In a recent interview, Richard Dawkins stated: "I'm not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions.
This is historically a Christian country (Britain). I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims."
His comment makes perfect sense. Even though I'm uncomfortable with calling Canada or the USA Christian countries, I could rationalize the UK being a Christian country historically. All three countries have definitely been influenced big time by the overwhelming Christian majorities over time historically.
The UK historically recognized Christianity as a state religion, but especially today, it does not require her citizens to follow the religion. This is not true of America.
Of course, in many regions of the US and Canada, the vast majority of inhabitants are Christians. It is impossible and really unnecessary to escape the Christian culture.
Could someone escape the Jewish culture in any Jewish community in any large city in the US or Canada?
But it is deeper than that. As an atheist Jew, I at least have Webster's Dictionary and the majority of the world allowing me to keep my Jew status. Dawkins doesn't have such luxury.
But just as most of my Jewish friends, cousins, and aunts and uncles celebrate Jewish holidays, go to synagogue (mostly very occasionally), and at least claim they believe in the Jewish God, Dawkins and most ex-Christian atheists or atheists who had Christian parents, have things very similar to me as far as family and friends go.
I often use the stereotypical example of an Irish Catholic who becomes atheist. From all that I know (mostly from comedies and cartoons on the subject), it is farcical to think that someone from an Irish Catholic family could possibly remove himself from the Irish Catholic culture. It wouldn't be a stretch, to me anyway, to call this person an Irish Catholic atheist.
This debate can go further, because who is to say exactly to what degree any Christian believes in Christ. What percentage of time does a Christian have to believe in the myth of Jesus to be considered a Christian? From my understanding, you can believe, have doubts, even reject, then have doubts again, etc. and still celebrate Christmas and Easter. Who knows what degree of acceptance each Christian has at Christmas time when it comes to the entire Jesus story, and the state of belief each Christian is in at the time.
Dawkins goes on: "So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.
If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists."
I feel the same way. I consider Christmas to be a very good time of year for friends and family to get together, and eat, drink and be merry. I view it in the same way I view Halloween. I don't want to eliminate either, and I have no problem wishing someone Merry Christmas or Happy Halloween or Happy Thanksgiving. I even sent out a few "Holidays cards" that said Merry Christmas on them.
As far as Dawkins contention that it is other religions that are trying purge Christmas, I think atheists in the Americas have a play in it as well (though purge isn't a good word for it):
I like Christmas songs, as long as they don't mention the mythological guy from 2000 years ago. I have no problem with Jingle Bells or Jingle Bells Rock being played in a school, but I do draw the line when it comes to Away In A Manger. I have no problem with it being sung on TV, or the streets (though I would find it annoying), or a household or a place of worship.
Back to Dawkins, I think the term atheist Christian is rejected so much because ex Christians are generally trying to disassociate themselves from the whole Christian thingy. But it really is impossible to escape the Christian culture here in Canada, or the US, and Britain. If 8 out of 9 of your immediate family members outside of your home identify themselves as Christian, and you grew up with Christian beliefs, I have no problem calling you an atheist Christian.
December 13, 2007
December 9, 2007
The Gospel Of Evolution
So it aint perfect, but Reverend Michael Dowd is AOK in my books. He lives in a van and he calls himself a Christian (a Progressive Christian Evangelist), but he really is someone who believes in theistic evolution with Jesus on the side.
From Wikipedia:
Dowd has a blog. His newest blog entry promotes his book which is available for free online:
Here is a quick video, The Gospel of Evolution, where he shows that he is far from a reality denier and he has a pretty good sense of humour as well:
Watch his other Youtube videos videos here.
To Dowd, God is at least the universe (though he thinks God is much more than that) and that FACTS are the language of God. He obviously believes in an allegorical bible, which means he could easily believe in an allegorical Christ, Adam and Eve, Noah, etc.
Christians like Dowd and Ken Miller (A Catholic) still hold faith that the bible's message was a message from God, and the Word is the important message. Though Dowd still believes God continues to speak to mankind with each and every new fact and discovery.
I've said this before, I don't have a problem with theistic evolution because it doesn't involve denying facts like evolution and an ancient earth and universe. It just adds God's hand to the equation. And those sneaky theistic evolutionist basturds know that we can't disprove the God they are throwing at us. We've evolved a susceptibility to be superstitious and believe in the supernatural to explain questions we can't readily explain and/or understand, so I understand how hard it is to go the next step and say "I don't believe."
An excellent interview of Michael Dowd can be found here, done by Wired.com.
I'm pretty sure many Christians don't want to call him a Christian. Mitt Romney and the rest of the Mormons have the same problem but for a different reason:) In Michael Dowd's case, a real Christian can't possibly believe in evolution, at least according to many Christians.
I always liked this analogy: Creationists twist science to fit it into the bible, while theistic evolutionists twist the bible to fit it into science.
From Wikipedia:
Theistic evolution, less commonly known as evolutionary creationism, is the general opinion that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations. In this way, theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who deny the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science; that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not be contradictory.
Dowd has a blog. His newest blog entry promotes his book which is available for free online:
Evolutionary Christianity
December 6th, 2007
Some devout Christians initially express concern when they see the wide range of individuals (including many non-Christians) who have publicly endorsed my book, Thank God for Evolution!: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World. If its broad appeal is also a stumbling block for you, I invite you to sample first my 12-page “Evolutionary Christianity” essay. Then, as led by the Holy Spirit, prayerfully follow your heart in deciding whether to engage with the book itself.
Thank God for Evolution! is not for everyone. I wrote it with five very different audiences in mind:
1) Those who embrace evolution but don’t have joy, peace, or a deep sense of meaning and purpose in their lives.
2) Mainline Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Anabaptist believers.
3) Progressive, Emerging Church, and New Thought Christians.
4) WWJD-type evangelical “Christ followers” (i.e., those committed to following Jesus “in His steps”).
5) Anyone and everyone struggling with their ’sinful’ or addictive nature.
Thank God for Evolution! is NOT intended for those whose walk with God is solidly embedded within a strict, literalist interpretation of scripture. But those who experience twinges of doubt when the book of Genesis is used line-by-line to explain the creation of this world are likely to experience this perspective, not as a breath, but as a gust, of fresh air.
Rather than diminishing the core teachings of religious faith, the “Evolutionary Theology” introduced in TGFE! shows how undeniably real and universally true many of the central insights of religion really are, AND it does so in a way that also makes sense from non-religious (and even anti-religious!) perspectives. For more on this, again, see my Evolutionary Christianity essay.
Here is a quick video, The Gospel of Evolution, where he shows that he is far from a reality denier and he has a pretty good sense of humour as well:
Watch his other Youtube videos videos here.
To Dowd, God is at least the universe (though he thinks God is much more than that) and that FACTS are the language of God. He obviously believes in an allegorical bible, which means he could easily believe in an allegorical Christ, Adam and Eve, Noah, etc.
Christians like Dowd and Ken Miller (A Catholic) still hold faith that the bible's message was a message from God, and the Word is the important message. Though Dowd still believes God continues to speak to mankind with each and every new fact and discovery.
I've said this before, I don't have a problem with theistic evolution because it doesn't involve denying facts like evolution and an ancient earth and universe. It just adds God's hand to the equation. And those sneaky theistic evolutionist basturds know that we can't disprove the God they are throwing at us. We've evolved a susceptibility to be superstitious and believe in the supernatural to explain questions we can't readily explain and/or understand, so I understand how hard it is to go the next step and say "I don't believe."
An excellent interview of Michael Dowd can be found here, done by Wired.com.
I'm pretty sure many Christians don't want to call him a Christian. Mitt Romney and the rest of the Mormons have the same problem but for a different reason:) In Michael Dowd's case, a real Christian can't possibly believe in evolution, at least according to many Christians.
I always liked this analogy: Creationists twist science to fit it into the bible, while theistic evolutionists twist the bible to fit it into science.
December 4, 2007
If Mohammed Was A 30 Year Old Bear
Nick Gisburne issued a Blasphemy Bear Challenge, and I just had to respond:
I was way too lazy to do a bang up editing job over this.
I was way too lazy to do a bang up editing job over this.
December 2, 2007
PALESTINIAN STRUGGLE IS BASELESSS, CHILDISH, AND HYPOCRITICAL
Karma Nabulsi is pro-Palestinians and anti-Annapolis. Sounds a lot like Hamas who were democratically elected by the Palestinians. Well, read this. Nabulsi, is a hypocrite. If he believes in Arab lands, what the heck is he doing on Western lands?
Time to repost two articles which show that the Palestinian Struggle, which really means to the Hamas supporters, "don't give in until the Jews are driven into the sea," is baseless, childish, and hypocritical:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PALESTINIAN LAND
Land in the 20th and 21st Century doesn't work like land used to work, when all solid land wasn't claimed on this earth.
There is no such thing as Palestinian land, Muslim land, Arab land, Jewish land, Atheist land, Caucasian land, Christian land, etc.
Land is either owned and/or governed. That is it. That is how land works. Land is just dirt, plain and simple.
Yes, the Palestinian region has existed throughout recorded history. Yes, there is a such thing as Arabs who are/were indigenous to the region, as well as Christians and Jews, etc.
But demographics change everywhere. Immigration is not a form of stealing. You can only steal land if it is OWNED.
The percentages of Muslims in the West has climbed in recent years. Nobody is accusing Muslims of stealing Western lands though because they are not.
The region of Palestine was last governed by the British before Israel was created.
Arabs and their mindless supporters tend to forget that it was the Brits who came up with the White Paper which limited Jewish immigration into the British controlled land of Palestine.
The Arabs, with the exception of the very few who owned land in Israel, have absolutely no claim to Israel. In fact, they have no claim to the West Bank, but it is open to negotiations. Just as Israel was when the Jews were successfully lobbying for it.
Over 90% of the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza were born in the West Bank and Gaza, and have no property in Israel proper. Their grandfathers may have lived there, but so what? I used to live in Toronto, I don't anymore. In fact, in Toronto, the Kensington district used to have a Jewish majority until the late 50's. But the Jews moved to Northern Toronto. Nobody is making a claim that Kensington is Jewish land.
My house and property is not Jewish land. It wouldn't matter if everyone on my street were Jews. Land can be sold. And it can as easily be sold to anyone of any ethnicity.
*************************************
ISRAEL AND DEARBORN
Anyone who reads this blog has to know that I like to think, I try to think, and many times my thoughts even make sense. I know I'm no Albert Einstein, but I aint no Ann Coulter either.
Lately, I've been doing more thinking about my argument dealing with land, Israel, and changes in demographics. Something then struck me as I saw a blurb about Michigan having loads and loads of Arabs. I started doing my maniacal internet searches on this topic and found that Dearborn, Michigan is now considered the Arab capital of the United States.
Dearborn? The birthplace of alleged Jew hater Henry Ford has a population of around 100,000 people. 40% are Arabs. Surely, Dearborn didn't have a 40% population of Arabs when Henry was born. Of course not.
Lets see what Americancity.org states about the Arab populstion history in Dearborn:
'Dearborn was founded as the first overnight stop on the stagecoach route linking Detroit to Chicago. Its streets are named for the German Catholics who have since given way to Polish and Italian Americans, whom Arab immigrants and their descendants, in turn, are replacing. Southfield Freeway separates the city’s Western and Eastern worlds, roughly demarcating three neighborhoods: Southend is now mostly populated by Yemenis; East Dearborn is a bustling Lebanese community of Arab restaurants, bakeries, and halal butchers; and West Dearborn’s residential streets remain populated by Italian and Polish ethnics.
The Muslim presence in metropolitan Detroit dates to the last decade of the 19th century, when men from the Lebanese Biqa Valley, working as peddlers and traders, followed a larger number of Lebanese Christian emigrees to the U.S. When Henry Ford began to offer generous five-dollar daily wages for workers at his Highland Park assembly line in 1913, Detroit became the predominant destination for Lebanese immigrants. Immigration accelerated when Lebanon’s economy fell apart in the wake of the Ottoman Empire’s collapse at the end of World War I. The restrictive National Origins Act of 1924 reduced Lebanese immigration to a trickle, but over the next twenty years, wives and dependent children, whom the Act still allowed to immigrate, gradually reunited with their husbands and fathers. In 1927, Ford shifted operations to the Rouge River plant in his native Dearborn, and a Muslim neighborhood soon followed.
By the close of World War II, the Dearborn population numbered about 200 families. Most subsequent immigrants–Palestinian, Lebanese, and Iraqi–arrived in Dearborn as political refugees, with only Yemenis coming to Dearborn in this period primarily for economic opportunity. Collectively, the communities in Dearborn represent the second largest concentration of both Arabs and Muslims outside the Middle East, behind only Paris.'
Dearborn almost had an Arab mayor, if it wasn't for bad timing. 9/11 happened the same day as the Dearborn mayoral primary. Well, don't worry. Next time Arabs/Muslims will probably be the majority, and a terrorist attack won't stand in the way.
Isn't it special that Arabs/Muslims can set up in an American region and nobody accuses them (nor should they) of stealing land, like Jews were accused of doing in Palestine prior to the Partition.
Isn't it special that demographics can change over time in a Western city, and nobody is looking to push the Arabs/Muslims into Lake Michigan?
Where is the Western outrage? How come Dearborn isn't thinking about building a fence around it to protect itself from terrorists?
Why would it seem hysterical if the German Catholics, who built the city of Dearborn, demanded "their" land back?
Addition: For some reason, some readers aren't getting this post. So let me try to explain it a little better. Jews went to Palestine for a better life, just like the Arabs did when they migrated from Arabia to Dearborn. Many Jews came to escape anti-semitism, many came for religious reasons, many came because they didn't have many other options, and many came to escape Dhimmitudism, just like the Arabs of Dearborn did.
Palestine was relatively empty prior to Israel's birth. In the late 1800's, 500,000 people lived on land that now comfortably hold over 6 million. Nobody had to leave, nobody had their land stolen.
For those of you weak on history, at the time of the partition, Arabs owned 20% of the land and Jews owned 8%, the rest unowned. Palestine was governed by Britain. The land partitioned off to be the Jewish state had 550,00 Jews and 450,000 Arabs. It was a Jewish majority in 1947 that came about the same way that Dearborn went for 0% Muslims to 40% today. Except, the United States exists now and isn't up for negotiations, so Dearborn can never be an Arab state, unless in the future, the US decides to allow them to have a separate state (Not impossible).
Get it yet?
Time to repost two articles which show that the Palestinian Struggle, which really means to the Hamas supporters, "don't give in until the Jews are driven into the sea," is baseless, childish, and hypocritical:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PALESTINIAN LAND
Land in the 20th and 21st Century doesn't work like land used to work, when all solid land wasn't claimed on this earth.
There is no such thing as Palestinian land, Muslim land, Arab land, Jewish land, Atheist land, Caucasian land, Christian land, etc.
Land is either owned and/or governed. That is it. That is how land works. Land is just dirt, plain and simple.
Yes, the Palestinian region has existed throughout recorded history. Yes, there is a such thing as Arabs who are/were indigenous to the region, as well as Christians and Jews, etc.
But demographics change everywhere. Immigration is not a form of stealing. You can only steal land if it is OWNED.
The percentages of Muslims in the West has climbed in recent years. Nobody is accusing Muslims of stealing Western lands though because they are not.
The region of Palestine was last governed by the British before Israel was created.
Arabs and their mindless supporters tend to forget that it was the Brits who came up with the White Paper which limited Jewish immigration into the British controlled land of Palestine.
The Arabs, with the exception of the very few who owned land in Israel, have absolutely no claim to Israel. In fact, they have no claim to the West Bank, but it is open to negotiations. Just as Israel was when the Jews were successfully lobbying for it.
Over 90% of the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza were born in the West Bank and Gaza, and have no property in Israel proper. Their grandfathers may have lived there, but so what? I used to live in Toronto, I don't anymore. In fact, in Toronto, the Kensington district used to have a Jewish majority until the late 50's. But the Jews moved to Northern Toronto. Nobody is making a claim that Kensington is Jewish land.
My house and property is not Jewish land. It wouldn't matter if everyone on my street were Jews. Land can be sold. And it can as easily be sold to anyone of any ethnicity.
*************************************
ISRAEL AND DEARBORN
Anyone who reads this blog has to know that I like to think, I try to think, and many times my thoughts even make sense. I know I'm no Albert Einstein, but I aint no Ann Coulter either.
Lately, I've been doing more thinking about my argument dealing with land, Israel, and changes in demographics. Something then struck me as I saw a blurb about Michigan having loads and loads of Arabs. I started doing my maniacal internet searches on this topic and found that Dearborn, Michigan is now considered the Arab capital of the United States.
Dearborn? The birthplace of alleged Jew hater Henry Ford has a population of around 100,000 people. 40% are Arabs. Surely, Dearborn didn't have a 40% population of Arabs when Henry was born. Of course not.
Lets see what Americancity.org states about the Arab populstion history in Dearborn:
'Dearborn was founded as the first overnight stop on the stagecoach route linking Detroit to Chicago. Its streets are named for the German Catholics who have since given way to Polish and Italian Americans, whom Arab immigrants and their descendants, in turn, are replacing. Southfield Freeway separates the city’s Western and Eastern worlds, roughly demarcating three neighborhoods: Southend is now mostly populated by Yemenis; East Dearborn is a bustling Lebanese community of Arab restaurants, bakeries, and halal butchers; and West Dearborn’s residential streets remain populated by Italian and Polish ethnics.
The Muslim presence in metropolitan Detroit dates to the last decade of the 19th century, when men from the Lebanese Biqa Valley, working as peddlers and traders, followed a larger number of Lebanese Christian emigrees to the U.S. When Henry Ford began to offer generous five-dollar daily wages for workers at his Highland Park assembly line in 1913, Detroit became the predominant destination for Lebanese immigrants. Immigration accelerated when Lebanon’s economy fell apart in the wake of the Ottoman Empire’s collapse at the end of World War I. The restrictive National Origins Act of 1924 reduced Lebanese immigration to a trickle, but over the next twenty years, wives and dependent children, whom the Act still allowed to immigrate, gradually reunited with their husbands and fathers. In 1927, Ford shifted operations to the Rouge River plant in his native Dearborn, and a Muslim neighborhood soon followed.
By the close of World War II, the Dearborn population numbered about 200 families. Most subsequent immigrants–Palestinian, Lebanese, and Iraqi–arrived in Dearborn as political refugees, with only Yemenis coming to Dearborn in this period primarily for economic opportunity. Collectively, the communities in Dearborn represent the second largest concentration of both Arabs and Muslims outside the Middle East, behind only Paris.'
Dearborn almost had an Arab mayor, if it wasn't for bad timing. 9/11 happened the same day as the Dearborn mayoral primary. Well, don't worry. Next time Arabs/Muslims will probably be the majority, and a terrorist attack won't stand in the way.
Isn't it special that Arabs/Muslims can set up in an American region and nobody accuses them (nor should they) of stealing land, like Jews were accused of doing in Palestine prior to the Partition.
Isn't it special that demographics can change over time in a Western city, and nobody is looking to push the Arabs/Muslims into Lake Michigan?
Where is the Western outrage? How come Dearborn isn't thinking about building a fence around it to protect itself from terrorists?
Why would it seem hysterical if the German Catholics, who built the city of Dearborn, demanded "their" land back?
Addition: For some reason, some readers aren't getting this post. So let me try to explain it a little better. Jews went to Palestine for a better life, just like the Arabs did when they migrated from Arabia to Dearborn. Many Jews came to escape anti-semitism, many came for religious reasons, many came because they didn't have many other options, and many came to escape Dhimmitudism, just like the Arabs of Dearborn did.
Palestine was relatively empty prior to Israel's birth. In the late 1800's, 500,000 people lived on land that now comfortably hold over 6 million. Nobody had to leave, nobody had their land stolen.
For those of you weak on history, at the time of the partition, Arabs owned 20% of the land and Jews owned 8%, the rest unowned. Palestine was governed by Britain. The land partitioned off to be the Jewish state had 550,00 Jews and 450,000 Arabs. It was a Jewish majority in 1947 that came about the same way that Dearborn went for 0% Muslims to 40% today. Except, the United States exists now and isn't up for negotiations, so Dearborn can never be an Arab state, unless in the future, the US decides to allow them to have a separate state (Not impossible).
Get it yet?
November 28, 2007
Thoughts About The Annapolis Summit
I did learn something yesterday, while watching the Annapolis Summit. I found out that Annapolis is in the USA and not Greece. OK, just kidding. But below is a map of the middle east, and perhaps a few of my readers thought Israel is much bigger than it appears on this map. In fact, from reading what paranoid Jew haters write, one might thing that Israel was larger in area than Saudi Arabia:
OK, lets talk peace from my objective point of view. Alright, as objective as I can be, since I'm an ethnic Jew, and I realize that Israel does serve a purpose right now, and probably the next 100 years at least, as a place of last refuge for any Jew to go to if anti-semitism gets ugly anywhere in the world. Right now, Israel needs to have a Jewish majority, but inevitably us Jews only need to be around 1.8% of any population in order to control just about everything:)
My viewpoint is also tainted by my militant atheism too. There is no evidence for any God, and the idea that Noah's Flood or the Exodus happening is zero in my books. But I do understand that humans have evolved the susceptibility to believe in God, and that is a fact that isn't about to be changed in the next little while. It isn't like God is going to show up and tell everyone he doesn't exist.
I have a few assumptions based on reality.
1. If the Arabs dropped their arms there would be peace. And Israel inevitably wants peace. Proof: We now see peace between Israel and Egypt for example, since they signed a land for peace deal. Another example is the exodus of Jews from Gaza.
2. The Palestinian Arabs collectively have never shown an inclination to want a state peacefully laying next to Israel. Proof: 1948 and the rejection of the Partition, and from 1948-1967 when there was no talk about turning the West Bank and Gaza into a state prior to the Israeli "occupation." Present, Hamas' complete rejection of the Annapolis Summit. Hamas was elected by the majority of the Palestinians.
3. Sovereign Israel is behind the Green Line. However, the West Bank and Gaza are up for negotiations, much like the entire Palestine region was up for negotiations prior to 1948. Jews in the West Bank are settlers, but so are the Arabs. If the land belongs to any government right now, it is Israel (since Jordan gave up rights in 1988). But Israel has not made sovereign borders to include the West Bank because they don't want the West Bank Arabs to be citizens of Israel, because demographically it would be a nightmare very shortly, and suicide for the Jewish majority state (The Jewish state is needed as I pointed out before)
4. The governments that decided to put Jewish settlements and increase Jewish settlements in the West Bank were not thinking straight. It was an emotional decision with absolutely no foresight. You can't have settlements that are not continuous and expect to be surrounded by Arab villages along the way, at least not in a sovereign nation where you can't give the Arabs in the West Bank equal rights....if Israel were to make final borders that included Arabs who were not citizens, that would be Apartheid. It isn't right now, but this situation cannot go on any longer. It is like a perpetual game, and it is starting to get old.
5. Even full withdrawal behind the Green Line will most likely not stop the violence, but some sort of final borders must be made. Even though Israel was condemned by many Moonbats last year for the war with Lebanon, at least it was a war between two sovereign nations. Israel needs to just give the Palestinians a state they most likely don't want in order to give a Israel legitimate military target, if Israel gets attacked (which most likely will happen). Until Israel makes sovereign borders, technically non sovereign portions are in fact up for grabs, and violence, though detestable, is not completely off base. But it works both ways. And since Israel has the power to wipe out the Palestinians if they wanted to, it really is foolish on the Palestinian's part to engage in Israel in this way. But nobody has ever accused the Palestinians of doing the right thing.
The biggest problem is the solution for final borders.
Including the West Bank and Gaza would be suicide for the Jews of Israel. Not gonna happen, not even on the table.
Going back to the Green Line or close to it is probably the best bet. Compensate the Palestinians with a little land to draw the West Bank closer to Gaza so the Palestinians could possibly have a tunnel to connect the two areas (which of course will be used to ship arms back and forth). I would also compensate the Palestinians with a few billion dollars, just to show some Goodwill (so they have some money to buy more arms, most probably).
Sign an agreement that allows Jews and settlements to remain on their perceived holy lands in the West Bank, but they must live under the new Arab majority government. It really is only fair, since many Arabs live in sovereign Israel. But would it be safe for the Jews to live in a most probably hostile new Islamic nation? Absolutely not, but they should have the option.
Jerusalem has to be divided, but I do like the idea I just read in this article: Western nations should put their embassies in Jerusalem. Islam lacks humility. The West needs to bring humility to them in order to foster in the best of the West which is "the social contract" (confused in the article as being Judeo-Christian values).
The former governments of Israel set up this mess in the West Bank, and it is something that just cannot morally or ethically or logically perpetuate. And it is going to be very expensive to unwind, but I think it is the only way to possible peace (a peace, which again isn't very likely currently):
OK, lets talk peace from my objective point of view. Alright, as objective as I can be, since I'm an ethnic Jew, and I realize that Israel does serve a purpose right now, and probably the next 100 years at least, as a place of last refuge for any Jew to go to if anti-semitism gets ugly anywhere in the world. Right now, Israel needs to have a Jewish majority, but inevitably us Jews only need to be around 1.8% of any population in order to control just about everything:)
My viewpoint is also tainted by my militant atheism too. There is no evidence for any God, and the idea that Noah's Flood or the Exodus happening is zero in my books. But I do understand that humans have evolved the susceptibility to believe in God, and that is a fact that isn't about to be changed in the next little while. It isn't like God is going to show up and tell everyone he doesn't exist.
I have a few assumptions based on reality.
1. If the Arabs dropped their arms there would be peace. And Israel inevitably wants peace. Proof: We now see peace between Israel and Egypt for example, since they signed a land for peace deal. Another example is the exodus of Jews from Gaza.
2. The Palestinian Arabs collectively have never shown an inclination to want a state peacefully laying next to Israel. Proof: 1948 and the rejection of the Partition, and from 1948-1967 when there was no talk about turning the West Bank and Gaza into a state prior to the Israeli "occupation." Present, Hamas' complete rejection of the Annapolis Summit. Hamas was elected by the majority of the Palestinians.
3. Sovereign Israel is behind the Green Line. However, the West Bank and Gaza are up for negotiations, much like the entire Palestine region was up for negotiations prior to 1948. Jews in the West Bank are settlers, but so are the Arabs. If the land belongs to any government right now, it is Israel (since Jordan gave up rights in 1988). But Israel has not made sovereign borders to include the West Bank because they don't want the West Bank Arabs to be citizens of Israel, because demographically it would be a nightmare very shortly, and suicide for the Jewish majority state (The Jewish state is needed as I pointed out before)
4. The governments that decided to put Jewish settlements and increase Jewish settlements in the West Bank were not thinking straight. It was an emotional decision with absolutely no foresight. You can't have settlements that are not continuous and expect to be surrounded by Arab villages along the way, at least not in a sovereign nation where you can't give the Arabs in the West Bank equal rights....if Israel were to make final borders that included Arabs who were not citizens, that would be Apartheid. It isn't right now, but this situation cannot go on any longer. It is like a perpetual game, and it is starting to get old.
5. Even full withdrawal behind the Green Line will most likely not stop the violence, but some sort of final borders must be made. Even though Israel was condemned by many Moonbats last year for the war with Lebanon, at least it was a war between two sovereign nations. Israel needs to just give the Palestinians a state they most likely don't want in order to give a Israel legitimate military target, if Israel gets attacked (which most likely will happen). Until Israel makes sovereign borders, technically non sovereign portions are in fact up for grabs, and violence, though detestable, is not completely off base. But it works both ways. And since Israel has the power to wipe out the Palestinians if they wanted to, it really is foolish on the Palestinian's part to engage in Israel in this way. But nobody has ever accused the Palestinians of doing the right thing.
The biggest problem is the solution for final borders.
Including the West Bank and Gaza would be suicide for the Jews of Israel. Not gonna happen, not even on the table.
Going back to the Green Line or close to it is probably the best bet. Compensate the Palestinians with a little land to draw the West Bank closer to Gaza so the Palestinians could possibly have a tunnel to connect the two areas (which of course will be used to ship arms back and forth). I would also compensate the Palestinians with a few billion dollars, just to show some Goodwill (so they have some money to buy more arms, most probably).
Sign an agreement that allows Jews and settlements to remain on their perceived holy lands in the West Bank, but they must live under the new Arab majority government. It really is only fair, since many Arabs live in sovereign Israel. But would it be safe for the Jews to live in a most probably hostile new Islamic nation? Absolutely not, but they should have the option.
Jerusalem has to be divided, but I do like the idea I just read in this article: Western nations should put their embassies in Jerusalem. Islam lacks humility. The West needs to bring humility to them in order to foster in the best of the West which is "the social contract" (confused in the article as being Judeo-Christian values).
The former governments of Israel set up this mess in the West Bank, and it is something that just cannot morally or ethically or logically perpetuate. And it is going to be very expensive to unwind, but I think it is the only way to possible peace (a peace, which again isn't very likely currently):
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)