For Dan And Other Middle East Experts

[volgadon]

To be fair you have a looser definition of "reality".

\

Perhaps, perhaps. But can you substantiate your claim of hell on earth whenever the two mix?

[The Nehor]

\

Perhaps, perhaps. But can you substantiate your claim of hell on earth whenever the two mix?

 

 

You probably have a very loose definition of "Hell on earth" and "whenever." Ones that correspond to no reality whatsoever in this case.

 

 

No, because despite the scare quotes you put around your phrases they aren't in my posts. You decided to paraphrase for some reason. Maybe you thought it would be more intimidating or something?

 

If I was to substantiate this mythical claim what would you want? A picture of an Israeli and a Palestinian glaring at each other with a crater to hell in the background and imps and fiends of all kinds crawling out of it hungry for the flesh of the living?

[volgadon]

 

 

 

 

 

No, because despite the scare quotes you put around your phrases they aren't in my posts. You decided to paraphrase for some reason. Maybe you thought it would be more intimidating or something?

 

If I was to substantiate this mythical claim what would you want? A picture of an Israeli and a Palestinian glaring at each other with a crater to hell in the background and imps and fiends of all kinds crawling out of it hungry for the flesh of the living?

 

 

Not scare quotes, but you are right. I looked again, and you said "hell on the ground" and "where." Not much of a difference, certainly not in the first phrase. So please, substantiate this.

[The Nehor]

Not scare quotes, but you are right. I looked again, and you said "hell on the ground" and "where." Not much of a difference, certainly not in the first phrase. So please, substantiate this.

 

Yes, but the second phrase is much more important.

 

Alright, here you go:

 

 

Of course that is not sufficient for you. You want an exhaustive 1000 page report complete with diagrams and pictures to support it; in other words, something that really would be inappropriate for a message board. However, you think you are scoring points in some mythical contest by demanding it so you will probably continue.

 

Of course on the other hand it would be just as easy....or easier to substantiate that it does not qualify metaphorically as hellish so why don't you substantiate that and we will go from there. (Hint: Posting a bunch of random links does not count)

[Stargazer]

Wow, so upper-crust Jews get along just fine in Israel? Who'd have thought it?

Who said the Medveds were upper crust? I didn't.

 

And no, I do not feel the need to give you names and email addresses of those who have shared information with me.

I don't think I can be reasonably accused of demanding that much precision. I think it would be sufficient for you to tell me that you are actually acquainted with people on the ground in the area and that your statements and opinions are based in something other than what you've heard reported on ABC, NBC, and CBS News. Which are all fine networks with a more-or-less single viewpoint.

 

For he who lives by the gun shall live in peace.

Are you being sarcastic here, or did you misspeak?

 

No, that is not the case I was looking at. Your refutation is sadly inane though. Are you arguing that the Lamanites who were massacring the Anti-Nephi-Lehis did not have as their declared objection the destruction of those they were killing? This is always the defense of the military hawk when called on extermism: "You do not realize how EVIL they are! We have no choice!"

Of course they had as their stated objective the destruction of those they were killing. The goal of Hamas is to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.

In light of this goal, you think a vigorous defense against Hamas is military extremism? Hamas hasn't fired enough rockets into Israel to justify Israel's response? They need to fire 20,000 or 30,000 more before the Israelis are justified sending in troops to stop them?

Hamas IS evil. There is no question of this. But there is no justification of military action against evil, unless evil attempts to actualize its evil. Like Hamas is doing.

And they are evil not only because they want to destroy Israel and kill the Jews, but because they also don't care how many of their own people get killed in the process.

 

I am going to ignore your World War II bit as you are beating that poor straw man. I do not advocate the extreme pacifism of Gandhi who encouraged the Jews to passively accept their fate.

Ignore away.

So, what do you advocate that the Israelis do to stop Hama from firing rockets into Israel? I'd like to see a concrete suggestion that might actually work, as opposed to some kumbaya mantra of hope and change. Hamas isn't interested in peace, I should point out. If they were interested in peace, they wouldn't be firing missles at Israel.

 

I do think it odd that you seem to equate my suggestion that people repent to pacifism (which you seem to abhor). Do you see the penitent in the same light as you do pacifists?

No, I do not. The Israelis should repent. In fact, everyone everywhere should repent. But do you seriously think that Hamas cares a fig that the Israelis repent? If you do, you're welcome to your idealism, but the only repentance that Hamas would care about would be the wholesale conversion of the Jews of Israel to Islam. And what are the chances of that, do you think?

As to pacifism, I don't abhor it, exactly, but it can be a self-limiting policy in extreme situations.

 

Well, the "full of knowledge" bit is completely mutual.

If both of us were so completely full of knowledge, then we'd likely agree much more about this subject, but clearly we don't. So one of us is full of knowledge and the other is full of ignorance. And, for your delectation, I am the former and you are the latter. You will of course disagree, and I am willing to accept this. I doubt you can convince me of a darned thing; it's fun trying, of course, and then there are other people watching, and perhaps we can change someone's not-yet-made-up mind. We can hope, anyway.

Seriously, I find your position on this subject untenable because it seems to be based upon a Pollyanna-view of both history and current events. I am all about Reality, and the Reality is this: Hamas is an evil organization with evil goals, and it's every action has been in furtherance of those goals. On the other hand, Israel is reacting to Hamas's attempts to further its goals, which Hamas is perfectly happy with because no matter what Israel does Hamas gets what it wants. If Israel simply cowered in its bomb shelters in its cities, relying upon Iron Dome to protect its citizens, then Hamas wins because it gets to shoot rockets into Israel with impunity, and demonstrates that Israel is run by cowards and fools. In that case, such passivity will only encourage other organizations to take similar actions. If Israel attempts stop the rockets, it must tear Hamas out of Gaza, root and branch, and it must unavoidably destroy homes and kill civilians, because Hamas has insinuated its fighters, launching points, and ammo storage into every corner of the populated area. Intentionally, because they gain great public relations by being able to show how the big bad Israelis are hurting people.

I suspect that you think some kind of peace agreement can be brokered which will stop Hamas from shooting rockets into Israel, and cause Israel to withdraw from Gaza. Well, I don't know if you've noticed it or not, but Hamas has accepted and then violated several such agreements, one right after the other. That's because they are not interested in peace, and they won't be until they are dragged kicking and screaming to the negotiation table by enough force to destroy them.

And has anyone pointed out to you that the easiest way to stop Israel from its action in Gaza is for Hamas to stop firing rockets at Israel? It's clear that withdrawing from Gaza unilaterally will encourage them to keeping firing rockets.

 

Do I know anyone who has been involved in the conflict? Yes, I do.

That's nice! Do they agree with you that it's everyone's fault? Do they have any brilliant ideas, other than invading Gaza, for getting Hamas to stop shooting rockets?

[Stargazer]

Do you only operate in binary where every conflict has a good guy and a bad guy? Saying both sides are to blame is not "blaming Israel". It is "blaming everyone involved".

We are all sinners. To say otherwise is to deny Reality. It also denies Reality to insist with the passion you exhibit that everyone is at fault, in apparently equal proportions.

I operate upon the principle that there is a principal bully in almost every violent transaction. The principal bully is usually (though not always) the one who initiates force.

Israel withdrew from Gaza several years ago and let Gaza govern itself. A sin? Or a virtue? It meddled to the extent that it tried to keep weapons from being imported into Gaza (not that they didn't already have some, but that they would not get major weapons systems, such as war rockets). Was that a sin or a virtue? In my view, that's reasonable, given that Hamas has as a stated intention the destruction of Israel, and Hamas runs Gaza. You may disagree.

The thing is, Israel did not invade Gaza until Hamas started firing rockets into Israel. The reason Israel invaded was to stop Hamas from firing those rockets.

The initiation of violence in this case means that Hamas is the principal bully. It didn't need to shoot rockets into Israel to accomplish any goals involving internal politics. There was also no stated reason for Hamas to shoot rockets into Israel as part of an effort to achieve some diplomatic goal. They wanted to provoke Israel, pure and simple, and they succeeded. I happen to believe that they wanted Israel to invade Gaza. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, and Hamas was completely surprised.

So... What is your recommendation for Israel to peacefully get Hamas to stop shooting rockets at them?

Almost every conflict, yes. There is plenty of blame to go around for the Pacific conflict in World War II. The British for colonizing and exploiting the whole region, the Japanese for trying neo-colonialism, the United States for their apathy and colonialism, and many more. The Japanese had been raping, pillaging, and murdering in China for three years (if you don't count their exploitation of previously acquired puppet states). The United States was more worried about the destabilization in the region and not the loss of life. The United States cut Japanese oil to protect their own interests (trade and the Philippines). I would place more of the blame on Japan if that makes you feel better.

Oh, I feel SO much better that you place most of the blame on Japan.

I actually do give some of the blame to the US for 9/11. If we had treated the Promised Land as we should have I doubt it would have happened.

So, how should we have treated the Promised Land, then? Well, no guesswork is actually needed! Bin Laden declared why 911 happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks#Stated_motives

1. The US is allied with and supports Israel

2. The US had a military presence in Saudi Arabia

3. The US imposed sanctions against Iraq

So clearly, we should never have helped Israel, and should have done nothing while its enemies attempted to destroy it. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we should have left them keep it, and when they inevitably invaded Saudi Arabia, we should have sat on our hands about that, too.

If we had just stayed out of Iraq's military adventures and left Israel to fend for itself, then Al Qaida would have left us alone?

When it did we showed that we are a very timid and hyperaggressive people. We leveled two countries with little ability to fight back over an isolated though dramatic incident.

Hmmm. The two words "timid" and "hyperagressive" seem to me to be a very odd pairing.

So, in your view, we should have completely ignored the fact that the Taliban supported and protected Al Qaida, who committed the attack against US soil? And after Pearl Harbor Franklin D. Roosevelt should have immediately called upon the Japanese ambassador and apologized for having incited the Japanese Navy into attacking?

Oh, and we did level Japan, a country with little ability to fight back (their defeat was a forgone conclusion, and Yamamoto knew it, even if his compatriots could not see it), all over an isolated but dramatic incident.

We threw some of our liberties at politicians begging them to take them away and protect us and even now there is little movement to reclaim them.

Pardon me, but that sentence does not parse. I have no idea what you mean.

In the scriptures we are told that if we are hurt or offended and throw revilings and revenge at our persecutors that God considers the initial offense just and deserved. By that metric as a people we deserved 9/11. Not a pleasant thought is it?

So, how many times does Japan need to attack Pearl Harbor before we are permitted to return the violence upon their heads? How many skyscrapers does Al Qaida need to knock down before we are justified in taking action to render them incapable of doing it?

If once isn't enough, I suppose one needs to avoid visiting skyscrapers until the magic number is reached.

And how many rockets does Hamas need to fire into Israel before Israel is permitted to take action to stop them? 10,000? Ooops, they've exceeded that one, so ... 20,000? 300,000?

And as for Poland.....they were very anti-Semitic. There is some twisted poetic justice to also falling harshly with those Jews together under the Nazi boot. Particularly since the Jewish minority were instrumental in creating Poland in the first place and then were quickly turned on.

Interesting. You're justifying the Nazi's and the Soviet Union's rape of Poland because the Poles weren't very nice to the Jews? I am not quite sure how to think about that one.

Okay, I probably come across as harsh here.

Harsh? No. I can think of some other descriptors, but I shall refrain from expressing them.

Just because I ascribe part of the blame to people involved does not mean we should not show compassion and empathy. Truth is.....most of us are in the same boat. LDS go to holy places to try to remove the blood and sins that accumulate from participating in our corrupt and fallen world. My view is more depressing. Few heroes and tons of villains, few innocents but lots of the guilty. We can hope to do some good in the world and minimize the damage we do while seeking a better world.

This worldview does have the advantage of being more in line with scripture. When Moroni rallied the troops it was not with soaring words about the rightness of their cause but with admonitions not to sin and condemnation of the people for getting themselves into this mess.

The Title of Libery was not a mealy-mouthed call to repentance. I'm sure you've read it, but you must have forgotten what was written on that banner. It was nothing BUT "soaring words about the rightness of their cause."

"In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children"

Admonitions of repentance are always appropriate. But the Lamanites and the Amlicites in that case were the principal bullies -- the Nephites were reacting against violence initiated against them, not the other way around. If you wish to insist that the sinfulness of one people is the only reason their evil neighbors invaded them, you may, but I don't think you can find a case where the lack of sinfulness of any people led to the inability of their enemies to invade them. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and this will never cease until the Millenium.

In fact, Peace comes through Superior Firepower. This is borne out by D&C 45:67-70, where the Lord tells of the time when New Jerusalem will be a refuge from war:

67 And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion.

68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.

69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.

70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.

Now, you may equivocate on this and say that it is not war machines that will defend the Saints, but the Power of God, and perhaps the repentance of the people in this case, and I will not necessarily disagree. But the fact still remains is this: they will not come up to battle against Zion because they are afraid to do so, and this will still be because of Superior Firepower.

Reality. It bites.

When Alma dueled Amlici it was with the cry of repentance on his lips for himself and for his people. Hardly the bombastic good guy/bad guy dichotomy people people who support Israel peddle.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you should re-read Alma 2:1-31? Alma is not recorded as having so much as uttering the word "repentence" during this entire episode. The only thing Alma is recorded as saying was while he was dueling Amlici himself, when he said this prayer: "O Lord, have mercy and spare my life, that I may be an instrument in thy hands to save and preserve this people." Whereupon he slew Amlici.

The entire story up to this point in Alma 2 is the Nephites hewing Lamanites down (here we go, Superior Firepower again) during a military operation. Maybe Alma exhorted his troops to repentance at some time during all this, but it is not recorded of him. You cannot use it as support for your claim.

To be fair those who see the Israelis as rabid apartheidists and the Palestinians as helpless victims are equally wrong. At least there is symmetry.

No symmetry whatsoever. The mainstream media (whom you seem to believe, lock, stock and barrel) reports every supposed peccadillo that Israel commits, even to the point of confusing virtue with vice, and omits most of the evil that Hamas commits, taking Hamas's own pronouncements as gospel truth.

Hardly the bombastic good guy/bad guy dichotomy people people who support Israel peddle.

Here is that wonderful binary worldview again. The plain fact of the matter is that both sides are in the wrong. If you cannot see this, then I don't know how to explain it to you.

The plain fact of the matter is that there ARE good guys and bad guys. If you cannot see this, then I don't know how to explain it to you. Maybe there is some good with the bad guys and some bad with the good guys, that would seem to be unavoidable, but the fact you cannot seem to face is that Hamas does not need to fire rockets at Israel, and does not need to kidnap and kill Israeli citizens and soldiers. Yet they do. And if you cannot see THAT as bad deeds committed by bad people, then I just throw my hands into the air.

A few years ago one of my neighbors was forced to kill an intruder in his home. In the middle of the night, the intruder broke down a solid outside door -- literally ripping it from its hinges -- and advanced into the house. 911 was called during the intruder's breaking into the door. The husband had instructed his wife to barricade herself and their child in the bedroom while he stood outside the bedroom with a loaded shotgun. The intruder ignored the man's pointing the shotgun at him and continued to advance upon him while the man shouted at him to depart the house or he would fire. To no avail, as the intruder just continued to come on, and the man let him have both barrels. He fell dead.

The intruder had never ever done anything like that before. He didn't know the people whose house he had invaded. He had no weapon, and he showed no fear of the weapon wielded by the homeowner. But his actions could be interpreted in no other way but as an intention to do great harm, and the homeowner was justified in firing to protect his family. So said the Grand Jury.

But I imagine that your reaction would have been to require the man wait until the intruder actually commit some bodily harm against his family. Maybe both the intruder AND the family were at fault! Perhaps the intruder was angry that the door was locked and all he originally wanted was to play Tag! You're It! So they incited him to break down the door. Or maybe they should all have fled the house and run into the night somewhere.

Yeah, sure.

[Stargazer]

Stargazer, I appreciate the support, but I feel that mere statistics like that can give an incorrect impression. The Druse, for example, are concentrated entirely in Northern Israel and the Golan Heights. They are quite visible, especially the enlightened who dress distinctly. The Arab town not far from me is 1/3 Druse, and we are quite close to Nabi Shuaib shrine. Huge, huge festival there every year. The Druse also serve in large numbers in the defence forces and the police.

I know this, but I was responding to the complaint that in my comparisons of Israel to the rest of the Middle East that I left out the small numbers (in absolute terms) of Christians and Druzes. I left them out in that one post for the sake of simplicity.

In fact, I could have included them and this would have amplified my contention that the treatment of people of all religions in Israel is far superior to any other ME country. Both Druze and Christians are persecuted in those other countries.

As to statistics, you may have noticed that I am well aware that statistics can be very misleading.

[Stargazer]

You presuming that I must be ignorant to be ridiculous is very dubious. Just saying. I can be ridiculous while knowing a lot about a situation. I am not of course ridiculous in this instance.

Thankyou! I nearly passed out from laughter at this. I needed a bit of humor.

 

 Oh, wait... you were being serious?

 

Now that IS truly ridiculous.

 

[strappinglad]

What is the porthole through which Hamas gets the rockets? I assume they come from Iran but the Gaza strip borders seem controllable by Israel at least on 3 sides , do they all come through the 4th side?

While they probably have a lot on their plate, one would hope that Mossad it working on targeting the arms suppliers and bring the consequences of war to their personal doorstep.

[ERayR]

What is the porthole through which Hamas gets the rockets? I assume they come from Iran but the Gaza strip borders seem controllable by Israel at least on 3 sides , do they all come through the 4th side?

While they probably have a lot on their plate, one would hope that Mossad it working on targeting the arms suppliers and bring the consequences of war to their personal doorstep.

 

I remember recently watching a report where the Palestinians were upset that Israel had blockaded the ocean side of Gaza along with the Israeli land borders so yes I would guess it would be from Iran.

[Stargazer]

What is the porthole through which Hamas gets the rockets? I assume they come from Iran but the Gaza strip borders seem controllable by Israel at least on 3 sides , do they all come through the 4th side?

While they probably have a lot on their plate, one would hope that Mossad it working on targeting the arms suppliers and bring the consequences of war to their personal doorstep.

 

The Egyptians, not being fans of Hamas, blockaded their side (and closed the tunnels that Hamas had built into Egypt).  Israel inspects land shipments, but I'd bet the border isn't hermetically sealed, or even the sea route.

[cdowis]

The Hand of God protecting Israel

 

 

 

Israel Today translated a report from a Hebrew-language news site, which carried the man's report after about an incoming rocket headed toward Tel Aviv last week.

The commander recalled: 'A missile was fired from Gaza. Iron Dome precisely calculated [its trajectory]. 

 

 

 

Gaza teenager live-tweets evening of bomb blasts

 

 

 

'We fired the first [interceptor]. It missed. Second [interceptor]. It missed. This is very rare. I was in shock. 

The defence system has been highly effective in the current round of violence between Israel and Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip - Israeli officials say it has a success rate as high as 90 percent.

 

The commander explains that with 'just four seconds' until the missile landed the military warned emergency services to be on standby. 

'Suddenly, Iron Dome (which calculates wind speeds, among other things) shows a major wind coming from the east, a strong wind that … sends the missile into the sea. We were all stunned. I stood up and shouted, 'There is a God!,' he said. 

'I witnessed this miracle with my own eyes. It was not told or reported to me. I saw the hand of God send that missile into the sea.'  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2717659/Hand-God-prevents-rocket-striking-target-Israeli-Iron-Dome-operator-says-sudden-gust-wind-blew-missile-sea-defence-failed.html

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I remember recently watching a report where the Palestinians were upset that Israel had blockaded the ocean side of Gaza along with the Israeli land borders so yes I would guess it would be from Iran.

The blockade is kept in place by Israel and Egypt. Imagine how many more tuneless and rockets they would have with open ports. If the South and open ports during the Civil War, there world be two Nations.

[Stargazer]

For what it's worth, here's Bill Maher to the subject at hand:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC4sk-QYMQ0

 

Of course, Maher has to get in a dig against scientists who are not atheists, since most Nobel Prize winners are atheists, even Jewish NP winners.

[Stargazer]

Of course you know you're dealing with some pretty harsh folks who take Muhammed seriously.  And Hamas, they definitely take Muhammed seriously.  They actually remind of the Christian group who wanted to spark the final conflagration between Israel and the Muslim world, so as to induce the coming of the Millennium.  For here is what Muhammed is reputed to have said:
 

“Judgment Day will come only when the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind the tree and the stone, and the tree and the stone say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him’ – except for the Gharqad tree.”

And of course, this phrase "until the Jew hides" is important, because, saith the scholar Khaled Al-Qudha:
 

Of course. “Until the Jew hides…” – because, as is well known, the Jews only fight from behind walls, when they are hiding. They don’t fight face to face. That’s why the tree and the stone will talk and say things.

Khaled Al-Qudha was such a comedian, I've heard. Except that the only people fighting from behind rocks and trees, hospitals and schools, and women and children, are the Muslims of Hamas. And the Jews are out there face to face.

[Stargazer]

And just when you think that there might be some Muslims in the Middle East who disapprove of what Hamas is doing in Gaza,

 

 

It's not because what Hamas is doing (firing 10,000 rockets into Israel in an attempt to kill as many Jews as possible) is wrong!  Oh, no, he has no complaint with the basic idea, he just thinks that Hamas shouldn't do it until they can do so from strength, when they have a chance to actually win.  I will give him this, however, that he actually cares about the people of Gaza being needlessly killed and injured.

 

The party line is still "Kill the Jews" no matter what.  This reminds me of the old Roman Republic war party slogan from the 2nd Century BC, "Carthago delenda est" or "Carthage must be destroyed", a favorite closing to every speech given by Cato the Elder, no matter the ostensible subject.  And eventually, Carthage was destroyed.

 

You talk about a thing long enough, and, you know...

[Stargazer]

After this post, I shall not post further in this topic, even to respond to anyone.  I've said all that I can and I will not agree that the Jews are just as much to blame for the Middle East difficulties as the Muslims there, and so there's no further point.

 

Here is one of my favorite British atheists, Pat Condell, on the subject of Gaza and Israel:

 

 

And on why he supports Israel:

 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Shall I post passport photos to show the duration and list all the areas I was in while there along with a listing of everyone I have talked to involved in the conflict along with copies of their identification? Would that somehow magically make anything I say credible?

No, because what you say is just a joke. You don't take things seriously and experience has taught me that you just don't know what you are talking about most of the time. (Out side of Journalism and things that pertain directly to the LDS faith).

[ERayR]

For what it's worth, here's Bill Maher to the subject at hand:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC4sk-QYMQ0

 

Of course, Maher has to get in a dig against scientists who are not atheists, since most Nobel Prize winners are atheists, even Jewish NP winners.

 

IMO watching Bill Maher is a colossal waste of time, but go ahead its your time.

[The Nehor]

We are all sinners. To say otherwise is to deny Reality. It also denies Reality to insist with the passion you exhibit that everyone is at fault, in apparently equal proportions.

I operate upon the principle that there is a principal bully in almost every violent transaction. The principal bully is usually (though not always) the one who initiates force.

 

And who is the bully in this scenario? If we were to liken the conflict in Gaza to a schoolyard situation Hamas is hiding in the crowd and chucking spitballs at Israel and Israel pummels whoever they think might have thrown it.

 

 

Israel withdrew from Gaza several years ago and let Gaza govern itself. A sin? Or a virtue? It meddled to the extent that it tried to keep weapons from being imported into Gaza (not that they didn't already have some, but that they would not get major weapons systems, such as war rockets). Was that a sin or a virtue? In my view, that's reasonable, given that Hamas has as a stated intention the destruction of Israel, and Hamas runs Gaza. You may disagree.

The thing is, Israel did not invade Gaza until Hamas started firing rockets into Israel. The reason Israel invaded was to stop Hamas from firing those rockets.

The initiation of violence in this case means that Hamas is the principal bully. It didn't need to shoot rockets into Israel to accomplish any goals involving internal politics. There was also no stated reason for Hamas to shoot rockets into Israel as part of an effort to achieve some diplomatic goal. They wanted to provoke Israel, pure and simple, and they succeeded. I happen to believe that they wanted Israel to invade Gaza. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, and Hamas was completely surprised.

So... What is your recommendation for Israel to peacefully get Hamas to stop shooting rockets at them?

 

Pretty sure revanchism (wanting your land back) is a diplomatic goal those rockets are in support of. Israel understands revanchism; it is why their nation exists at all in modern times.

 

My recommendation is to tighten the blockade to keep rockets out and live righteously.

 

 

So, how should we have treated the Promised Land, then? Well, no guesswork is actually needed! Bin Laden declared why 911 happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks#Stated_motives

1. The US is allied with and supports Israel

2. The US had a military presence in Saudi Arabia

3. The US imposed sanctions against Iraq

So clearly, we should never have helped Israel, and should have done nothing while its enemies attempted to destroy it. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we should have left them keep it, and when they inevitably invaded Saudi Arabia, we should have sat on our hands about that, too.

If we had just stayed out of Iraq's military adventures and left Israel to fend for itself, then Al Qaida would have left us alone?

 

You are seriously arguing that Al Qaeda's stated objectives and rationale are actually their real objectives and rationale? And you are trying to suggest I am naive?

 

 

Hmmm. The two words "timid" and "hyperagressive" seem to me to be a very odd pairing.

So, in your view, we should have completely ignored the fact that the Taliban supported and protected Al Qaida, who committed the attack against US soil? And after Pearl Harbor Franklin D. Roosevelt should have immediately called upon the Japanese ambassador and apologized for having incited the Japanese Navy into attacking?

Oh, and we did level Japan, a country with little ability to fight back (their defeat was a forgone conclusion, and Yamamoto knew it, even if his compatriots could not see it), all over an isolated but dramatic incident.

 

Timid and hyperaggressive are often tied together. I have observed too many domestic abuse situations to believe for a second that the two are contradictory. A lot of violence comes from timid cowardice.

 

I did not say they should be ignored. I said that neither side was completely blameless. Of course there needs to be some reaction. If I was Roosevelt I would have fought Japan too.

 

 

So, how many times does Japan need to attack Pearl Harbor before we are permitted to return the violence upon their heads? How many skyscrapers does Al Qaida need to knock down before we are justified in taking action to render them incapable of doing it?

If once isn't enough, I suppose one needs to avoid visiting skyscrapers until the magic number is reached.

And how many rockets does Hamas need to fire into Israel before Israel is permitted to take action to stop them? 10,000? Ooops, they've exceeded that one, so ... 20,000? 300,000?

Interesting. You're justifying the Nazi's and the Soviet Union's rape of Poland because the Poles weren't very nice to the Jews? I am not quite sure how to think about that one.

 

This is why we are talking past each other. You insist that my saying that people were not blameless justifies what is done to them. The Jews should not have killed Jesus but does that justify the Romans destroying Jerusalem? The United States complacency and unrighteousness may have allowed 9/11 but that does not make Al Qaeda blameless for attacking us. The Old Testament is filled with stories of God using the wicked against the wicked. The way out of the cycle is to stop being wicked.

 

 

The Title of Libery was not a mealy-mouthed call to repentance. I'm sure you've read it, but you must have forgotten what was written on that banner. It was nothing BUT "soaring words about the rightness of their cause."

"In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children"

Admonitions of repentance are always appropriate. But the Lamanites and the Amlicites in that case were the principal bullies -- the Nephites were reacting against violence initiated against them, not the other way around. If you wish to insist that the sinfulness of one people is the only reason their evil neighbors invaded them, you may, but I don't think you can find a case where the lack of sinfulness of any people led to the inability of their enemies to invade them. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and this will never cease until the Millenium.

In fact, Peace comes through Superior Firepower. This is borne out by D&C 45:67-70, where the Lord tells of the time when New Jerusalem will be a refuge from war:

 

If you leave out most of Captain Moroni's speech then yes, it is a "HURRAH! PATRIOTISM!" thing. Read the rest. The talk about the garment of Joseph and the warning that the decayed portion of the garment could be them unless they repent. Throughout the war Nephite dissensions were the primary reason the Lamanites were doing so well.The Nephites brought it upon themselves. This does not make Amalickiah and Ammoron justified in their actions. They were wicked but the Nephites were not blameless. Captain Moroni's standard was a call to repent and retain liberty and stop being degenerate aristocratic king-men who would have been defeated by the Lamanites.

 

I can find a case where the lack of sinfulness led to their enemies being unable to attack. Read the story in the Book of Moses where the elements turned on the enemies of Zion. That is what we should be striving for. Peace through superior firepower? Are you suggesting that the New Jerusalem is a refuge from the war primarily because they have more ICBMs, artillery, warplanes, and guns than everyone else? If so......WOW.......

 

 

Now, you may equivocate on this and say that it is not war machines that will defend the Saints, but the Power of God, and perhaps the repentance of the people in this case, and I will not necessarily disagree. But the fact still remains is this: they will not come up to battle against Zion because they are afraid to do so, and this will still be because of Superior Firepower.

Reality. It bites.

 

So when peace reigns on the earth it will be because God has the biggest guns? Wow.....I don't want to live in your Universe. It reminds me of the "Left Behind" novels where the primary difference between God and Satan is that God is going to win because he has superior firepower.

 

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you should re-read Alma 2:1-31? Alma is not recorded as having so much as uttering the word "repentence" during this entire episode. The only thing Alma is recorded as saying was while he was dueling Amlici himself, when he said this prayer: "O Lord, have mercy and spare my life, that I may be an instrument in thy hands to save and preserve this people." Whereupon he slew Amlici.

The entire story up to this point in Alma 2 is the Nephites hewing Lamanites down (here we go, Superior Firepower again) during a military operation. Maybe Alma exhorted his troops to repentance at some time during all this, but it is not recorded of him. You cannot use it as support for your claim.

 

What do you think Alma's prayer was? It was a plea for mercy. That is a kind of repentance. In the jingoist worldview you espouse he should have been praying for his superior armament to give him victory.

 

 

No symmetry whatsoever. The mainstream media (whom you seem to believe, lock, stock and barrel) reports every supposed peccadillo that Israel commits, even to the point of confusing virtue with vice, and omits most of the evil that Hamas commits, taking Hamas's own pronouncements as gospel truth.

 

The mainstream media does no like Hamas. They are called terrorists in the news. I think you are letting your own news sources tell you what other news sources are saying. If they can't be relied on to report accurately other reporting why do you trust them on any other point?

 

 

The plain fact of the matter is that there ARE good guys and bad guys. If you cannot see this, then I don't know how to explain it to you. Maybe there is some good with the bad guys and some bad with the good guys, that would seem to be unavoidable, but the fact you cannot seem to face is that Hamas does not need to fire rockets at Israel, and does not need to kidnap and kill Israeli citizens and soldiers. Yet they do. And if you cannot see THAT as bad deeds committed by bad people, then I just throw my hands into the air.

A few years ago one of my neighbors was forced to kill an intruder in his home. In the middle of the night, the intruder broke down a solid outside door -- literally ripping it from its hinges -- and advanced into the house. 911 was called during the intruder's breaking into the door. The husband had instructed his wife to barricade herself and their child in the bedroom while he stood outside the bedroom with a loaded shotgun. The intruder ignored the man's pointing the shotgun at him and continued to advance upon him while the man shouted at him to depart the house or he would fire. To no avail, as the intruder just continued to come on, and the man let him have both barrels. He fell dead.

The intruder had never ever done anything like that before. He didn't know the people whose house he had invaded. He had no weapon, and he showed no fear of the weapon wielded by the homeowner. But his actions could be interpreted in no other way but as an intention to do great harm, and the homeowner was justified in firing to protect his family. So said the Grand Jury.

But I imagine that your reaction would have been to require the man wait until the intruder actually commit some bodily harm against his family. Maybe both the intruder AND the family were at fault! Perhaps the intruder was angry that the door was locked and all he originally wanted was to play Tag! You're It! So they incited him to break down the door. Or maybe they should all have fled the house and run into the night somewhere.

Yeah, sure.

 

The story of the intruder is not analogous to the Israeli/Palestinian situation. It would work if your neighbor found out someone was throwing rocks at his house from across the street so he gets some friends and occupies the homes of all his neighbors across the street to get the rock-throwing to stop. I would have shot the intruder too. I think I would have been justified in the eyes of the law and of God to do so but it does not make me righteous or a good guy.

 

The good guy/bad guy dichotomy is toxic. It is the father of contention. It is much easier to convince people to sin against each other if you can be convinced there is virtue in doing so. Being sinned against does not make you good which is your justification for why Israel are the "good guys". 

[EllenMaksoud]

 

I have been reading about the Middle East and anti Seminism's resurgence in Europe and other places in the world.    I have friends who have crossed the Israeli borders on multiple occasions and observed Israel's very poor treatment of Palestinians (they describe it as people who look palestinian). 

 

What I wondered is how those who recognize the unacceptably harsh treatment in daily life AND the Problem as defined in the video above, should respond to current issues.

 

I guess I'm wondering if you who know the middle east better than I do, see something that americans should be urging Israeli or the US government to do.

 

How should lds members view the issues, or is there any distinct LDS or doctrinal impact of the geopolitical situation?

I am not a Middle Eastern Scholar.

 

I have been closely tied with Muslims in the Middle East for 9 years, so here are some personal observations:

 

Islamics are deeply fragmented. It goes beyond the Sunni/Shia rift that started with the death of Muhammad PBUH. There are 4 official Sunni Muslim schools of thought, but there are many others that are not as official.  They are: Sahfii, Hanbali, Maliki and Hanafi. The radical, dangerous ones are the Sahfii. (Better ask Storm Rider about this last bit)

 

There are several divisions of Shia thought but I do not know who they are. When I was in Provo, touring the BYU art Museum they appeared to have Shia/Persian art there, and it was lovely. The Shia/Sunni divide came after the death of Muhammad PBUH and was initially over succession between elected leader, and the birth heir. It is similar to the rift that occurred in the Mormon church after the death of JS. I am Sunni but attended a Shia/Sunni Masjid for a time.

 

NOW ON TO ISRAEL

 

Something I never heard as an EV, or Mormon is that there is a blatant misinterpretation in the book of Genesis. So, here it is. In Genesis when Hagar runs away, she is told that her child, Ishmael would always be at war with those around him. Why do we ignore scripture and try to get peace in the Middle East?

 

Does no one realize that Ismael was the son of Abraham? Why do we try to exclude him from the birth right given to Abraham by God?

 

So, why did we allow Zionists in Europe, England, and America to look upon Palestinians as having no rights? So, why did we just allow Zionists to go into Palestine and start murdering their brothers. Well the nasty, shameful answer is that the world just wanted rid of the Jews, so they put them in a place where they could ignore them.

 

I have met Jews who are lovely, caring people who I would be happy to defend. I have also met some Jews, GRRR, I could give you specifics but it would just grind my teeth the rest of the way down. Did you ever get verbally assaulted for turning a light switch off? Did you ever have someone yell at you for cooking non Kosher food in their special pan? I paid the rent for someone who treated me like I was less than human ...Sigh ...

 

Now, the press does us no favors in reporting the news from Palestine. What ever will make them the most money, they report. To try to sort out some of this bias, I listen to not only CNN, and BBC, but also Al-jazeera, Gulf News and Arab News. You can be sure that if America is doing something dirty, Al-jazeera will squeal on us. I stay away from Fox News, and The Blaze.

 

We hear that Hamas is shooting Missiles,  but not until very recently have we heard of the heavy handed responses of Israel.

 

The biggest danger in the ME right now is ISIS. If I was 20 years younger, I would be over there helping the Kurds to fight them. As it develops, the Kurds, who do not even have a country of their own are the most stable country there.

[volgadon]

I have met Jews who are lovely, caring people who I would be happy to defend. I have also met some Jews, GRRR, I could give you specifics but it would just grind my teeth the rest of the way down. Did you ever get verbally assaulted for turning a light switch off? Did you ever have someone yell at you for cooking non Kosher food in their special pan? I paid the rent for someone who treated me like I was less than human ...Sigh ...

 

 

 

Shall I begin a litany of the crap I've taken from Muslims, including being cheated out of money? For some reason, I don't see the point in bringing it up all the time. People are people, and if you had special dishes so you could maintain a high level of devotion to God's commandments and someone carelessly used it in a way that rendered it useless for that purpose unless the entire process was repeated from the beginning. wouldn't you feel more than a little upset?

[volgadon]

So, why did we just allow Zionists to go into Palestine and start murdering their brothers.

 

 

Yeah, they set out to Palestine expressly to kill Arabs. Yep. Like that time in Hebron in 1929 when they butchered women, children, and old men in a mosque... oh, wait, that was actually Muslims massacring non-Zionist, religious Jews in Hebron, including in the synagogue. my point is not that jews haven't committed atrocities, but that bit i quoted from you is one-sided and salaciously inaccurate.

 

 

[Hestia]

Politics.