have not happened).
The Jewish community that had existed in Israel from time immemorial as well as the more recent Arab residents of Israel (renamed Palestine by the Romans in their attempt, somewhat successful based upon the evidence of these posts, to disconnect the land of Israel from the Jewish people. The name Palestine references both the long-gone Philistines and the Roman deity Pales) lived in great poverty.
The land was desolate, scarcely populated and forsaken until the end of the 19th century when Jewish Zionist energy, enterprise and sacrifice began a revival of the land that continues to this day. As a result of Zionist enterprise the Arab population swelled. Arabs flocked into the land for economic reasons and the existing population blossomed as Jewish efforts to improve the land caused the health of the Arabs to improve dramatically, meaning that half of their children were no longer dying by age 5 and life expectancy for those who did survive went beyond their forties.
The benefits in health, living conditions, more opportunity and economic conditions did not prevent politically motivated violence. Politically motivated attacks by Arabs against Jews began in 1920. This is well before the so-called “occupation”, well before the establishment of the state of modern Israel, over a decade before the Jews even had protecting groups. In 1929, in a hatred fanned by the Moslem elite and anti-Semitic British colonial officials, Arabs butchered Jews across the land of Israel.
In the 1930’s Arab violence continued, escalating against both the British and the Jews. Belatedly, the Jews began to create defensive units.
By the 1940’s the Jewish community divided on two issues, the extent to which there should be retaliatory attacks against Arab violence, and on whether the Jews should cooperate with or oppose the British. The dispute regarding the British arose because with the Jews of Europe threatened with extermination, the British, in complete violation of their obligations as the trustee for the Jewish National Home severely limited Jewish immigration (and after the Holocaust was over sunk Jewish refugee ships trying to reach sanctuary in the Jewish homeland). The Irgun did bomb the wing of the King David Hotel that the British had taken over as their military headquarters but it was a military target and the Irgun gave several warnings in the hour before the attack. Unfortunately these warnings were ignored by the British.
The British eventually tired of the Arab violence, and the violence between the Arabs and Jews, and announced their intention to abandon their position as Mandatory. New Arab violence against the Jews flared up in 1947, but by now the Jews had over a quarter of century to develop ways to defend themselves. Israel declared independence in May 1948. Seven Arab armies invaded. Both the local Arabs and the seven Arab nations that invaded Israel in 1948 were defeated.
The United Nations did not establish Israel. The right under modern international law of Jews to return to their historical homeland was created by the League of Nations and continued by the United Nations. The modern state of Israel was created by her citizens in 1948 and was defended from its very first day against Arab attacks. What the United Nations did do was to recommend a partition of the remaining 20% of the Mandatory Lands into Jewish and Arab sections, a recommendation that the Arabs rejected out of hand, and after Israel declared its existence, the United Nations recognized Israel as a state and UN member.
Prior to 1948 the term “Palestinian” normally meant Jew. Arabs were generally referred to as “Arabs”. The term Palestinian, meaning Arab, did not come into use until the 1960’s and was deliberately used to create the illusion that there was a separate people called Palestinians and later the idea that there had been a country called Palestine. In fact “Palestinians” are ethnically, religiously, linguistically, culturally and historically, Arabs. There are 21 Arab states already, but only one very small Jewish state. As Arabs, “Palestinians” would be ethnically, religiously (except for the largely peaceful and persecuted Christian minority), linguistically and culturally at home in any number of existing Arab states, but particularly Jordan, part of the original Mandate for Palestine and now largely populated by people who label themselves “Palestinians”.
There was never a nation of Palestine or anything that resembled a nation. Had the Arabs in the area that is now Israel been given a vote in the 1920’s as to what they state they wanted to belong to they would have chosen either Syria, as much of the land of Israel had been administered from Damascus during the hundreds of years the Turks controlled the Middle East, and most Arabs considered themselves Syrians, or they would have chosen to become part of the Jewish homeland, for the above-noted reasons of health and prosperity. The idea of a separate Arab state west of the Jordan river was a fringe political idea on par with those who want parts of Florida to leave the United States.
Arabs often claim they want peace. Many in the west assume when Arabs use the word peace it has the same meaning as it would have in the west.
The Palestinians in their own words (articles 21-23 of the Palestinian National Covenant):
Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.
Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland.
Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations, in order that friendly relations among peoples may be preserved, and the loyalty of citizens to their respective homelands safeguarded.
The number of Arab deaths in over 80 years of conflict between Jews and Arabs is about 60,000. The number deaths among the Arabs (and Iran) from conflicts among themselves during this same period is in the millions (Iraq, Egypt, Yeman, Iran, Syria, Lebanon). And this is just part of the mass killings going on throughout the Islamic world, both amongst Moslems, and against other people, as we were just so brutally reminded in the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Over 95% of the active and violent disputes or wars going on in the world today involve Moslems. Only one involves Jews."
conservative; good history, covered it well; left out one thing; Harry Truman, stood up to be counted, and was the first to greet the State of Israel.
Regerating the same Zionist propaganda they've been repeating since the 1880's.
Ever since when is the benefit of the doubt given to those who stole the land and the homes of others, and not given to the people who lost their land and their homes?
Only a bunch of racists would do that.
PALESTINE FOREVER AND FOREVER PALESTINE!!!
never forget that hamas reads the quar-an, there interpratation of the book is simple, the world is made up of two different kinds of people. believers who are the choosin and the nonbeliever who are worthy of death. within that circle you can beat a woman for almost any thing, and kill a jew any time the chance comes along,and have three wives at a time. my quaran has commentary this book is not worthy of toilet paper, and the sand people are using it to run their countrys. CREEPY
aah...your comments are pretty creepy as well.
Hey just to let you know that Christians and Jews are consider people of the book. So under Islam that means they are "believers". Just because some crazy people take over a religion and try to change it to suite their needs doesn't make it right.
And wow jim, so many things wrong with your post. I agree with Buffy, kinda creepy.
Islam does not believe that Christ was the son of God as do Christians. Islam believes that all the world's inhabitants should adopt Islam and they will force them to do so at the point of a sword if necessary. Islam desires to impose Sharia law( Islamic Law) on the world. Islam does not believe in fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equal rights for women and men, etc.
wow,
that is just hatred, pure and simple.
meaning your post jim
I want to know why on earth a woman would continue to live in such a restricted Muslim culture? If women don't like the sexist rules, they need to pack up and leave Gaza or any other Muslim country where they are harrassed and tortured.
I mean...why fight a whole country and its customs ? It is far easier to re-locate to a better country!
P.S. But do yourselves a big favor and leave your Muslim attire and head gear in the garbage can !
In Islamic societies women are controlled by men. In the Koran Muhammad approved men beating women if they are disobedient. In many Islamic countries women cannot even leave their homes without the permission of their husbands. They are precluded from even speaking with a man that is not a member of their family. Sadly , they have no power or ability to just leave.
I grew up Southern Baptist and women were not allowed to wear pants. They taught us that man is the head of woman; that a husband rules over his wife who must meekly submit to whatever he says, even when she is right and he is wrong; that women can never carry any kind of spiritual authority; and all this because six thousand years ago a woman munched a fruit after being told not to.
Don't pretend this kind of attitude is not alive and well in the USA today. Christianity has exactly the same problems Islam does; if anything, in greater proportion. We sold weapons to Iran and Iraq in the 70s and cashed out while they slaughtered each other; look at the diplomatic, commercial, and financial ties between wealthy Americans and Saudi Arabia; now tell me where is our moral high ground?
Self-righteous posturing. We need to clean our own house before taking a swipe at anyone else's. And all you posters who claim the USA is the most tolerant nation in the world: you might want to go out and see the world before making that kind of statement. It only makes you seem provincial and ignorant.
I am proud to be American because we are a nation of ideas. We have done great and fine things. That does not make us unique, nor does it absolve us of responsibility for the wrong we have done. We need to act better before we deserve to feel better.
Fundamentalists are the problem, whether Muslim, Christian, or of any other religion.
I agree, 100%.
People who love to tell other people what is moral and what is not, of any ilk, usually under the guise of religion, are indeed the problem. I was watching a documentary of Congressional hearings from the 1950s when booksellers and publishers were being arrested for being purveyors of pornography - for selling Lady Chatterly's Lover, which of course would be extermely tame by today's standards!
There is some line to be drawn - for example, I would find it extremely unpleasant to see people fornicating in the streets - and it is up to societies to decide where to draw the line. But interesting how, throughout history, it has been the men telling the women what they can and can't do. This includes the Christian church of course. Deciding where to draw the line of what is acceptable and what is not in society is not easy; I for one am wholeheartedly on the side of erring on the side of acceptance and freedom, a la the Dutch, rather than erring on the side of repression a la fundamentalist Christians or Muslims. But of course there are limits as to what behavior can be tolerated. This is necessarily subjective. I for one greatly appreciate the fact that the US has moved generally in the direction of tolerance, in spite of the constant calls for the reverse from conservatives, who loves to raise the spectre of the destruction of the fabric of society.
Yet it is that conservative society that died a sweet death in the 1960's cultural revolution. This repressed society hid all kinds of skeletons in the closet: pedophilia by priests, unreported child abuse in the home, labelling of dacing as "devil's work", women unwilling to report rape because they would be blamed - I would have hated to live in those repressed times. But our confused social conservatives see that period as some kind of Golden Age.
Well, what are we talking about here, after all? It is how to judge a culture, a nation, a people and then decide if we want to do business with them.
Like I said, it's more than OK for the US to do business with a Muslim country that don't allow woman to drive, and where the most numbers of terrorists who have killed the most number of Americans come from, like Saudi Arabia.
But when it comes to us Palestinians every move, every word is scrutinized for signs of danger.
Who is Hamas after all? They are men and women who were born, went to school, and had families under the Israeli occupation and siege, and who are now watching their children and grandchildren being born, going to school and having families under the same occuaption and siege.
But God forbid they lose their temper because that can only prove in the eyes of the US media these people are nothing but rabid dogs who don't deserve to the same rights everyone else in the world is born into.
Hamas didn't come to be until 20 years of the Israeli occupation, and it took antoher 20 years for them to win parliamentary elections. So to the US media this occuaption that has gone on for over 42 years and with no end in sight counts for nothing.
Absoluytely nothing.
What matters to the US media is that now some Hamas police want to enforce the law a observant Muslims and that that is for some reason newsworthy. The threat of imposing Islamic law.
While all the this time the media completely ignores the occupation and the devastation that has brought to every Palestinian family, it ignores that Palestine has always been one of the most liberal of the Arab Muslim countries, and it starts to scream "bloody murder" when a Hamas member misbehaves.
If you want to correctly asses a nation the best way to do it is to give them their freedom first, and watch how they behave under this freedom.
It is not right to judge an entire nation by placing them under a ruthless occupation, take their land, their water, restrict their use of their own borders, airspace and even the seashores, and keep doing that for decades on end to see how they react.
The US media and the Powers-That-Be in the halls of the US Congress have it all backwards.
Yes it is obvious how American politics is two faced double crossing when it comes to oil but not only that it just shows how the Jewish media uses these small tactics to brain wash everyone especially these small minded people, yet I will never give credit to the Palestinians no one can tolerate or trusts them anymore they being such back stabbing Mercedes driving Hippocrates, the Gaza war of 2008/2009 was the first and the last time the Palestinians ever fought for what they claim as their land heck don’t make me throw up your people don't deserve the land of Israel
Excuse me, but we are talking about the homes where Palestinians live and the land those homes are at.
If you live on that home and that land, it's yours, period. It's the same principle applied around the world and guaranteed under International law.
The entire Arab Middle East came out with a plan saying that if Israel sticks to the 1967 borders an end of the conflict will be agreed upon. Hamas, for your information, IS A SIGNATORY TO THAT PLAN.
But if you're racist enough to believe we are a backstabbing people who cannot be trusted, well, that's your problem. Not ours.
Esam, easy to throw the "racism" word around. Jews are not a separate race. The Israeli government has shown itself to be cruel, aggressive, and disrespectful of treaties it has itself signed. The US should completely cut off all aid to Israel.