Yes, that is what IMHO they believe…
and not just Jews but Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, etc. will eventually convert as well.
(and Cat Stevens and Toto too!)
One of the things I’ve never understood about this problem (I’m not disagreeing with your statement that this is the Palestinian belief, BTW) is that if you look at the story of Abraham in the O.T., the favoured son is Isaac and the illegitimate and disagreeable firstborn son is Ishmael. In the Koran I believe, it is the other way around, and everything which happened to Ike in the OT happened to Ish in the Koran, and vice-versa.
On a side note, has anyone else noticed the fact that in the OT, the older child is always the a-hole and the youngest son is always the one who prevailed? Cain/Abel, Ishmael/Isaac, Esau/Jacob, 12 Brothers/Joseph. I’ll bet there’s a morality play in there somewhere, but I’ll be damned if I can make any sense out of that. On the bright side, at least I’M the youngest son in my family.
I may be mistaken, but I was always under the impression that Islam is similar to the Borg. Either convert or you will be killed…the entire world must bow to the will of Allah as he (we) see fit.
I know this is a bit of an overstatement, and I’ve never really been able to bring myself to get to know ant Muslims well enough to confirm this, so it may just be anti-Arab propoganda. Anyone with more information on this, please respond. I’d like to know if it’s just a racist mentality (which TBH, I’m willing to accept) or if it is the truth.
bwolf, the “convert or die” attitude is far from being typical Muslim belief or practice, and is at odds with the sharia or official Islamic law. That’s not to say that it hasn’t been widely held, and in some notorious historical moments acted upon, by many Muslims. But on the other hand, many officially Muslim nations mandated religious tolerance in the past, and still do: you can check out this site on Islam and religious freedom in the Middle East. In practice, “People of the Book” (non-Islamic religions with a written scripture, particularly Jews and Christians) tend to get more respect than the run-of-the-mill pagan; even for them, restriction of religious freedom and sometimes active persecution is often a danger. But “kill all the unbelievers” is a slogan of fanatical extremism, not a pillar of standard Islamic theology.
Well of course, not every Muslim (or even a large number)necessarily believes these things about Israel but IMHO after decades of emnity, most Palestinians do.
Clinton is betting that with their own state and some sort of treaty, the Palestinians will become less radical.
Man, I’ll give that sucker some serious odds on THAT bet!
Thanx, Kinstu…I suppose I should’ve realised that it is a fanatical attitude which is almost never shared by the majority of religious members.
Found while reading up on this subject…
Rashi writes:
“Why does the Torah start with the
creation, instead of the first
commandment given to the Jewish
People? Because if the nations of the
world ever accuse the Jews of stealing
the Land of Israel, the Jews will be able
to respond to the nations of the world that the entire world belongs to G-d,
He created it and He choose to give the Land of Israel to the Jewish People.”
Yet despite statements like this, apparently a large number of Israeli Jews would be willing to consider dividing up Jerusalem in the name of peace. So it doesn’t seem insoluble.
That would be essentially the first time in history. The whole reason the area is desert in the first place is due to human screwing with a fragile environment. Much like what happened to Australia…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kyberneticist *
**
[QUOTEThe whole reason the area is desert in the first place is due to human screwing with a fragile environment. Much like what happened to Australia…**[/QUOTE]
Wait a minute.
The Sinai is a desert because of human intervention?
It is a desert now… it was a desert in Biblical times.
It’s a desert.
Period.
What the hell are you talking about?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PS:
[HOMER]
mmmmmmmm… desert…
[/HOMER]
I second that what the hell. By all accounts Australia was a desert long before people arrived.
sdimbert,
Why the Sinai? Presumably he was in the Negev. Large portions of present day Israel which are now deserts were once forests. The Bible mentions bears and lions roaming in the forests. They’re long gone now.
sigh
Australia was a lush land filled with large (rhino sized) marsupials before the arrival of the first humans. They quickly decimated the region. The effects of humans on a region’s climate are fairly well documented.
There has been debate on this, but the evidence is building up.
http://www.joyzine.zip.com.au/australia/articles/extinction.htm
Found the above in a quick web search, I have run into many more articles, however, in Scientific American, Nature, Science News, National Geographic…
Recent National Geographic on Australia covers it actually. 2 months ago? Also mentions current silliness. Cutting down trees to allow farming results in many places in the water table rising, and salt in the soil destroying the land. Eerie pictures of dead trees poking out here and there from a salt lake.
The same thing occurred in the middle east, is better documented, and I thought fairly well known by now. The whole reason the “making the desert bloom” program is working is because the climate supports it if the whole ecosystem that was wiped out before is replaced. One might say the Israelis are working off prior karma.
The fertile crescent suffered from a combination of over-forestation and over-irrigation. The cutting down of trees altered climate and reduced water retention while the irrigation resulted in salt accumulating in the soil and eventually turning the land around the tigris river from paradise to parched iraqi desert. The Nile delta survived because the irrigation there depends on the yearly floods, which prevent salt from accumulating. Granted, the Aswan dam may have permanently screwed that up.
**
LUSH?!? Where in your links does it indicate it was lush? Yes they changed the flora, but they didn’t turn it into a desert.
**
I’m not debating you on the mass extinctions or burnings. That doesn’t transform an area into a desert though. It simply changes the balance of the flora. You are still making claims with no proof. Give me some evidence that Australia was “lush” before people got there. Of course it was lush in the tropical areas, it still is. But Australia has for an enormously long time been a semi-arid area, it wasn’t turned into that by people. The only major effect people have had is on the Fauna.
IMHO the issue of what or who caused a desert in the area is relevant. I do not accept as a general principle that because a people with western technology can make more effective use of the land than some third world peasants can they are therefore entitled to the land.
Errrrr…in the previous post please read “irrelevant” for “relevant”
Amen to that. If you make that argument, then the American settlers were obviously in the right whenever they broke treaties and displaced indians. After all, they better utilized the land.
Most of Australia, except for the coast, is not just semi-arrid, it is parched. Before humans arrived, there were trees and large land animals. I should have known the word “lush” was going to be blown out of proportion. It was definitely lush before the last glacial period, but maybe that’s going a bit too far back. 
I find it interesting you are not debating the Middle East reference though. Are you going to claim those areas which are now bare hard clay were always so? Just wanting to know if I have to dig up archaeological studies on that.
Anyway, here are the Australia links I found in a few minutes searching. Man, you guys are lazy!
BTW, did you read the link I posted? " The possibility of human burning at other
times of the year and at a greater frequency may have inhibited the regeneration of the natural tree and shrub vegetation in the
interior."
Only it’s less of a maybe nowdays. Lot more study has revealed patterns of burning and animal predation that indicate human intervention, at least, according to National Geographic.
http://unisci.com/stories/19992/0514996.htm
covers land degredation in general by humans
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/research/profiles/mcglade/glde9.htm
Here’s a nice little graphics laden covering of current theory. Mirrors stuff I’ve seen in NG and Science News.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/future/ep1/trans1.htm
When people start persecuting and even rounding up and killing Americans for no other reason than their being American, you will identify with it. It’s not the least bit comparable.
To add to the general discussion, I just wanted to note that it is obviously very difficult to sort out all the historical, cultural and other aspects of the issue. It is all too easy to take one aspect, blow it up out of proportion, and to seek a complete answer to the issue based on that aspect alone.
I agree, nebuli, but I don’t recall anyone in this thread using that argument. If the european-extract settlers in North America had managed to turn part of Death Valley into farmland, wouldn’t you agree that they had done a good thing? (For the people, of course, not for all the poor displaced gila monsters.)
Andros said:
I do not believe it was sufficient justification to make the taking of Death Valley from the Paiute Indians a morally good action. Andros, I’ve read enough of your posts to know you are not a person who would equate either Paiutes or Palestinians with gila monsters, so I guess you must be under the misapprehension that in both cases since the land was desert it was therefore completely uninhabited. That is not correct.
As for nobody using the argument in this thread? Saying “We made the desert bloom” is fine as a statement of pride in achievement, but in this thread it was being offered as a justification for taking someone else’s land.
Just in case someone has not read my previous post- I do not question Israel’s right to exist. I believe a wrong was done to the Palestinians, but the Statute of Limitations has long since expired (as it has for Death Valley). But if somebody were to tell me what was done to the Indians was fine and dandy I would disagree. Likewise with what was done to the Palestinians.