NOT about Increased Islamic Influence in European Nations

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

I thought the US was a Republic? (ie a Constitution-based federal republic )

Government wise our FEDERAL government is a Democrat Republic - which only refers to how our representatives are elected. In a democracy - everything is left up to the people - with direct elections. In a republic - there are representatives who represent the voters and are not necessarily directly elected (the senate at one time was elected by the house of of representatives, the president is elected by the states) We have a FEDERAL goverment though because of the sovereignity of the states - who have their own laws.. We do not have "national" government.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

yeah - too bad he's mostly wrong and looking at the entire situation as the palistinians being the injured party. Everytime israal has made steps to bring peace - there have been bombings. israel exists - whether they like it or not. They are not going to eliminate it no matter how much they try. They can continue to kill innocent people - that seems to be what the palestinians are good at. Israel has gone for more out of it's way to try bringing peace to the region - while palestinians have continued to attack. I have sympathy for the innocent palestinians - I have no sympathy for the people who wish to continue and brag that they hope their child becomes a suicide bomber. Which - sorry - is the majority.

actually no, he is doing something which many people, yourself included, have a hard time doing... seeing the individuals inside the labels "israeli" or "palestinian", as well as realizing that people act in certain ways for reasons... maybe good reasons, maybe bad reasons... but change occurs not by denying that these reasons exist, but by working in ways that help people eliminate and overcome them... the first step is admitting that wrong has been done on both sides... the second step is admitting that there are some so caught up in principles that they will continue to do wrong, irregardless of small and large steps taken to address the prior wrongs... the third step is to realize that the major motivator behind all humanity is survival... give a human a chance to survive and prosper and the majority will come around

the alternative, treating palestinians or israelis, muslims or jews, as if they are somehow different kinds of human beings that must either be removed or forced to renounce everything that makes them who they are does nothing but feed the flames

i'm pretty sure you will disagree vehemently with my longterm solution... my question to you JD, what is yours?

[inked]

Thought provoking and correct, I must say:

Make No Mistake
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: December 21, 2004
Columnist Page: David Brooks
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Middle East / United States International Relations

It was a series of unfortunate events.

How did we get to this sudden moment of cautious optimism in the Middle East? How did we get to this moment when Egypt is signing free trade agreements with Israel, when Hosni Mubarak is touring Arab nations and urging them to open relations with the Jewish state? How did we get to this moment of democratic opportunity in the Palestinian territories, with three major elections taking place in the next several months, and with the leading candidate in the presidential election declaring that violence is counterproductive?

How did we get to this moment of odd unity in Israel, with Labor joining Likud to push a withdrawal from Gaza and some northern territories? How did we get to this moment when Ariel Sharon has record approval ratings, when it is common to run across Israelis who once reviled Sharon as a bully but who now find themselves supporting him as an agent of peace?

It was a series of unfortunate events.

It was unfortunate that Ariel Sharon, whom tout le monde demonized as a warmonger, was elected prime minister of Israel. After all, as Henry Siegman of the Council on Foreign Relations reasoned in The New York Review of Books, "The war Sharon is waging is not aimed at the defeat of Palestinian terrorism but at the defeat of the Palestinian people and their aspirations for national self-determination."

It was unfortunate that George W. Bush was elected and then re-elected as president of the United States. After all, here is a man who staffed his administration with what Juan Cole of the University of Michigan called "pro-Likud intellectuals" who went off "fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv." Under Bush, the diplomats agreed, the U.S. had inflamed the Arab world and had forfeited its role as an honest broker.

It was unfortunate that Bush gave that speech on June 24, 2002, dismissing Yasir Arafat as a man who would never make peace. After all, the Europeans protested, while Arafat might be flawed, he was the embodiment of the Palestinian cause.

It was a mistake to build the security fence, which the International Court of Justice called a violation of international law. Never mind that the fence cut terror attacks by 90 percent. It was the moral equivalent of apartheid, the U.N. orators declared.

It was a mistake to assassinate the leaders of Hamas, which took credit for the murders of hundreds of Israelis. France, among many other nations, condemned these attacks and foretold catastrophic consequences.

It was unfortunate that President Bush never sent a special envoy to open talks, discuss modalities and fine-tune the road map. As Milton Viorst wrote in The Washington Quarterly, this left "slim prospects" for any progress toward peace.

It was unfortunate that Bush sided openly with Sharon during their April meetings in Washington, causing the European Union to condemn U.S. policy. It was unfortunate that Bush kept pushing his democracy agenda. After all, as some Israelis said, it is naïve to export democracy to Arab soil.

Yes, these were a series of unfortunate events. And yet here we are in this hopeful moment. It almost makes you think that all those bemoaners and condemners don't know what they are talking about. Nothing they have said over the past three years accounts for what is happening now.

It almost makes you think that Bush understands the situation better than the lot of them. His judgments now look correct. Bush deduced that Sharon could grasp the demographic reality and lead Israel toward a two-state solution; that Arafat would never make peace, but was a retardant to peace; that Israel has a right to fight terrorism; and that Sharon would never feel safe enough to take risks unless the U.S. supported him when he fought back.

Bush concluded that peace would never come as long as Palestine was an undemocratic tyranny, and that the Palestinians needed to see their intifada would never bring triumph.

We are a long way from peace. But as Robert Satloff observes in The Weekly Standard, Israel's coming disengagements "will constitute a huge leap - both in psychology and in strategy - rivaling the original Oslo accords in historic importance." And the U.S. is already raising millions to help build a decent Palestinian polity.

We owe this cautiously hopeful moment to a series of unfortunate events - and to a president who disregarded the received wisdom.
***************************
cautiously optomistically yours,

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

hopeful moment

"moment" being the key here... there have been many, past and present, under many administrations, and there will be many more... once again, it's the forest... not the trees

if i'm wrong and everything's peachy a few months from now, i will respectfully issue my congratulations to the current administrations

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

actually no, he is doing something which many people, yourself included, have a hard time doing... seeing the individuals inside the labels "israeli" or "palestinian", as well as realizing that people act in certain ways for reasons... maybe good reasons, maybe bad reasons...

Actually if you go back to my much older posts - you will see I don't have a hard time in doing that at all. But I don't expect you to understand me - nor should you expect to KNOW me or what I think - based on some posts.

but change occurs not by denying that these reasons exist, but by working in ways that help people eliminate and overcome them... the first step is admitting that wrong has been done on both sides... the second step is admitting that there are some so caught up in principles that they will continue to do wrong, irregardless of small and large steps taken to address the prior wrongs... the third step is to realize that the major motivator behind all humanity is survival... give a human a chance to survive and prosper and the majority will come around

The problem is - which you and others here wish to ignore - it it takes TWO sides to want and work peace. One side can't work in a vaccuum while the other side constantly brings in homicide bombers. I also find the hypocrocy incredible. If the israelis were sending in bombers to blow up Palistinian restaurants and bus stops during Rhamadan liek the Palestinians do - everyone would be up in arms. Instead - people want to excuse their actions and say "we have to understand them"
[quote]
the alternative, treating palestinians or israelis, muslims or jews, as if they are somehow different kinds of human beings that must either be removed or forced to renounce everything that makes them who they are does nothing but feed the flames
[/quote[
Over the top again Who said anything about treating them as if they were different kinds of humans? We do understand the grievances with the Palestinians - we have tried to work with the Palestinians. Sorry - but the elimination of Israel is NOT going to happen. So since that has been their STATED goal for a long long time - that's off the table. If they want to continue working towards that end - then there wil be no peace there.

i'm pretty sure you will disagree vehemently with my longterm solution... my question to you JD, what is yours?

You don't have a solution. There was absolutely no sulution there - you merely said that we should understand them - which we do. It's just that under Arafat they were completely unreasonable. They had no goals for peace - it was just surface work to satisfy the international community. "Oh the poor palestinians - big old Israel is attacking you" - while the UN and others turn a blind eye to the constant attacks from the Palestinians - that CAUSE Israel to retaliate. I had said it in previous threads - if the indians started blowing up grocery stores and restaurants because they want "their" land back - I wouldn't give **** what their reasons were - I would want OUR government to do something to protect us. I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand this concept when it comes to Israel.

[brownjenkins]

solution: put the same amount of money into palestine that we put into israel and stop supporting arab governments which are aristocracies... give them something to live for and take away the issues they hold against us

what's yours?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

solution: put the same amount of money into palestine that we put into israel and stop supporting arab governments which are aristocracies... give them something to live for and take away the issues they hold against us

Do you know that the Palestinians get 1 billion dollars a year - inclduing from the US? So what you are basically advocating is more of the same. You see the money wasn't used to support the Palestinian people though - it went to support the terrorists.

US Threatens To Cut Palestinian Aid

US President Bush’s national security advisor Condoleezza Rice has warned that the US would cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) if Yasir 'Arafat is reelected in the coming elections scheduled for January 2003. Echoing President Bush’s charge of corruption against the PA Ms Rice said: “I don’t think anyone wants to give assistance to a leadership where we don’t know what’s happening to the money. We see no reason to put that money into hands where it might be misspent.” Last year the US disbursed $114mn to Palestinian aid projects through the UN (via UNWRA), the World Bank and NGO’s. The US is currently UNWRA’s largest single donor and has promised an extra $30mn this year in addition to providing $80mn for the agency’s general fund of $300mn for 2002.

If Mr 'Arafat is indeed reelected and the US cuts its aid to the PA this would have serious repercussions for the struggling Palestinian economy. According to Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayyad who is part of the new reform cabinet, the PA is currently suffering a monthly shortfall of $20-30mn needed to pay salaries and provide basic services. Unemployment among Palestinians is running at about 60% and almost half of all Palestinians live below the poverty line. People have been drawing on their savings to get by, but the longer the current conflict continues the more desperate the situation will become. This was illustrated recently by the demonstration by 5,000 unemployed Palestinians who marched on the PA headquarters in Gaza City demanding jobs and food. They too accused the PA with misappropriating aid donations, chanting “Where are the millions?” They also demanded that the PA set up an employment fund.

President Bush has, however, offered the Palestinians a carrot by pledging that the US would lead international efforts to assist a reformed PA with economic and development aid. “The United States, the international donor community and the World Bank stand ready to work with the Palestinians on a major project of economic reform and development”, he said, adding that the US, the EU, the World Bank and the IMF “are willing to oversee reforms of Palestinian finances, encouraging transparency and independent auditing”. Meanwhile, international aid agencies have accused Israel of obstructing their operations and preventing them delivering humanitarian aid to Palestinians. The Israeli army has responded that the movement of people and goods is restricted due to security concerns but that it is working continuously to help the delivery of aid.

So please - next great solution you have?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Do you know that the Palestinians get 1 billion dollars a year - inclduing from the US? So what you are basically advocating is more of the same. You see the money wasn't used to support the Palestinian people though - it went to support the terrorists.

an amount which pales in comparison to the $$$ we give to israel... more than 1.5 trillion since 1973

So please - next great solution you have?

and what about the supporting arab aristocracies part?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

an amount which pales in comparison to the $$$ we give to israel... more than 1.5 trillion since 1973

And the palestinians would get a lot more if they weren't intent on destroying israel. Do you not agree that with the amount of money that the US gives to israel - it can destroy the palestians and half the Middle East? The stated goal of the Palestinians is the destruction of Israel. Why would we support that?

and what about the supporting arab aristocracies part?

There are fundamental reasons for supporting those governments - even while we don't agree with them. I have long known the difference in talking to you and many other people on entmoot - you wish to look at the world as it should be - while I look at the world as the reality it is. Who would you have take it's place? As a for instance - we would LOVE for the Iranian resistence to rise up against the government of Iran. We can not vocalise it - because it will undermine their chances of success. So who would you see rise up in Saudi Arabia, etc? There is no one there except fundamentalists who wish to create a Taliban style government. We are pushing for reform in the Middle East though - and pressuring governments to bring democracy. Saudi Arabia has had regional elections - although the central government is still dictatorship. Sometimes you have to work within the realities of the world - instead of the wishful thinking you like to part-take in.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

if the indians started blowing up grocery stores and restaurants because they want "their" land back - I wouldn't give **** what their reasons were

are you implying that this wasnt their land? and that we had a right to exterminate them so that we could wrest it away from them? Hardly a strong indorsment if I was an Israeli. Hey we stole it from our native population therefore we will support you doing the same there. If anything what we did was much worse. That land has been going back and forth since time immemorial. This land was decidedly occupied by native peoples for thousands of years before we got here. And we certainly used force and "manifest destiny" to decide WE had the right to the land and NOT them. Frankly if they had had powerful explosives back then I wouldnt begruge them using it against us in a guerilla campeign to strike back on what were clearly bigoted oppresors and bold faced thieves.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

are you implying that this wasnt their land?

NO - I'm not denying it WAS their land. But sorry - at one point in time all of Europe was Roman as one point - should we give that back to them? As I have said - how far in time do you want to go? Europe colonized this area - it's a fact. It is the United States now.

and that we had a right to exterminate them so that we could wrest it away from them?

Oh yeah - exterminated them? How? A lto of the deaths of Indians were caused by diseases they were not immune to. A lot of it was wars between many different groups also.

Hardly a strong indorsment if I was an Israeli. Hey we stole it from our native population therefore we will support you doing the same there. If anything what we did was much worse. That land has been going back and forth since time immemorial. This land was decidedly occupied by native peoples for thousands of years before we got here. And we certainly used force and "manifest destiny" to decide WE had the right to the land and NOT them.

I don't see a problem with it in the context of the times. You want to ignore the times people lived and put todays moral values on it - go right ahead.

Frankly if they had had powerful explosives back then I wouldnt begruge them using it against us in a guerilla campeign to strike back on what were clearly bigoted oppresors and bold faced thieves.

A lot of the land was purchased - especially in the beginning. Sorry you don't like the realities of the world the way they were back then. As for using cplosives back then - I wasn't talking about then. I was talking about NOW. And anyway - they did fight back - but they lost. It's something that usually happens in wars and conflicts - one person wins - one person loses.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

NO - I'm not denying it WAS their land. But sorry - at one point in time all of Europe was Roman as one point - should we give that back to them?

oh WE invaded Europe and stole their land too? And by the way you have it backwards: Rome concurred Europe. Europe didn’t conquer Rome. Hardly useful for your argument I would think.

Europe colonized this area - it's a fact. It is the United States now.

yer quite making my point about making an argument to support Israeli right to their home land that would make most Israelis cringe. I really don’t think they want to go around trumpeting hey see Americans stole their country from the Indians so we have the right to do it to the palestinians. I think they hold a fundamentally different perspective on why they have a right to call Israel their home. Not because being a bully pays which is essentially your argument.

A lto of the deaths of Indians were caused by diseases they were not immune to. A lot of it was wars between many different groups also.

And A LOT of the deaths were from white settlers/soldiers/militia men operating under the widely accepted concept that it was just fine to kill an “injun” just for being alive. And so they could take their land. Trail of Tears anyone? God was on our side after all. Not the savages.

I don't see a problem with it in the context of the times. You want to ignore the times people lived and put todays moral values on it - go right ahead.

wait… explain to me how forced genocide of hundreds of independent indigenous cultures would ever be a good thing? And all for the purpose of taking what they stood on as our own? Under what context would that occur exactly? Nazi Germany?

And anyway - they did fight back - but they lost. It's something that usually happens in wars and conflicts - one person wins - one person loses.

and as we all know might makes right… thus logically there is never any reason not to attack another culture if they have something we want. I say we attack Canada. They have no chance against us. And they have… um… salmon and stuff… That’s a good enough excuse! Lets go. When we win we can justify it by saying hey you lost. Its just the way it goes. Get over it

[HOBBIT]

Good posts JD. I'm agreeing with like 95% of the things you are saying :P.

[Hemel]

Two small comments - first of all, is it true that diseases were deliberately spread amongst the indigenous peoples in what is now the USA? And also - the question of 'purchasing' land ... how much relevance did this actually have? I know very little about native cultures, but I'd suggest that if it was the case that the concepts of ownership of land, monetary exchange, contracts, the relevant legal system, etc were alien to these people then it's quite likely that this purchasing may have been inequitable and possibly not even particularly meaningful to one participating side.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Hemel

Two small comments - first of all, is it true that diseases were deliberately spread amongst the indigenous peoples in what is now the USA? And also - the question of 'purchasing' land ... how much relevance did this actually have? I know very little about native cultures, but I'd suggest that if it was the case that the concepts of ownership of land, monetary exchange, contracts, the relevant legal system, etc were alien to these people then it's quite likely that this purchasing may have been inequitable and possibly not even particularly meaningful to one participating side.

beads and cheap whiskey, havent you seen Last of the Mohicans
So was disease intentionally spread to kill native peoples ? i had thought that it was like with Australia, when people came over here from Britain they bought diseases and the Aboriginals couldnt cope with them and died, i dont think its reasonable to lay that blame anywhere... Now what we did do to the aboriginals and ill ask if it was the same in America, was inroduce alcohol which ****ed them over in a huge way, and so much worse than introducing disease.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And the palestinians would get a lot more if they weren't intent on destroying israel. Do you not agree that with the amount of money that the US gives to israel - it can destroy the palestians and half the Middle East? The stated goal of the Palestinians is the destruction of Israel. Why would we support that?

their own impoverished state is what inspires most palestinians to support the radicals in their society... radicals also exist in israel, but they have no where near the support... due to education and a reason to live for

look at these numbers for infant mortality (from the CIA World Factbook):

israel
total: 7.21 deaths/1,000 live births

west bank
total: 20.16 deaths/1,000 live births

gaza strip
total: 23.54 deaths/1,000 live births

There are fundamental reasons for supporting those governments - even while we don't agree with them. I have long known the difference in talking to you and many other people on entmoot - you wish to look at the world as it should be - while I look at the world as the reality it is. Who would you have take it's place? As a for instance - we would LOVE for the Iranian resistence to rise up against the government of Iran. We can not vocalise it - because it will undermine their chances of success. So who would you see rise up in Saudi Arabia, etc? There is no one there except fundamentalists who wish to create a Taliban style government. We are pushing for reform in the Middle East though - and pressuring governments to bring democracy. Saudi Arabia has had regional elections - although the central government is still dictatorship. Sometimes you have to work within the realities of the world - instead of the wishful thinking you like to part-take in.

by supporting the current government we are giving power to those religious groups who hold or would like to hold power... study the history of the shaw of iran if you don't believe me... or even saddam hussein himself... to the average middle easterner, western democracy means "support friendly dictators" because that is all they have ever seen from us

a realistic "first step" for us would be to at least stop selling weapons to these dictatorships

the difference between you and i is that i look at the totality of history, you only look at the parts that agree with your pov... but that's what i'm here for

i understand your passion... but the last fifty years has not gotten us anywhere... it's time for a new approach... we have very little to lose

[inked]

Hemel,

Alas, the practice of biological warfare by the British was carried out by the deliberate introduction of blankets contaminated by smallpox victims to be distributed among Indians.

The conquest of the Central and Southern American Indians was greatly aided by the introduction of smallpox and measles in a non-immune population, but was largely accidental rather than planned.

The New World also gave as good as it got. Syphilis dates from the return of the Columbus expeditions!

If you are interested there are several books on the subject that are worthwhile.

[inked]

Some historical perspective on Palestine from a biblical perspective - highlighting the interpretations at play. Read for various understandings!

Columns : Palestine In Prophecy: A Short Review by Margaret Howell
Posted by dvirtue on 2004/12/30 14:21:00 (50 reads)
Palestine In Prophecy: A Short Review

by Margaret Howell

Recently, a local parish publication ran a small item announcing that the Chairman of the "Temple Mount Faithful" had written to the Pope (22 January 2004) declaring that "today, Israel is the most exciting fulfillment of God's end-time prophecies and promises. The climax of this prophetic time will be the rebuilding of the Temple exactly as the prophets of Israel prophesied."

That the modern Israeli state fulfills Biblical promises, that this land was given perpetually to the Jews and that their "return' there actually heralds the end of the world, has been reiterated very often to demand Christian sympathy and even support for the Zionist enterprise, which is to build and maintain a Jewish state in Palestine.

The desperate struggle continuing in the Holy Land augurs very ill for the immediate future, however, and the Church is being urged to endorse the claims of one of the parties to the conflict on the grounds that it fulfills God's will.

The Biblical promises should be set into context. The promise most frequently cited, and probably the most familiar, comes from God to Abraham (Genesis 12:6-7) "And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. And the Lord appeared unto Abram and said. Unto thy seed will I give this land and there builded he an altar unto the Lord Who appeared to him."

Later the promise is made even more explicit (15"18) . "Unto thy seed will I give this land from the river of Egypt (not the Nile but the Wadi- el-Arish, about midway between el'Arish and Gaza) unto the great river, the river Euphrates."

Before the birth of Isaac, God makes a covenant with Abraham through circumcision (Genesis 17:8) "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger."

Ishmael was circumcised. In promising the aged Sarah a son. God says, I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make or him a great nation." (Genesis 17:19-20)

Abraham's seed included Isaac and Ishmael. "(.Sarah) said to Abraham, cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight on account of his son. And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad and because of thy bondwoman; In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall seed be called unto thee. And also of the son of the bond' woman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed."

Note that this passage, seldom quoted, establishes Ishmael also as the seed of Abraham.

The "everlasting" covenant with Sarah's son Isaac was not unconditional, however. According to the book of Deuteronomy, Moses issued long, baleful warnings about the consequences of faithlessness. "The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far; from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth . . . And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people from the one end of the earth unto the other," (Deuteronomy 28:49,64)

The subsequent occupation and deportation of the population of Samaria by the Assyrians (722 B.C.) and the destruction of the southern kingdom of Judah (586 B.C.), when much of the population was taken to Babylon (where, by the way, their communities flourished until the twentieth century A.D.) was evidently the punishment for disobedience and inconstancy to the Covenant. So the prophets thought Zedekiah, last of the line of David, saw his three sons executed before his eyes were gouged out and he was taken in manacles to Babylon (II Kings 25)

This horrible conclusion ended two promises: (1) that the descendants of Abraham would inherit the land forever, and (2) that David's heirs would always reign: "thy throne shall be established for ever" (II Samuel 7:16)

Jeremiah, in his Lamentations, mourned over the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem, which had been established and designed by King David (circa 1000 B.C.) and which lasted from about 965-586 B.C. In 559 B.C., however, when Persia conquered Babylon, Cyrus the Great declared universal toleration, restored the gods of Babylon, and allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem if they wished and to rebuild the Temple. He fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy. "(The Lord) says of Cyrus, he is My shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shall be built, and to the temple. Thy foundation shall be laid." (Isaiah 44:28 When the Second Temple was finally completed in 526 B.C., all the Old Testaments had been dead for years.

The reconstruction of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple, which had taken a long time, fulfilled their prophecies. Both prophets and kings disappear after this period.

The Book of Nehemiah, cupbearer to Artaxerxes (464-424 B.C.) describes the restoration and repair work in the City of Jerusalem. Bearing letters from the King and escorted by a military guard, Nehemiah gained permission to rebuild the walls and seems to have become governor of Judea.

Subsequently, Ezra arrived in Jerusalem, perhaps about 597 B.C., and he too had royal authority, this time to reform the faith of Yaweh. An expert in the law, he enforced a rigorous code, prohibiting marriage between Jews and Gentiles, and instituting a rule which resulted in the ever growing prescripts and prohibitions which had become such a conspicuous burden by the time of Christ.

The Second Temple was the vast structure which Christ first saw when His parents took Him to Jerusalem and of which He predicted that "not one stone would be left upon another." (Luke 21:5-6). In 70 A.D., during the inevitable Jewish revolt, the Roman armies commanded by Titus (not to be confused with the Apostle) destroyed the City of Jerusalem, burned the Second Temple, and banished the Jews, fulfilling the prognostication of Jesus.

continued.....

[inked]

continuation...

Judaism was a proselytizing religion for many centuries after this; converts from many nations joined the faith, so it cannot be maintained that the Jews are a single race; many are not Semitic.

Since the return, the repair of the city, and the rebuilding of the Temple, "exactly as the prophets of Israel" foretold, took place between 558 and 597 B.C., or so, after those prophets were dead. The nationalists who want to reconstitute a modern Israel cannot claim that they are doing so as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Christians who know the Bible and their history will not be deceived by dangerous arguments.

They are dangerous not just because any attempt to rebuild the Temple on the site of the Dome of the Rock might well, under existing conditions, result in World War III, but because they apply the genuine promises as we have received them to a narrow, nationalistic movement with its true genesis in the nineteenth century.

The New Testament language about the Kingdom of Israel, King David, Jerusalem, the Covenant, and the Temple, fulfills the Old, referring not to a literal or historical restoration, but to the whole people of God and His promises to "make all things new" (Revelation 21:5). The promise to King David was renewed in Christ (Matthew 1:1, Luke 1:52-55)

The Church seeks to build the new Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 12:22, Revelation 21:2) not to occupy and dispossess the inhabitants of the earthly city. She is not called to atavistic nationalism, but to the new heavens and the new earth (Revelation 21:1; the Temple that Christ promised to rebuild in three days was the Temple of His body (John 2:21) and the Son of David, when Me came at last, promised a kingdom not of this world.

This article first appeared in the Diocesan Circular Anglican Catholic Church of Canada. It is republished here with permission from the author.

-- Margaret J. Howell is a teacher and author who lives in Richmond, British Columbia, near the little fishing village of Steveston. Her published books include Byron Tonight (1982), The House of Byron (1988) and two booklets of verse, The Seasons (1999) and The Silence that Sings (2004). She has also published numerous articles and reviews. She belongs to the Parish of SS Peter and Paul in Vancouver, a member Church of the Traditional Anglican Communion.
++++++++++++


LOOK, NURV! it's CANADIAN!!!!!!!!

[Radagast The Brown]

First, David did not establish the Temple. Second, a part of the Second Temple still exists. (so, some stones are still left upon others)

Anyway, that's not my point - that's juist 2 of the mistakes I've found; and that by skipping some parts, and with very basic knowledge.
Zionism, and the nation of Israel right now, were not built because of the religion... Most jews then weren't religious anyway, and after the holocaust most of them stopped believing in god completely. (from obvious reasons. Though, some believed God even more, as they were saved)

I do not agree that many jews are not semitic...although I do know many aren't only Semitic. (well, if you have blue eyes...) (like my dad.) But it's really hard to become a Jew (you need to study and do lots of stuff, it takes over 5 years, IIRC), and besdies - who would want to be part of a religion that is hated all over the world? Our history teachers said the 'blue eyes, etc. came from... errr, rapes.

I agree that the jews weren't exactly a nation before the 19th century. But the jews in the 19th century were different from all the other population, not only in religion - they looked different, lived in different places (Ghetto, for example. Which is just a closed naighbourhood in cities. It's Italian) The jews weren't really accepted, even after the equal rights given to them. They were just different - but jews from countries like France and Iraq were somehow similar. In a way.