UN Panel: Israeli Settlements Are Illegal

[danrooke]

I am sorry to hark on YKohan,

Right, let’s start this conversation again.

Is killing ever justified, bear in mind “thou shalt not kill” ?

Is stealing ever justified, bear in mind “thou shalt not steal” ?

Not to put words in your mouth, but let’s say it’s justified to ask “an eye for an eye” so to speak - a life for a life - (i don’t agree personally). Has Israeli response to rocket attacks, suicide bombs et cetera been met with like justice?

Again, let’s say it’s justified to ask an “eye for an eye” - a stolen good for a stolen good - (again, i am against). Are the Israeli settlements an adequate response to the history of occupation from various Empires?

PS. Please try harder to understand my view point. Currently your replies have suggested you not interested in a progressive discussion which gets us somewhere, all you’re wanting to say is “no no no” to all my words when really all I want to say is “let’s look for constructive ways to find peace rather than fuel the war with more hate”. How many more people need to die on both sides for there to be a civilised discussion because so far we seem unable to do so? Don’t you think that Israel has more power to stop the war than the Palestinians? Does saying that the “Arabs” started it justify in doing what Israel has been doing? Have you listen to the fundamentalism on the Israeli side? Have you listen to the temped, reasonable views on the Palestinian side.

(sorry I had to offer my rebuttal.
On bias, did you look at the sample size? And where they got their information from? 1,200 people in “West Bank and Gaza”. Do you know what kind of access the surveyors had? What kind of demographic they targeted? What are the views held by the organisation? Rule of thumb: Polls are never a good bias for an argument in any situation.
You constantly mention how the “Arabs want to drive Israel into the sea”, did I even mention anything for or against that? No. if you’re allowed to use arguments outside of the parameters of our discussion, then why am I not allowed. The conflict is bigger that the both of us can articulate which is why we pluck themes from all over the place.
I don’t think discrediting Ghandi is great idea. He is a pacifist, did he know about the horror of the Nazi regime? Come on, you must always remember the context)

Dan

 

[OneSheep]

Galileo WAS ordered to repent- and was punished by the Church; not forgiven at the time.

Has the Church ever said it was wrong for going to free the Holy land in the Crusades? By your logic, they should have forgiven the Muslims. They didn’t.

Has the Church ever said it was wrong for waging war against the Albigensian heresy? Martin Luther? The Inquisition?

You are clearly going against Church teachings and actions.

In fact, what you are advocating is closer to the Anabaptists- whom the Church fought against.

Please, YKohen, you are trying to make a point of argument with someone who agrees with you. The Church hierarchy has made many mistakes over time, and if they have overlooked an opportunity for forgiving someone, they should forgive today. This is the example they are to set for us.

I am not going to argue with you about my going against the teachings and actions of my Church. It appears that you refuse to believe that I am following Jesus’ example by forgiving unconditionally, but Jesus stands as an example who forgave ,from the cross, an unrepentant crowd. Okay, you don’t believe this is Catholic teaching, and you don’t agree with it either. I hear you and accept your point of view. Can we put this to rest now?

However, I still await your next response on our “trial run” on whether such unconditional forgiveness would lead to tyranny and chaos:

Indeed, though war is to be understood in the context of escalation, I cannot deny that our side has done its share of the escalation. I have taken the time to forgive those fellow Palestinians who escalate the conflict. There has been plenty of “eye for an eye” going on in other places too, I cannot deny this. Our peoples have banished each other from lands we control. The point of what I am saying, though, has nothing to do with “who started this”.

What I am saying is that I used to hold your acts against you, and I no longer do. I have forgiven you. I know that you may be thinking “I never deserved your hatred”, but the fact is that I did hate, for understandable reasons, and now I do not. I have forgiven you. I see that you are a person, a human being, just like me, not an object of my contempt. By an act of my will, I have forgiven, because doing so is what my soul truly wants.

What is your next response?

 

[mercytruth]

There were 3 oaths. It was a package deal. Either all were in force, or none were in force. Once the 3rd was broken by the nations, the first 2 were no longer in force.

Alternatively, oaths aren’t commandments. Commandments transcend time and space. Oaths have a “shelf-life” of 1000 years. That 1000 years ended hundreds of years ago.

Nope. Again, even according to the view that after 1000 years they were in force, they’re not standalones. They’re all parts of 1 “contract”. Break one part, and the contract is null and void.

I am attempting to understand your perspective as a religious Zionist. Did G-d establish the present day nation of Israel through the efforts of Ben-Gurion and the secular, atheist and socialist Zionists, or did He establish the present day nation of Israel through the permission given by the nations (via the UN) in 1948?

shalom

micah

 

[YKohen]

Is killing ever justified, bear in mind “thou shalt not kill”?

That’s a mistranslation. The actual Hebrew is “Thou shalt not murder”. There’s a difference between the 2. We know that killing is sometimes justified. For instance, see Ecclesiastes 3:1-8. This is also the Church’s position. We all agree that it is not ideal, but there are times when it is a must.

Is stealing ever justified, bear in mind “thou shalt not steal”?

We aren’t stealing anything. Again, refer to 1 Maccabees Chapter 15:

**[33] We have neither taken foreign land nor seized foreign property, but only the inheritance of our fathers, which at one time had been unjustly taken by our enemies.

[34] Now that we have the opportunity, we are firmly holding the inheritance of our fathers.**

Not to put words in your mouth, but let’s say it’s justified to ask “an eye for an eye” so to speak - a life for a life - (i don’t agree personally).

That is putting words in my mouth, and isn’t the Jewish interpretation of the verse. Our interpretation is that in the laws of damages specifically, the VALUE of an eye must be paid by the guilty party to the victim. Otherwise, what kind of justice is that?

Has Israeli response to rocket attacks, suicide bombs et cetera been met with like justice?

The point is that it was an Israeli response to Arab rockets shot at Israeli civilians; Israeli operations in response to Arab suicide bombers, etc. Whatever it takes to get them to stop is justified- legally and morally, and ALL casualties are legally and morally on the heads of the terrorists.

Are the Israeli settlements an adequate response to the history of occupation from various Empires?

I have no idea what you are talking about. They have nothing to do with each other. Jews always lived here- except when the Arabs ethnically cleansed us for 19 years (and stole all Jewish property here). Now we are back where Jews always lived.

Please try harder to understand my view point. Currently your replies have suggested you not interested in a progressive discussion which gets us somewhere, all you’re wanting to say is “no no no” to all my words when really all I want to say is “let’s look for constructive ways to find peace rather than fuel the war with more hate”.

Please don’t suggest that Arabs have a right to ethnically cleanse Jews, steal their property, and keep Judea Judenrein. That’s not peace- or justice. It is the exact opposite.

How many more people need to die on both sides for there to be a civilised discussion because so far we seem unable to do so?

No more will die the day the Arabs call it quits. It’s that simple.

Don’t you think that Israel has more power to stop the war than the Palestinians?

Of course not. We don’t initiate the war and bloodshed. They have- consistently.

Your error is that you believe that just because we are stronger, that they can’t possibly be the aggressor.

That is incorrect.

Does saying that the “Arabs” started it justify in doing what Israel has been doing?

What exactly has Israel been doing that’s problematic? Fighting back and winning? Living where Jews always lived? Not accepting ethnic cleansing?

Bad bad Israel!

Have you listen to the fundamentalism on the Israeli side? Have you listen to the temped, reasonable views on the Palestinian side.

I listen to everyone, but at the end of the day, actions are what count. The Arabs choose war and terror, and they suffer the consequences of their actions. We will not have it any other way. Either they’ll learn or they will no longer be here.

On bias, did you look at the sample size? And where they got their information from? 1,200 people in “West Bank and Gaza”. Do you know what kind of access the surveyors had? What kind of demographic they targeted? What are the views held by the organisation? Rule of thumb: Polls are never a good bias for an argument in any situation.

Anyone who has ever taken a statistics class knows that a sample size of 1200 is a valid sample.

The group that did the poll, AWRAD, is an independent research center led by Dr. Nader Foqahaa. He has presented results of his research at Harvard University, MIT, The University of Pennsylvania, SOAS, Jordan University, and others; and their list of partners wouldn’t suggest bias:

awrad.org/page.php?id=48M8EW22mVa9802908AsCvyDRV42s

Rule of thumb: Polls carried out by reputable groups can be definitive- unless one is into conspiracy theories.

And it isn’t like it would be in his interest to present these findings either.

You constantly mention how the “Arabs want to drive Israel into the sea”, did I even mention anything for or against that? No.

I appreciate you recognizing the truth here.

I don’t think discrediting Ghandi is great idea. He is a pacifist, did he know about the horror of the Nazi regime? Come on, you must always remember the context

Gandhi was an ideological pacifist. Context would not have changed his opinion. I am not an ideological pacifist, but believe that the ideology enables evil and tyranny to thrive.

Again, see Ecclesiastes.

 

[YKohen]

Please, YKohen, you are trying to make a point of argument with someone who agrees with you. The Church hierarchy has made many mistakes over time, and if they have overlooked an opportunity for forgiving someone, they should forgive today. This is the example they are to set for us.

You obviously don’t agree with me, and it isn’t the “Church hierarchy”. It is Church theology and actions, and much of it does fall under the rubric of Papal infallibility.

I am not going to argue with you about my going against the teachings and actions of my Church…

On that note, these show the exact opposite of what you claim:

In Holy Writ nothing is more common than exhortations to repentance: “I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezekiel 33:11); “Except you do penance you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:5; cf. Matthew 12:41). At times this repentance includes exterior acts of satisfaction (Psalm 6:7 sqq.); it always implies a recognition of wrong done to God, a detestation of the evil wrought, and a desire to turn from evil and do good. This is clearly expressed in Psalm 50 (5-14): “For I know my iniquity . . . To thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before thee . . . Turn away thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. Create a clean heart in me”, etc. More clearly does this appear in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:13), and more clearly still in the story of the prodigal (Luke 15:11-32): “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee: I am not worthy to be called thy son”.

…Catholic writers have always taught the necessity of contrition for the forgiveness of sin, and they have insisted that such necessity arises (a) from the very nature of repentance as well as (b) from the positive command of God. (a) ‘They point out that the sentence of Christ in Luke 13:5, is final: “Except you do penance”, etc., and from the Fathers they cite passages such as the following from Cyprian, De Lapsis 32: “Do penance in full, give proof of the sorrow that comes from a grieving and lamenting soul . . . they who do away with repentance for sin, close the door to satisfaction.” Scholastic doctors laid down the satisfaction’ principle, “No one can begin a new life who does not repent him of the old” (Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xvi, Pt. II, art. 1, Q. ii, also ex professo, ibid., Pt. I, art. I, Q. iii), and when asked the reason why, they point out the absolute incongruity of turning to God and clinging to sin, which is hostile to God’s law. The Council of Trent, mindful of the tradition of the ages, defined (Sess. XIV. ch. iv de Contritione) that “contrition has always been necessary for obtaining forgiveness of sin”. (b) The positive command of God is also clear in the premises…

…Contrition is not only a moral virtue, but the Council of Trent defined that it is a “part”, nay more, quasi materia, in the Sacrament of Penance. "The (quasi) matter of this sacrament consists of the acts of the penitent himself, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction.

…In the very nature of things the sinner must repent before he can be reconciled with God (Sess. XIV, ch. iv, de Contritione, Fuit quovis tempore, etc.). Therefore he who has fallen into grievous sin must either make an act of perfect contrition or supplement the imperfect contrition by receiving the Sacrament of Penance; otherwise reconciliation with God is impossible…

newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm

…The Council of Trent expressly declares (Sess. XIV, c.i) that penance was at all times necessary for the remission of grievous sin…

newadvent.org/cathen/11618b.htm

What is your next response?

I agree with much of the Church’s teaching above. It is close to the Jewish belief that there can be no forgiveness without repentance.

 

[YKohen]

I am attempting to understand your perspective as a religious Zionist. Did G-d establish the present day nation of Israel through the efforts of Ben-Gurion and the secular, atheist and socialist Zionists, or did He establish the present day nation of Israel through the permission given by the nations (via the UN) in 1948?

shalom

micah

Clearly through both.

Ezekiel 36

22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel: Thus saith the Lord GOD: I do not this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name, which ye have profaned among the nations, whither ye came.

23 And I will sanctify My great name, which hath been profaned among the nations, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

24 For I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.

27 And I will put My spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep Mine ordinances, and do them.

28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be My people, and I will be your God.

 

[danrooke]

YKohen,

This will be my last post.

Rather than trying to understand how killing/murdering innocent people might be a wrong thing to do in the eyes of God, you seem adamant on justifying the Abuses of the Israeli government. Your claims on what are the historical rights of the Jewish people and what the Arabs might have done are not the subject of the discussion either (even if I have been fuelling similar points as well). What we’re discussing is this “the Israeli Settlements are Illegal according to the UN”. Firstly what is being made illegal? During war time it is illegal to build on your enemies territories; this includes ceasefire and occupation, as these are not peace. Once the war is over you may hand over land as per the peace agreement, either Full annexation or Partial agreements, whatever the case may be. Then the result of the war will be the legally defined, mutually agreed upon land.

So even if you believe that the land belongs to you, even if you believe that the Arabs started the conflict, even if you believe all the arguments you have given in previous posts, it wouldn’t make the Settlements Legal or justified; As is the case with colonialism and with the USA conquest of North America. To build civilian settlements behind enemy lines is wrong on many levels. You put your own citizen’s lives at risk, you’re in effect using civilians as shields, and the settlements become the new boarders of the country without a peace negotiation. The interest of land is more important that people which is a violation of Human dignity. The settlements mean that peace is only workable through annexation as the first reason for conflict has the addition of new violations, settlers are settled yet people whose homes have been demolished still would like to return home.

Clearly we will never agree on this conflict which is terrible, it means no peace. I can’t understand your position; to me it is madness, inconsistent, and lacking in logic and reason. You may equally say the same. But on the Settlements it seems that no argument will stop us from conceding that they hurt the peace effort for both sides.

I also noticed that you avoided my two questions awhile back,

Do you want war?
Do you want peace?

Enjoy yourself,

Dan.

 

[mercytruth]

Clearly through both.

Ezekiel 36

22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel: Thus saith the Lord GOD: I do not this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name, which ye have profaned among the nations, whither ye came.

23 And I will sanctify My great name, which hath been profaned among the nations, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

24 For I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.

27 And I will put My spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep Mine ordinances, and do them.

28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be My people, and I will be your God.

Yes, may it be so. Although, even Jacob humbled himself before his brother Esau when he and his family came into the land. Even Jacob rebuked Simeon and Levi for their wholesale revenge on the city of Hamor for the sake of the honor of their sister, Dinah.
(Genesis 49:5-7).

It just seems to me that from the perspective of G-d giving legitimacy to the establishment of the State of Israel. that it would be incumbent on Israel to honor the agreement which they made with the UN regarding the issue of partition. It seems to me, that the spirit of Jacob who humbled himself before the people of the land and tried to live in peace with them is lacking in present day Israel.

shalom

micah

 

[OneSheep]

In Holy Writ nothing is more common than exhortations to repentance: “I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezekiel 33:11); “Except you do penance you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:5; cf. Matthew 12:41). At times this repentance includes exterior acts of satisfaction (Psalm 6:7 sqq.); it always implies a recognition of wrong done to God, a detestation of the evil wrought, and a desire to turn from evil and do good. This is clearly expressed in Psalm 50 (5-14): “For I know my iniquity . . . To thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before thee . . . Turn away thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. Create a clean heart in me”, etc. More clearly does this appear in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:13), and more clearly still in the story of the prodigal (Luke 15:11-32): “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee: I am not worthy to be called thy son”.

…Catholic writers have always taught the necessity of contrition for the forgiveness of sin, and they have insisted that such necessity arises (a) from the very nature of repentance as well as (b) from the positive command of God. (a) ‘They point out that the sentence of Christ in Luke 13:5, is final: “Except you do penance”, etc., and from the Fathers they cite passages such as the following from Cyprian, De Lapsis 32: “Do penance in full, give proof of the sorrow that comes from a grieving and lamenting soul . . . they who do away with repentance for sin, close the door to satisfaction.” Scholastic doctors laid down the satisfaction’ principle, “No one can begin a new life who does not repent him of the old” (Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xvi, Pt. II, art. 1, Q. ii, also ex professo, ibid., Pt. I, art. I, Q. iii), and when asked the reason why, they point out the absolute incongruity of turning to God and clinging to sin, which is hostile to God’s law. The Council of Trent, mindful of the tradition of the ages, defined (Sess. XIV. ch. iv de Contritione) that “contrition has always been necessary for obtaining forgiveness of sin”. (b) The positive command of God is also clear in the premises…

…Contrition is not only a moral virtue, but the Council of Trent defined that it is a “part”, nay more, quasi materia, in the Sacrament of Penance. "The (quasi) matter of this sacrament consists of the acts of the penitent himself, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction.

…In the very nature of things the sinner must repent before he can be reconciled with God (Sess. XIV, ch. iv, de Contritione, Fuit quovis tempore, etc.). Therefore he who has fallen into grievous sin must either make an act of perfect contrition or supplement the imperfect contrition by receiving the Sacrament of Penance; otherwise reconciliation with God is impossible…

I agree with everything you posted above here, because none of the call for repentance says that repentance is to be a precondition for forgiveness. That said, repentance is extremely important. If I ask God for forgiveness, but have not repented, then I will not realize the very forgiveness I am asking for, even when G-d does forgive.

I will explain. In one story, Jesus first tells us to forgive an infinite number of times, then goes on to tell a story of a master who does not forgive his servant because his servant had not forgiven a fellow servant. The master subjects the unforgiving servant to torture. Jesus finishes the story with (paraphrased) “So shall my heavenly father treat you, if you do not forgive one another.” At face value, this story makes G-d look like a hypocrite. However, the “torture” is a matter of guilt. If we cannot forgive everyone else, then our own guilt is the torture we must endure. If we cannot forgive everyone else, then the G-d we project is one who doesn’t forgive, so our own sin will forever beat on our soul. G-d is only as forgiving as how we psychologically project Him.

I cannot downplay the extremely important role that repentance plays in forgiveness. One very part of being able to forgive is that the situation at hand is under control. If I have a problem with theft, for example, unless I get my theft under control, I will have a great deal of difficulty forgiving that part of myself that motivates the theft. Repentance means getting bad behavior in control, and Jesus calls for repentance in a number of different ways, including repentance from making law more important than people. What Jesus basically says is this: The zealous pursuit of justice without regard to the violating people’s wants and needs is in itself something from which we are to repent. We are to love and forgive everyone, even those who have violated the rules. Forgiveness is repentance from the sin of blindness to the beauty of every living human.

 

[OneSheep]

…there can be no forgiveness without repentance.

Now, please forgive my persistence on this question that you are at this point you are not answering. My observation is that when it comes to assigning blame you, like all of us humans, are very quick to respond with all the reasons why everyone else is to blame. Denial is the part of the human condition that keeps us from tearing ourselves up with guilt. We all do this.

On the other hand, when I ask you to respond to a person who says he forgives you, you have no response. Remember, we are in the process of investigating the possibility that unconditional forgiveness will lead to tyranny and chaos. Am I to conclude that your lack of response is an admission that unconditional forgiveness will not lead to tyranny and chaos? Well, so be it. I would like to know your response anyway, because what I am suggesting is that unconditional forgiveness does not lead to tyranny and chaos, but instead leads to universal reconciliation, which is what the G-d I know desires. So, I will try again:

Indeed, though war is to be understood in the context of escalation, I cannot deny that our side has done its share of the escalation. I have taken the time to forgive those fellow Palestinians who escalate the conflict. There has been plenty of “eye for an eye” going on in other places too, I cannot deny this. Our peoples have banished each other from lands we control. The point of what I am saying, though, has nothing to do with “who started this”.

What I am saying is that I used to hold your acts against you, and I no longer do. I have forgiven you. I know that you may be thinking “I never deserved your hatred”, but the fact is that I did hate, for understandable reasons, and now I do not. I have forgiven you. I see that you are a person, a human being, just like me, not an object of my contempt. By an act of my will, I have forgiven, because doing so is what my soul truly wants.

What do you say to this person who has come before you and spilled his soul? You say that you are involved somehow working with Christians, making their lives easier in Israel. I appreciate that. Pretend that one of the people you have run across has said this very statement to you. What would you say? Picture the person and the situation, as awkward as it may seem.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That is putting words in my mouth, and isn’t the Jewish interpretation of the verse. Our interpretation is that in the laws of damages specifically, the VALUE of an eye must be paid by the guilty party to the victim. Otherwise, what kind of justice is that?

You are almost certainly a better scholar of the Torah than I am. However I have seen it asserted that the “eye for an eye” injunction was also a directive that true justice limits penalties to proportionality. Not “your whole family’s life for an eye” or “both of your eyes for my one eye”.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, may it be so. Although, even Jacob humbled himself before his brother Esau when he and his family came into the land. Even Jacob rebuked Simeon and Levi for their wholesale revenge on the city of Hamor for the sake of the honor of their sister, Dinah.
(Genesis 49:5-7).

It just seems to me that from the perspective of G-d giving legitimacy to the establishment of the State of Israel. that it would be incumbent on Israel to honor the agreement which they made with the UN regarding the issue of partition. It seems to me, that the spirit of Jacob who humbled himself before the people of the land and tried to live in peace with them is lacking in present day Israel.

shalom

micah

I think it would be rather difficult to show humility in the face of a threat; that is what the Israeli government is dealing with. I am not sure that our friend YKohen reflects the majority of the Israeli people, though. I would hope that the majority of the Israeli people would be able to respond from the heart-felt statement made by the Palestinian I proposed with something from their own hearts.

I suppose that it stands in YKohen’s mind that the topic of this thread is itself a threat to the state of Israel, and this puts him into something other than a mode of humility. I can understand that.

I get the impression that the vast majority of respondents here, including myself, are in favor of the security of the Israeli state, but like the U.N., are against the settlements. But I can see also that much of Israel’s unpopularity in the world is a direct result of their stubborn refusal to stop settlement action, and even more unpopular is the use of settlements as retribution for Palestine seeking statehood.

I think people in many nations of the world are practicing their own “eye for an eye” i.e. “if Israel doesn’t let Palestine be a state, then Israel does not deserve to have one either”. There is no amount of Israeli pointing to the Torah about right to the land that can erase this basic, gut-level reaction from people. Here again, it is first reconciliation that leads to the solution. Please world, forgive Israel…

I suppose that in some way Israel is imprisoned by its own desire for exclusive settlements.

 

[504Katrin]

Now, please forgive my persistence on this question that you are at this point you are not answering. My observation is that when it comes to assigning blame you, like all of us humans, are very quick to respond with all the reasons why everyone else is to blame. Denial is the part of the human condition that keeps us from tearing ourselves up with guilt. We all do this.

On the other hand, when I ask you to respond to a person who says he forgives you, you have no response. Remember, we are in the process of investigating the possibility that unconditional forgiveness will lead to tyranny and chaos. Am I to conclude that your lack of response is an admission that unconditional forgiveness will not lead to tyranny and chaos? Well, so be it. I would like to know your response anyway, because what I am suggesting is that unconditional forgiveness does not lead to tyranny and chaos, but instead leads to universal reconciliation, which is what the G-d I know desires. So, I will try again:

Indeed, though war is to be understood in the context of escalation, I cannot deny that our side has done its share of the escalation. I have taken the time to forgive those fellow Palestinians who escalate the conflict. There has been plenty of “eye for an eye” going on in other places too, I cannot deny this. Our peoples have banished each other from lands we control. The point of what I am saying, though, has nothing to do with “who started this”.

What I am saying is that I used to hold your acts against you, and I no longer do. I have forgiven you. I know that you may be thinking “I never deserved your hatred”, but the fact is that I did hate, for understandable reasons, and now I do not. I have forgiven you. I see that you are a person, a human being, just like me, not an object of my contempt. By an act of my will, I have forgiven, because doing so is what my soul truly wants.

What do you say to this person who has come before you and spilled his soul? You say that you are involved somehow working with Christians, making their lives easier in Israel. I appreciate that. Pretend that one of the people you have run across has said this very statement to you. What would you say? Picture the person and the situation, as awkward as it may seem.

Leave him alone!
He’s doing the right thing not answering your posts.
Do we really have to open that can of worms again. Let it go, please.

 

[chosen_people]

YKohen,

This will be my last post.

Rather than trying to understand how killing/murdering innocent people might be a wrong thing to do in the eyes of God, you seem adamant on justifying the Abuses of the Israeli government. Your claims on what are the historical rights of the Jewish people and what the Arabs might have done are not the subject of the discussion either (even if I have been fuelling similar points as well). What we’re discussing is this “the Israeli Settlements are Illegal according to the UN”. Firstly what is being made illegal? During war time it is illegal to build on your enemies territories; this includes ceasefire and occupation, as these are not peace. Once the war is over you may hand over land as per the peace agreement, either Full annexation or Partial agreements, whatever the case may be. Then the result of the war will be the legally defined, mutually agreed upon land.

So even if you believe that the land belongs to you, even if you believe that the Arabs started the conflict, even if you believe all the arguments you have given in previous posts, it wouldn’t make the Settlements Legal or justified; As is the case with colonialism and with the USA conquest of North America. To build civilian settlements behind enemy lines is wrong on many levels. You put your own citizen’s lives at risk, you’re in effect using civilians as shields, and the settlements become the new boarders of the country without a peace negotiation. The interest of land is more important that people which is a violation of Human dignity. The settlements mean that peace is only workable through annexation as the first reason for conflict has the addition of new violations, settlers are settled yet people whose homes have been demolished still would like to return home.

Clearly we will never agree on this conflict which is terrible, it means no peace. I can’t understand your position; to me it is madness, inconsistent, and lacking in logic and reason. You may equally say the same. But on the Settlements it seems that no argument will stop us from conceding that they hurt the peace effort for both sides.

I also noticed that you avoided my two questions awhile back,

Do you want war?
Do you want peace?

Enjoy yourself,

Dan.

If you have the time read this article “Israel and the Sad History of Jewish Property Rights”

frontpagemag.com/2013/benjamin-manaster/israel-and-the-sad-history-of-jewish-property-rights/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=999688e5c5-Mailchimp_FrontPageMag

 

[chosen_people]

You are almost certainly a better scholar of the Torah than I am. However I have seen it asserted that the “eye for an eye” injunction was also a directive that true justice limits penalties to proportionality. Not “your whole family’s life for an eye” or “both of your eyes for my one eye”.

For those who reject the Jewish interpretation of the Torah that “an eye for an eye” does not mean to strike out the eye of a person who has caused another to lose an eye, but rather deals with monetary compensation, please consider the following two examples:

A blind man (or toothless man) is brought before the court for being responsible for causing the loss to another of an eye (tooth).

A dying man with only minutes to live is brought before the court for being responsible for causing the death of another.

What should the court ruling be in these two cases in applying the principle of “an eye for an eye”?

 

[OneSheep]

Leave him alone!
He’s doing the right thing not answering your posts.
Do we really have to open that can of worms again. Let it go, please.

Katrin, I understand. Perhaps you are feeling a little annoyed by my persistence. Perhaps you are thinking that the lack of response is a “right thing” in that because of my annoying persistence, I deserve no answer. Please forgive me, Katrin. Persistence is not a sin, and my efforts are well-intended.

And this is the question at hand. Can you forgive me, Katrin? Or would you like me to repent from the pursuit of reconciliation? I know, annoying persistence may in itself be counter-productive. It may very well be that YKohen is taking the time to respond in a thoughtful way.

Is God just as persistent with you? He is with me. When I don’t forgive, He just keeps asking me over and over again. I suppose I could get annoyed and just shut Him off, but deep down I want to forgive anyway, don’t you?

It is our Christian calling to forgive. So often fora that focus on foreign policy go into blaming matches, and I am trying to redirect such efforts.

What “can of worms” are you talking about?

 

[OneSheep]

If you have the time read this article “Israel and the Sad History of Jewish Property Rights”

frontpagemag.com/2013/benjamin-manaster/israel-and-the-sad-history-of-jewish-property-rights/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=999688e5c5-Mailchimp_FrontPageMag

Hi chosenpeople. I hit the link there because I know something of the truly sad history of Jewish property rights, but I had to stop when I got to the part that said that mainstream American protestant churches have no moral aversion to the killing of Jews.

I am sure there is a better article out there, one that tells the real story of the sad history without making such statements.

 

[YKohen]

YKohen,

This will be my last post.

Rather than trying to understand how killing/murdering innocent people might be a wrong thing to do in the eyes of God, you seem adamant on justifying the Abuses of the Israeli government. Your claims on what are the historical rights of the Jewish people and what the Arabs might have done are not the subject of the discussion either (even if I have been fuelling similar points as well). What we’re discussing is this “the Israeli Settlements are Illegal according to the UN”. Firstly what is being made illegal? During war time it is illegal to build on your enemies territories; this includes ceasefire and occupation, as these are not peace. Once the war is over you may hand over land as per the peace agreement, either Full annexation or Partial agreements, whatever the case may be. Then the result of the war will be the legally defined, mutually agreed upon land.

So even if you believe that the land belongs to you, even if you believe that the Arabs started the conflict, even if you believe all the arguments you have given in previous posts, it wouldn’t make the Settlements Legal or justified; As is the case with colonialism and with the USA conquest of North America. To build civilian settlements behind enemy lines is wrong on many levels. You put your own citizen’s lives at risk, you’re in effect using civilians as shields, and the settlements become the new boarders of the country without a peace negotiation. The interest of land is more important that people which is a violation of Human dignity. The settlements mean that peace is only workable through annexation as the first reason for conflict has the addition of new violations, settlers are settled yet people whose homes have been demolished still would like to return home.

Clearly we will never agree on this conflict which is terrible, it means no peace. I can’t understand your position; to me it is madness, inconsistent, and lacking in logic and reason. You may equally say the same. But on the Settlements it seems that no argument will stop us from conceding that they hurt the peace effort for both sides.

I also noticed that you avoided my two questions awhile back,

Do you want war?
Do you want peace?

Enjoy yourself,

Dan.

That’s the issue. Self-defense against terrorists isn’t an “abuse”. It is a moral and legal duty.

Again, Jews always lived in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza- except for the 19 years during which the Arabs ethnically cleansed every last Jew. If the UN considers us returning to where we ALWAYS lived “illegal”"- but not the Arab ethnic cleansing of all Jews, then tough luck on them.

And the Arabs chose war even when there were no Jews here. Bottom line is it’s a red herring.

As to whether I want war or peace, obviously I want peace, but peace with no Jews isn’t peace. If that’s the criteria, then I will fight- and win. Ultimately, there will be peace- with or without our enemies here.

 

[YKohen]

Yes, may it be so. Although, even Jacob humbled himself before his brother Esau when he and his family came into the land. Even Jacob rebuked Simeon and Levi for their wholesale revenge on the city of Hamor for the sake of the honor of their sister, Dinah.
(Genesis 49:5-7).

Jacob did humble himself, however, you’re missing an important point:

Jacob was returning to the land of Israel from Laban’s house (in today’s Iraq). Esav met him, coming from southern Israel. After they met, Jacob continued into the land that Isaac has passed on to him as per G-d’s will, and Esav left to Seir, which is southern Jordan.

Both knew that the land belonged to Jacob.

Unfortunately, this isn’t yet the case with the children of Ishmael, who presently occupy 99% of the Middle East.

It just seems to me that from the perspective of G-d giving legitimacy to the establishment of the State of Israel. that it would be incumbent on Israel to honor the agreement which they made with the UN regarding the issue of partition…

That’s the point: We did. It was the Arabs who didn’t. Once they didn’t, all bets were off. Once one side breaks a contract with a major infraction, the other side can void the contract.

The Arabs are like the guy who murders his parents and then cries for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan.

Life doesn’t work that way.

 

[Ridgerunner]

For those who reject the Jewish interpretation of the Torah that “an eye for an eye” does not mean to strike out the eye of a person who has caused another to lose an eye, but rather deals with monetary compensation, please consider the following two examples:

A blind man (or toothless man) is brought before the court for being responsible for causing the loss to another of an eye (tooth).

A dying man with only minutes to live is brought before the court for being responsible for causing the death of another.

What should the court ruling be in these two cases in applying the principle of “an eye for an eye”?

I did not challenge YKohen’s interpretation. But neither is what I said contrary to what he said. He said it refers to compensation. I said I ALSO understood that it stands for proportionate justice in making penalties fit the offense. Not inconsistent.