And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks

[sirs]

Evil little Israel.  If they'd just let the Palestinians re-intergrate and treat them like anyone else, all will be right as rain       

So, even the point of view of an Israeli is invalid to you if the Israeli disagrees with your view of what "is" and what "isn't?"

Not exactly.  A POV is just one POV.  Especially when I can find the POV of former Islamic terrorists which could be said as invalidating your POV of what is and isn't, as well as other Arabs & Muslims who see the core problem as those factions within their own race/religion, and not blaming it on evil little Israel

Or are Jews who strive for peace through activism and working both sides of the issue "self-loathing Jews?"

Nope, not at all.  I encourage efforts to find some form or peaceful resolution regarding the Palestinian conflict.  That's not to be confused with the militant Islamic conflict which doesn't have a peaceful resolution.  Well, actually it does, but you and js keep shooting that approach down   

[Plane]

"Hamas has announced its support for the establishment of a Palestinian state bounded by the June 1967 borders — meaning: next to Israel and not in place of Israel."


This took long enough.

Israel has elected reasonable people before.

 Yitzhak Rabin especially.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin


   Can such a person be found on both sides ...
       In th same season....

         And have the confidence of his people?

      It just isn't enough for each to be reasonable in turn , they have to be reasonable at the same time.

[_JS]

Domer, you seem to wish to tie me down with historical burdens and a sociological hypothesis before I even enter the debate. I think my points can stand on their own merit.

Professor, I was widening the scope of your analysis, which was rather narrow and aimed personally at Henny, which seemed unfair.

Sirs, you've got to get over this "Israel is evil" hyperbole. I don't think anyone here has suggested that. The point is that Israel does have apartheid policies in place. You scoff at it because of the name "apartheid" and the connotations that brings, but you've yet to provide any proof to the contrary.

Look at it this way. An citizen of Israel is being denied the right to live in a city based only on the fact that he's an Arab. He isn't too poor to purchase the land in the city. He's a physician and bizarrely enough he treats many of the people from the very city he wishes to move to. He has never been considered a threat by the Israeli Government. He isn't a practicing Muslim, though he comes from a Muslim family.

Now, how do you defend that? That's just one example, but tell me how you defend that as "security." That's not how the mayor or the townspeople defended it.

And you can call it by another name, but it is apartheid, though not the worst example that Israel has.

Does that make the entire nation of Israel evil? No. And you and Domer seem to believe you are crusaders for the Jewish people, but you don't understand that not all Jews are Zionists, and even amongst those who are, not all of them are supportive of such policies as these.

So, while I am being saddled with 2000 years of anti-Semitic behavior and current "evil Israel" sentiments, please no that none of that is true.

It is telling that because I point out a serious injustice in the Israeli Government's treatment of Palestinians and her own citizens that I receive such a backlash.

[Henny]

This is similar to what the Bible indicates about marrying an unbeliever:

2 Corinthians 6:14: "Do not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and lawlessness have in common? What fellowship has light with darkness?"

If you go into a dark room where does the darkness go? It disappears it must leave. It can only return when the light is removed or the light switch is turned off. Darkness and light cannot occupy the same space. So is the same in the life of someone who belongs to Jesus.

We are not to form any covenant relationships or alliance with unbelievers and to share in their activities that violate the covenant obligations a Christian has with God

Ephesians chapter 5:7-8 "Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light." We are to hate iniquity and to love righteousness as Jesus exemplified in his life (Hebrew 1:9)

For the believer of the gospel of Jesus Christ to have fellowship with God the Father and his Son Jesus is the greatest joy we can have (1 John 1:4).

Jesus is the light of the world (John 8:12), and through the gospel that true light enlightens mankind (John 1:9). Light and fellowship work together. Light and darkness cannot share the same space. Not only is darkness devoid of any light but also of love. 1 John 2:11 "But he that hates his brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness, and knows not where he goes, because that darkness has blinded his eyes."

I've been trying to decide if I am going to "bite" and respond to this part of the post. I had to re-read this a few times to make sure you were even talking about me and my marriage, although that was my first impression. I finally concluded that it was probably a bit of a double entendre, and that I would indeed address it.

The Catholic interpretation of "unbeliever" is someone who does not believe in the one, true God. Those would be followers of Buddhism, Hinduism and pagan religions such as Wicca, etc. (or atheists). All Jews, Christians and Muslims are considered to be "believers" and descendents of Abraham.

Further, marriages between Catholics and Jews or Catholics and Muslims are recognzied as valid by the Catholic Church, and if the couple divorces, they require annulment by the Church. For that matter, the marriage does not even have to take place in the Church itself to be considered valid - even if a couple marries in a court of law, the marriage is considered valid by the Church. This is based on the intentions of the couple in God's eyes.

But I suppose it is most important to add that if there is some question of who I married and why I married him that is to be based in religious beliefs, I am not concerned about it. Rather, more bluntly, I don't care what anyone thinks.

[The_Professor]

That (your marriage) is your matter, between you and God (not Allah).

The "unbeliever" angle was an attempt to provide another perspective on two perspectives living together ("radical" terrorist Muslims and "moderate" peace-loving Muslims). They shouldn't be matched up together.

And, all this intriguing discussion centering around the concept of "moderates" not being able to control their own radical elements is not intellectually or realistically valid. Until they do, true credibility for them will not be obtained. No one says they have to round up the radical elements and stone them or even turn them over to secular officials. Just sit them down and make it clear that if they do not cease and desist, then that will indeed happen. Even the Bible says that of someone continually sins you are to bring them up before the elders of the church so discipline can be considered.

[Henny]

That (your marriage) is your matter, between you and God (not Allah).

Allah is only the Arabic word for God. In Christian churches in the Middle East, God is called Allah. But I suspect you know this already and I can guess what kind of argument you would follow this with.

The "unbeliever" angle was an attempt to provide another perspective on two perspectives living together ("radical" terrorist Muslims and "moderate" peace-loving Muslims). They shouldn't be matched up together.

I got that too, which is why I paused before I responded to you. But your choice of comparison was very strange indeed.

And, all this intriguing discussion centering around the concept of "moderates" not being able to control their own radical elements is not intellectually or realistically valid. Until they do, true credibility for them will not be obtained. No one says they have to round up the radical elements and stone them or even turn them over to secular officials. Just sit them down and make it clear that if they do not cease and desist, then that will indeed happen. Even the Bible says that of someone continually sins you are to bring them up before the elders of the church so discipline can be considered.

Great. I'll go round up the neighbors and tell them to bring Osama bin Laden over for coffee. Maybe we can get things straightened out for you. 

[The_Professor]

When moderate Islam speaks out en masse against the radicals, then perhaps, just perhaps, the West will believe them and their assertions. Until then, it's all just feldercarb.

Ever wonder WHY the West doesn't put much stock on "moderates" over there? Read the last few posts. Clean up your own backyard. I would postulate that Huddling together in fear form the more radical elements in your society and not doing anything about it will not progress your civilization. But you know that already, don't you?

[sirs]

When moderate Islam speaks out en masse against the radicals, then perhaps, just perhaps, the West will believe them and their assertions. Until then, it's all just feldercarb.

Well postulated, Professor

[domer]

JS, cast as you just have posed them, I scoff at your pieties.

[domer]

Rather than lecturing and demanding, as Professor, Sirs and the Prototypical Right are wont to do, we might try to figure out how to join common cause with moderate Muslims, perhaps to exhort them but much more importantly to establish an understanding of our common purpose.

[domer]

One more thing, JS, you seem to be emboldened by, if not frankly in the thrall of, Jimmy Carter's ill-conceived, politically tone-deaf embrace of the apartheid motif to describe Israel's policy toward the Palestinians, which de-emphasizes security concerns almost to the vanishing point while highlighting inflammatory aspects of the policy, which no one defends but which must be addressed in a security-conscious framework, or not at all. And you and Carter, the choirboys of the modern conscience, or so you would have it, dovetail your sentiments as if on cue with the true evil geniuses of this tableau, Nasrallah, Ahmadinejad et al. Is there a Biblical passage for such brazen righteousness, not in service of transcendent justice but rather a petty propriety?

[Henny]

When moderate Islam speaks out en masse against the radicals, then perhaps, just perhaps, the West will believe them and their assertions. Until then, it's all just feldercarb.

Interesting. Something that is recognized by religious scholars of multiple faiths worldwide is "feldercarb" to you.

Ever wonder WHY the West doesn't put much stock on "moderates" over there? Read the last few posts. Clean up your own backyard. I would postulate that Huddling together in fear form the more radical elements in your society and not doing anything about it will not progress your civilization. But you know that already, don't you?

Hmm. You do realize that I am a "white" (non-Arab) Christian American who happens to be living in the Middle East? Yes, you know that already, don't you?

I sincerely dislike your selective dashes of judgment and nastiness. I haven't once personally insulted you, Professor, even while I disagree with nearly everything you post. But by all means, do continue on this path if it makes you feel better about your positions in the debate.

[sirs]

When moderate Islam speaks out en masse against the radicals, then perhaps, just perhaps, the West will believe them and their assertions. Until then, it's all just feldercarb.

Interesting. Something that is recognized by religious scholars of multiple faiths worldwide is "feldercarb" to you.

Miss Henny, I don't believe the Professor was trying to get personal or trying to insult you, nor have I tried to.  Later tonight, I intend to respond to Js's more  detailed posts, but the Professor is quite right in that one of the main obstacles (as I see it at least) is how you keep rationalizing and explaining how it's not possible for mass condemnation of those radical elements within your own religion.  I do it all the time myself when its Christian radicals, and it's done adnauseum to Christianity, even when there's nothing radical being used as an example, while it's being bashed.  Point being the radical elements of Christianity are frequently marginalized and condemned for their actions that obviously are counter to what God would have us do.  It's not done to prevent their uprising, it's done because it's an effort by those radical elements to try and push some mutated version of Christianity, which most of us won't stand for.

And everytime it's referenced how such an approach could actually have the greatest effect at marginalizing and demeaning the message of radical Islamists, and not involve military intervention at all, I keep getting explanations how I just don't know enough about Islam and its culture to understand how it's apparently not possible............brings us right back to the other option, military intervention.  Yet that approach is condemned by folks like yourself, because of the collateral damage effect.  To be honest, you're pretty much trying to tie our hands on this one.  You don't see that?

[The_Professor]

When moderate Islam speaks out en masse against the radicals, then perhaps, just perhaps, the West will believe them and their assertions. Until then, it's all just feldercarb.

Interesting. Something that is recognized by religious scholars of multiple faiths worldwide is "feldercarb" to you.

Ever wonder WHY the West doesn't put much stock on "moderates" over there? Read the last few posts. Clean up your own backyard. I would postulate that Huddling together in fear form the more radical elements in your society and not doing anything about it will not progress your civilization. But you know that already, don't you?

Hmm. You do realize that I am a "white" (non-Arab) Christian American who happens to be living in the Middle East? Yes, you know that already, don't you?

I sincerely dislike your selective dashes of judgment and nastiness. I haven't once personally insulted you, Professor, even while I disagree with nearly everything you post. But by all means, do continue on this path if it makes you feel better about your positions in the debate.

Interesitng. None of this is personally directed at you. Why take it so? It is directed toward a segment of the world's popluation called "moderate" Islam. If you take it personally, that perception is up to you.

[The_Professor]

Rather than lecturing and demanding, as Professor, Sirs and the Prototypical Right are wont to do, we might try to figure out how to join common cause with moderate Muslims, perhaps to exhort them but much more importantly to establish an understanding of our common purpose.

Actually, I agree with Domer here (will miracles never cease!). Earnest dialogue with "moderate" Muslims is an excellent path. Earnest dialogue with Iran and Syria for example are just examples of this on a Nations scale.