The Abrahamic Curse & The Peace Process

What I love about these neo-fascists is that the moment you mention that if the land isn't going to be given back to the Palestinians then the Palestinians should be given the right to vote, they look at you like a member of the KKK looks at someone who suggests that blacks should have equal rights.

isachaar said:

[font=Times New Roman]In the news today, no one can escape hearing about the negotiations for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That these peace discussions are going on is nothing new, but for the last fifteen years, those discussions have taken on a very dangerous twist! [/font]

[center][font=Times New Roman] "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Genesis 12:3[/font]
[/center]
[font=Times New Roman]When the Lord called Father Abraham, he promised to bless him and also to make him a blessing. He promised that all nations of the earth would be blessed through him. There is the potential in Abraham and in his seed for all nations and individuals to bless them and be blessed, or to curse them and be cursed.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]"I will gather all the nations, and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there On behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; and they have divided up My land". Joel 3:2[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]This prophecy ultimately promises God's retaliation against those who have taken the Jewish people from their land, or divided His land, the land He promised to Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, in the last days. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]What is fascinating in this verse is the fact that not only will God execute His wrath on those nations that divide His land in the future, but that God has also been active in history dealing with the nations over this issue. Below is a list of nations that have scattered the Jewish people or divided the land of Israel, or both:[/font]

1.) Babylon 606-536 BC. 2.) Persia 536-333 BC. 3.) Greece 333-63 BC. 4.) Rome 63-312 AD. 5.) Byzantine 312-637 AD. 6.) Moslem 637-1099 AD. 7.) Crusaders 1099-1291 AD. 8.) Mamelukes 1291-1517 AD. 9.) Ottoman Turks 1517-1917 AD. 10.) Britain 1917-1948 AD.[font=Times New Roman] [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Note: Germany could be listed here as well although they did not occupy Israel. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Each one of these nations committed the same mistake, persecuted the Jewish people of Israel, or divided the land, or both. Each one has suffered similar fate accordingly, either been completely defeated, or greatly reduced in prominence. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Currently, the USA has taken the lead among the nations in forcing Israel to give up land for peace. This policy basically started in the U.S. in 1991 when the U.S. State Department drafted the Madrid peace conference, a conference designed to force Israel to give up land for peace. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]The conference was to begin on October 30, 1991. That same day, the largest storm in Atlantic history, formed off the coast of Nova Scotia and started moving westward. Recorded as one of the most powerful storms ever, it came ashore on the east coast on October 31, 2001. It damaged the entire east coast as it slammed 30 foot waves into then President George Bush's home in Kennebunkport, Maine. As writer John McTernan put it in his book Israel, Blessing or the Curse, " America was put on notice by the Lord God of Israel". [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]The Madrid peace conference was to resume on August 23, 1992, again pressuring Israel to surrender land in exchange for peace. The same day, Hurricane Andrew slammed into southern Florida. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]These type occurrences continued through the Clinton Administration and have resumed in the new Bush Administration. George Bush Jr. pledged to stay out of the peace, but shortly into his administration, he changed his mind. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]In June of 2001, he sent George Tenet to Israel to attempt to implement the Mitchell Plan, a plan calling for cessation of new building in the Jewish settlements. On the same day he met with Israeli and Palestinian officials, tropical storm Allison formed in the Gulf of Mexico and moved over Texas, the President's home state, and dropped over twenty-eight inches of rain over the Houston area alone, causing over $4 billion dollars in damage. The storm then moved to Florida and up the east coast causing damage as far as Pennsylvania. The meteorologists claimed Allison as the "worst tropical storm in history". [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]We forced Jewish people to leave their land and their houses with the Gaza pullout - and we just coincidentally get hit by hurricane Katrina that just happened to cause a certain amount of our people to be uprooted and displaced from their land and their houses. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]This catastrophic hurricane was no coincidence and no accident. We have seen God the Father release a judgment strike of biblical proportions against our country because our leaders did not know their Bible well enough to make the correct decision on this matter.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]God continues to send warning after warning as we as a country insist that Israel give up land that God promised to Abraham and his descendents. The responsibility of such action rests on our own shoulders because God has warned in His Word for the nations to keep their hands off of His covenant land and has demonstrated that He is serious about that warning. [/font]

Hey commit11, I see you tracked me down.

There are no peace negotiations going on currently. The U.S. is pushing the deal which means a non-neutral mediator is working to help Israel get what it wants. This is not negotiating. When the Palestilnians and their Arab friends finally figure out that America cannot broker/mediate a fair deal, and get a neutral country to do so, negotiations may begin. However, it is likely that Israel will refuse to partilcipate when the medilator is not on their side. bk

bkaapcke said:

There are no peace negotiations going on currently. The U.S. is pushing the deal which means a non-neutral mediator is working to help Israel get what it wants. This is not negotiating. When the Palestilnians and their Arab friends finally figure out that America cannot broker/mediate a fair deal, and get a neutral country to do so, negotiations may begin. However, it is likely that Israel will refuse to partilcipate when the medilator is not on their side. bk

Aww come on...They practically offered Arafat the key to the Rabbi's washroom and he tossed it back in their face. It is important for the Arabs to keep the oppression of the Palestinians as a focal point wedge issue. Saudi Arabia could snap its fingers and in a week provide a homeland for the Palestinians. Arabs don't want to solve Palestinian hardship. They want Israel to get the fark out of the Middle East. Cease-o. Kaputt-o. And keeping Palestinians in grief and as victims are essential to that end.

I'm not a Zionist here. I don't support Israel's history of expansion. I'm just highlighting why this problem never seems to get solved.

Crankyfeet said:

Aww come on...They practically offered Arafat the key to the Rabbi's washroom and he tossed it back in their face. It is important for the Arabs to keep the oppression of the Palestinians as a focal point wedge issue. Saudi Arabia could snap its fingers and in a week provide a homeland for the Palestinians. Arabs don't want to solve Palestinian hardship. They want Israel to get the fark out of the Middle East. Cease-o. Kaputt-o. And keeping Palestinians in grief and as victims is essential to that end.

I'm not a Zionist here. I don't support Israel's history of expansion. I'm just highlighting why this problem never seems to get solved.

The only country that offers citizenship to Palestinians...is the United States.

bkaapcke said:

There are no peace negotiations going on currently. The U.S. is pushing the deal which means a non-neutral mediator is working to help Israel get what it wants. This is not negotiating. When the Palestilnians and their Arab friends finally figure out that America cannot broker/mediate a fair deal, and get a neutral country to do so, negotiations may begin. However, it is likely that Israel will refuse to partilcipate when the medilator is not on their side. bk

Yea, because being surrounded by millions of people who seek your total destruction makes you want to join hands with them and sing Kumbaya. Israel has the right to exist, and until they are ensured that they will stop having their schools and neighborhoods attacked by rockets with no guidance system, men, women, and children strapping bombs to themselves and walking into markets and blowing themselves up, and neighbors who have official government policies that call for their complete annihilation, they will need to be a bit choosey about what kind of negotiations they sign on to. They are funny that way.

Yeah, it's funny how they keep ending up with more land. Palestinian land, palestinian water. Yup, it's funny, alright. It didn't make any sense until I read Carters book. Now it makes lots of sense.

The Palestinians right to exist is limited to ever shrinking land areas, while the Israelis get ever expandilng land. Don't even read Carters book, just go to the bookstore and look at the maps in it. you will see that their 'story', that sounds so just and right, is just sugar coated cover for grabbing land.

This is not to say that the Palestinians are free from guilt, here. They are remarkably good at 'asking for' all the troubles they have. But neither side is moving towards peace. They will not find it, as long as they use America as a peace broker. bk

bkaapcke said:

Yeah, it's funny how they keep ending up with more land. Palestinian land, palestinian water. Yup, it's funny, alright. It didn't make any sense until I read Carters book. Now it makes lots of sense.

The Palestinians right to exist is limited to ever shrinking land areas, while the Israelis get ever expandilng land. Don't even read Carters book, just go to the bookstore and look at the maps in it. you will see that their 'story', that sounds so just and right, is just sugar coated cover for grabbing land.

This is not to say that the Palestinians are free from guilt, here. They are remarkably good at 'asking for' all the troubles they have. But neither side is moving towards peace. They will not find it, as long as they use America as a peace broker. bk

Hey, check out a Palestinian map...Israel isn't on it...

And Israel is working hard to make sure the Palestinians leave the West Bank and Gaza. So what else is new. These things don't make for peace negotiations with bilg chances for success. Again, there is absolutely no chance of success if America brokers the deal.

Anyone who thinks the Israelis are the good guys here, ought to read Jimmy Carters book. They are not THE bad guys, just another bad guy in a bad neighborhood. Until thiis is recognized, a reasonable, and possibly lasting deal can't be made. It has to get beyond win/lose think, and into lose/lose think, before significant change can happen. bk

bkaapcke said:

And Israel is working hard to make sure the Palestinians leave the West Bank and Gaza. So what else is new. These things don't make for peace negotiations with bilg chances for success. Again, there is absolutely no chance of success if America brokers the deal.

Anyone who thinks the Israelis are the good guys here, ought to read Jimmy Carters book. They are not THE bad guys, just another bad guy in a bad neighborhood. Until thiis is recognized, a reasonable, and possibly lasting deal can't be made. It has to get beyond win/lose think, and into lose/lose think, before significant change can happen. bk

No, instead of reading Carter's book, you should just read post #5 on this thread again.

bkaapcke said:

And Israel is working hard to make sure the Palestinians leave the West Bank and Gaza. So what else is new. These things don't make for peace negotiations with bilg chances for success. Again, there is absolutely no chance of success if America brokers the deal.

Anyone who thinks the Israelis are the good guys here, ought to read Jimmy Carters book. They are not THE bad guys, just another bad guy in a bad neighborhood. Until thiis is recognized, a reasonable, and possibly lasting deal can't be made. It has to get beyond win/lose think, and into lose/lose think, before significant change can happen. bk

Until the Islamofacists recognize Israel's right to exist, what more can really happen in terms of peace? Israel is holding the bigger rod so to speak, and they have to because of their need to....oh I don't know...........EXIST. Tell the people who convince women and children to strap bombs to them and blow up innocent civilians to stop, get a real army, and fight it out like real men if they want to annihilate Israel. See, they won't do that because Israel will literally hand them their asses. I know that there are peace loving Muslims who want to move on, but see, they are beheaded or have their homes bombed and their children killed if they dare speak those thoughts. Islamoterrorists don't like reasoned debate, they prefer killing babies.

As to Carter, I have some respect for him, but on this topic, he is misguided in many ways. Moderate, peace loving people exist on both sides, and there are many Israelies who are wacko in their opinions of the Palestinian question. However, please don't even try to suggest that there is an equal willingness for peace in the region because you and Carter are incredibly dishonest if you believe differently.

It won't settle until both sides need to (really need to) cut their losses. The lose/lose scenario is when parties to disputes get out of the rut and move towards settlement. When everyone is taking a hit and can't afford more losses. All hopes of a win have to be gone. bk

There won't be any peace. Israel still wants to win and we are backing that. The Palestinians, with Arab backing, still have a lot of killing to do. No deal here, except fake ones that are bought and paid for by American taxpayers. GW won't mind committing our money (credit) to buy a fake peace if it makes him look good. He still needs a legacy. bk

Israel's a tiny minority group in the Middle East. The Arabs on the other hand are far far bigger territorially.
I saw an interview with Prof Dawkin on BBC yesterday where he discussed the Abrahamic religions and his belief in atheism. I thought Dawkins came out of the interview unsinged and made his points well.

Crankyfeet said:

Aww come on...They practically offered Arafat the key to the Rabbi's washroom and he tossed it back in their face. It is important for the Arabs to keep the oppression of the Palestinians as a focal point wedge issue. Saudi Arabia could snap its fingers and in a week provide a homeland for the Palestinians. Arabs don't want to solve Palestinian hardship. They want Israel to get the fark out of the Middle East. Cease-o. Kaputt-o. And keeping Palestinians in grief and as victims are essential to that end.

I'm not a Zionist here. I don't support Israel's history of expansion. I'm just highlighting why this problem never seems to get solved.

The whole conflict is more about religion than land. I think that's what Dawkins was getting at.

bkaapcke said:

It won't settle until both sides need to (really need to) cut their losses. The lose/lose scenario is when parties to disputes get out of the rut and move towards settlement. When everyone is taking a hit and can't afford more losses. All hopes of a win have to be gone. bk

Carrera said:

The whole conflict is more about religion than land. I think that's what Dawkins was getting at.

Dawkins is incorrect, it is about neither. It is about our natural tendency as humans to resort to violence as the natural extension of conflict. Stalin killed millions. Pointing the finger at religion or land is 4 levels above the real root of the problem. The problem lies in the human mind, and the conflict between good and evil within our souls. We kill. Violence begets violence. Gandhi really was on to something. Violence exists in the presence of, or absence of God.

Dawkins, Republicans, Democrats, Muslims, Christians, Communists, they are all the same. We are all hypocrites who do the things we do not wish to do, and don't do the things we know we should. We hate people who hate, love only those who love us, hide our secrets in the recesses of our minds and hope nobody finds them, and spend our days searching for meaning in the meaningless. When we realize that, we claim there is no God or that God makes us righteous. We know as much about the truth as we do about the infinite. We are lost children on our way home yet we have no memory of our home.

Sometimes protecting what we have is all we have. In the face of opposition that seeks our death, we kill. I will slaughter you with malice should you touch my family. I am human, that is what we do. I am no Gandhi, and until you are, we have a problem.

Dawkins is used to tackling the issues you raised, I think. During the interview, Stalin was raised and I guess Dawkins had most of the answers. He explained the differences between communism and religion quite suitably.
For instance, he stated nobody is born a communist or named after communism as happens with religion. For instance, people who are named Maria, Jesus (in Spain) or Muhammad have inherited a set of religious beliefs and religious identity they remain with. Dawkins also pointed out that Stalinists killed and purged the opposition with some kind of idea they could attain a political goal. In religion, enemies are killed for differing over the issue of God. Many religionists kill becauswe they won't tolerate differences over belief in God.
I think Dawkins esplains it better than I do but he has thought about the issue a lot. Where I differ with him is over the issue of intelligence behind or being part of life.

thoughtforfood said:

Dawkins is incorrect, it is about neither. It is about our natural tendency as humans to resort to violence as the natural extension of conflict. Stalin killed millions. Pointing the finger at religion or land is 4 levels above the real root of the problem. The problem lies in the human mind, and the conflict between good and evil within our souls. We kill. Violence begets violence. Gandhi really was on to something. Violence exists in the presence of, or absence of God.

Dawkins, Republicans, Democrats, Muslims, Christians, Communists, they are all the same. We are all hypocrites who do the things we do not wish to do, and don't do the things we know we should. We hate people who hate, love only those who love us, hide our secrets in the recesses of our minds and hope nobody finds them, and spend our days searching for meaning in the meaningless. When we realize that, we claim there is no God or that God makes us righteous. We know as much about the truth as we do about the infinite. We are lost children on our way home yet we have no memory of our home.

Sometimes protecting what we have is all we have. In the face of opposition that seeks our death, we kill. I will slaughter you with malice should you touch my family. I am human, that is what we do. I am no Gandhi, and until you are, we have a problem.

Carrera said:

Dawkins is used to tackling the issues you raised, I think. During the interview, Stalin was raised and I guess Dawkins had most of the answers. He explained the differences between communism and religion quite suitably.
For instance, he stated nobody is born a communist or named after communism as happens with religion. For instance, people who are named Maria, Jesus (in Spain) or Muhammad have inherited a set of religious beliefs and religious identity they remain with. Dawkins also pointed out that Stalinists killed and purged the opposition with some kind of idea they could attain a political goal. In religion, enemies are killed for differing over the issue of God. Many religionists kill becauswe they won't tolerate differences over belief in God.
I think Dawkins esplains it better than I do but he has thought about the issue a lot. Where I differ with him is over the issue of intelligence behind or being part of life.

Dawkins is thinking 4 levels above the root cause. The person responsible for the act is the person who commits the act. God has nothing to do with it. As to his glossing over the murder of millions and the reasons behind the murders, he is on weak ground and he knows it. He has to defend his beliefs, nothing more. He is as bad as those he criticizes.