|
|
|
|
Sorry I'm late with this, but I've been offline for a few days - enjoying myself.
Curtis, I hope this doesn't throw your homework completely out of kilter, but I must inform you that the Battle of Shiloh was fought between the Israelis and the Palestinians ... oooops! I mean the Israelites and the Philistines in the 10th century BC. The Philistines won.
Eldon, I completely agree with you that it is most impolite to make remarks about a country which might be construed as being insulting. This is happening all the time as regards my country. We have "no right to exist", we are "Zionist scum" - to quote the latest speech by the Iranian president. And it was not so long ago that, during a private party in Kensington at which 'everyone who matters' was present, the French ambassador to the UK called Israel, "that shitty little country".
We Israelis are so used to it that we couldn't care less. Well, that's what everyone says. But we do care, because however many times it is said, it still hurts.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Fornicators!" Thundered the pastor from the pulpit.
One farmer turned to the other and asked "What's a "fornicator'?"
His friend said "Don't ask me, I ain't a religious man."
Not being a Biblical scholar I didn't know anything about the original battle of Shiloh, although I did have an idea that Shiloh might be a Biblical name. I don't think Donny knew either. I think the only battle we've heard about is the defense of Masada, which if the nation of Israel never did anything else militarily would stand as a monument to heroism for all eternity.
I'll have to study more about the foundation of the modern state of Israel but it seems ironic that somethe problems might have been caused by the British mis-management of the Palestinian Mandate after 1919? The European powers were so eager to rush in and chew off chunks of the Ottoman Empire I guess they didn't realize what they were getting into. After the end of WWII, from what I've seen, the British just chucked it all and said sort of "fight it out among yourselves, we're outta here."
I wish my best friend Daniel posted here, he's Reform Jewish and very in touch with his heritage. I went to his Bar Mitzvah when we were thirteen and it was awesome. I was so proud of him. I date a Jewish girl, Deborah, and sometimes we all go to Shabbas services up in Virginia Beach. I'm not much of a believer in organized religion, but the services are cool and the people are friendly and Jewish girls are totally wicked excellent cooks!
But anyway, it's cool that you live there. People say that Israel is a religious state the way Iran is, and I try to tell them it isn't, but you know how people get ideas and don't like to get shed of them.
Actually I would really like to learn more about how you guys view being gay or bi, and about life there so if you have some time maybe you could write to me on my email.
Your Friend,
Jonathan.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I suppose that there are almost as many interpretations of British action in Palestine as there are stars in the firmament, but - especially after the recent hoo-hah on this forum about US history or the lack of it - I feel the urge to protest about your dismissal of the British role in Palestine.
Let me stress that I'm not being anti-American, anti-Israeli of anti-anyone-else. Politics is a seriously ugly game, and everyone plays dirty. Britain certainly wanted influence in the Middle East after World War I, though its prime objective was Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) on account of its oil reserves which, in the light of the World War I experience, were clearly of future value. Does that strike a chord in the light of recent history?
In general terms, British policy was amenable to the concept of a Jewish homeland, and it's hard to resist the conclusion that the British division of the League of Nations mandate into two distinct territories - Palestine and Trans-Jordan - was implemented for that reason. After World War II, the unprecedented rate of Jewish immigration was seen as a pretty much insoluble problem; in 1945, despite immigration after World War I and during World War II, Jews represented less than a third of the population, while Arab Muslims accounted for 60%, and the latter were far from happy at the prospect of becoming a minority in their own country. The British had little option but to comply with United Nations policy, but the political choice was to leave rather than be party to it.
Two other points need to be made. Firstly, the carve-up of the Ottoman Empire. Well, that's the way things happen after wars; compare the division of Europe after World War II. The objective was always the reconstruction of independent, self-governing states and, overall, that did happen. Palestine remained a problem simply because the population was divided into opposing camps.
Secondly, there is the indisputable fact that the British did favour the Arabs over the Palestine Jews during World War II. The Arabs were seen as the most useful allies in the context of the times. But then, in exactly the same way, the United States financed the Taliban in Afghanistan when it appearted politically expedient to do so.
Oh, and one final point. wars are a fact of life. To the victor, the spoils. 'Twas ever thus. I deplore war unreservedly, but it's unrealistic to pretend that it never happened. The (primarily British) emigrants to the United States dispossessed the Native Americans (with much deceit in the process), and despite token gestures, I see no consensus for the surrender of New York to Native American control - and that pattern is reflected throughout those parts of the former British Empire which remain under the control of the descendants of European immigrants. If there really is a moral obligation to seek atonement, should England submit to Welsh control? Or Western Germany to French (Frankish) control? Yet the Jewish 'nation' claims a god-given right to Israel, even though for centuries it has been predominently occupied by Muslims who, on the basis of historical analysis, are worshiping the same god, albeit with a different interpretation. Where does it end?
Well, in my view, it ends when we all stop blowing nationalist trumpets, accept our past national failings and devote our energies to creating a better world for future generations.
And this certainly isn't a personal attack - you and Eldon are valuable additions to our internet community, but that doesn't stop me from having opinions!
Cheers!
Cossie.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan wrote:
"Fornicators!" Thundered the pastor from the pulpit. One farmer turned to the other and asked "What's a "fornicator'?" His friend said "Don't ask me, I ain't a religious man."
This reminds me of the pastor who went through each of the Ten Commandments , castigating his congregation with each of them. When he reached "Thou shalt not steal" he gave as his example the unknown wretch who stole his bicycle. When he reached "Thou shalt not commit adultery" he stopped for a moment and then said, "Now I remember where I left my bicycle."
I'll have to study more about the foundation of the modern state of Israel but it seems ironic that some of the problems might have been caused by the British mis-management of the Palestinian Mandate after 1919? ... After the end of WWII, from what I've seen, the British just chucked it all and said sort of "fight it out among yourselves, we're outta here."
I think there is a lot of historical truth in what you say. The British made "a right ballsup" of their mandate. Cossie and I have had this discussion before. You can read in another post in this thread what Cossie thinks about this. I am not going to re-invent the wheel. Use this link to read what I wrote about this in the previous round:
http://forum.iomfats.org/w-agora/index.php?bn=forumiomfatsorg_placeofsafety&key=1153913864&pattern=Herzl&action=view
Actually I would really like to learn more about how you guys view being gay or bi, and about life there
Jonathan, send me an email with specific questions and I will do my best to answer them. I look forward to hearing from you.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah excuse me. I think we were talking about the American Civil War.
One thing I find amusing is that the people in most of the Arab countries are living in the 18 th century. there are a few that have become more modern but they dont alow the emams to control the country and how people live. They look at Israel and see how they live and all the nice things and how the US helps and supports them and they are jealous. they want Israel to be as poor and run down as they are.
Im amazed at some of the pics I see over there. I see some Palastinian children throwing rocks at an Israely Sherman tank. the tank has a 175 mm cannon pointed at them. Duh, whats wrong with this picture. Eygpt thru the might of their military against Israel and Israel kicked their ass in six days. So much for Russian weapons.
I have always heard that to the victor goes the spoils. the arabs should be glad they have a place to live.
Sweet dreams till sunbeams find you......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no! Not a duel!
First off, apologies for not being more active here. We had the SAT's on Saturday, and then celebration parties on Saturday night and everybody came over to my house all day Sunday.
I think everyone has the right to hold opinions. I understand the argument you make about attonements, because there are rumblings from the blacks in this country regarding "compensation" payments for slavery. If that ever happens, and I really don't think it will, there will be another Revolution here. Very few families now living here can trace their heritage back to slave owning days, and very few of those who can actually owned slaves. Our family is lucky, I guess, in that we kept very complete records of the manumission "gifts" that our slaves received when they were freed. Also my great-grandfather placed markers on all the graves in the slave cemetary here for the recorded burials, which is something hardly any slave-owning families did. We always get letters from the descendents of former slaves asking for information.
I have to get my mind around the notion of just what the Islamic people believe. I have read the Koran and the English commentary to it. I'm not a believer in organized religion, or of the Koran or the Bible. To me all of it is just mythology that this current age believes in. They seem to accept Jews and Christians as "people of the Book" as if they were sort of half-formed Moslems. It's very confusing. The Moslems refuse Israel's right to exist, yet read and accept the same Old Testament in which Israel was "established."
I wish humans had never invented the idea of a god, or gods. We laugh and shake our heads at the beliefs of the Greeks and Romans, but the stuff in the Bible is just as bizarre, if not more so. And the Greeks and Romans shook their heads at the Egyptians because they worshiped animals and reptiles, and the Egyptians shook their heads at other people because the believed in spirits inhabiting shrubs. it never ends and will never end until mankind as a whole can get over this pathetic "reliance" on a god who doesn't exist. Or at least doesn't exist in the vengence delivering form they think.
When people belive "god" is on their side, and that they are the only ones with "the truth" then bad things happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi JF! Thanks for the invitation to write, and I promise to take you up on it in a few days.
One of the things that clued me into this whole issue and how long it's been festering was when we were in tenth grade, and taking world history. The teacher put up some newspaper headlines on the overhead projector which read something like "Fifteen Dead In Roadside Bombing" and "Arsonists Attack Convoy" and "Twelve Children Dead In School Massacre." Then she showed where the headlines had been taken from, and they weren't from now, they were from the 1920's! That's a long time to be at each other's throats.
Just bears out what I have come to believe, religion is a dangerous thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1967 was 23 years before we were born, but I found an interesting ad in back issues of "The Pyramid Times and Sphinx Gazette"....
Honest Anwar's Emporium and Falafel Cafe...Egyptian Government surplus rifles, rocket launchers, and other useful military hardware for sale. Rifles never fired, thrown down once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
.... what are we getting into here?
First off, in response to JFR's post, all I can ask is that if you click on the link he provides and read his post from last year, after doing so, please scroll down to my post 'The truth about truth', dated 27 July 2006, which was in effect my reply.
British mandated rule in Palestine may not have been among the most glittering episodes of British history, but it was by no means a disaster. Britain as a nation was certainly not anti-Semitic; Jews were influential in business, government and the arts. So long as Jewish immigration to Palestine remained at a modest level, the British were not opposed to the concept of a Jewish homeland, though the bloody infighting between Jewish and Arab factions was a forewarning of problems ahead. It was however evident that the steep rise in immigration in the mid-1940s would cause serious problems, as indeed it did. As I've already mentioned, at this stage the Arab community still accounted for around 60% of the population, and Arabs were legal owners of far the greater part of the usable land - and they had lived in Palestine for generations. The influx of Jews would ultimately result in the Arabs becoming a minority in what they saw as theit own country. That was a factor which significantly coloured the British view, and it seems to me that it was not without justification. It was, admittedly, a fairly short-term view, but politicians are not noted for their long-term planning abilities, and the international community was not putting forward any constructive proposals about ways to avoid the conflict ahead.
I did read about the issues in some depth after my exchange with JFR last year, and it seems clear to me that none of the parties concerned acted with unflinching integrity. One thing is certain; it's a phase of twentieth-century history about which there is little agreement between historians, and it seems wise to leave the final verdict to future generations.
In direct response to Jonny, I share your general view of religion. I label myself as an agnostic, but that simply acknowledges the fact that I am not in a position to actually disprove the existence of a god; I may not actively be a theist, but I don't regard myself as an atheist. Certainly religion has done a vast amount of harm over the centuries, and in terms of eliminating unbelievers the Christians are way out in the lead. From a philosophical point of view, all religions appear to originate from mankind's innate desire to account for that which he does not understand, but there is a certain inevitability to the process. Mankind has tended to resolve the problem by creating a god, or even a whole pantheon of gods. Of course, that begs the question of how mankind is to communicate with him or them, and logically this leads to the establishment of some form of priesthood. That, of course, brings in the classic equation: Knowledge = Power, but in the case of religion it isn't too hard to invent the knowledge. Certainly the Roman Catholic leadership has in times past used its position to acquire immense temporal wealth and influence. The Anglican (Episcopal) Church owes its origin to Henry VIII's rejection of paspal power, but it only happened because Henry wanted power for himself - specifically the power to authorise his own divorce.
In any event, isn't it significant that virtually every race, tribe or other human community grouping has created its own god? And, thinking about this in some depth, what is the statistical, or indeed logical probability that there is one 'true' god and that all the other gods are false? I acknowledge the possibility that there may be a divine intelligence, but I see no logical reason to identify that intelligence with the rather bloodthirsty and unpleasant god of the Old Testament. Jesus offers a much better exposition of morality, but Christianity owes more to St. Paul than to Jesus, and Paul shows every sign of being a classic opportunist in the best traditions of the priesthood.
And that brings me to Curtis, who seems to have been taking 'National Geographic' much too literally. I recently read a transcript of an interview with a newspaper editor in Sarajevo, in the Balkans. He asked: why is it that when the Western press wants to photograph a Muslim woman, they go out into the countryside and find an aged farmer's wife in a headscarf? Why can't they photograph a beautiful young girl in a Sarajevo club? DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ IN THE PAPERS OR SEE ON TELEVISION!!!! Do your own research, or you'll develop a very twisted view of the world.
The Imams wield power in many Arab states in exactly the same way as the communist regimes wielded power in the Eastern Bloc; a combination of fear and misinformation. I understand it's pretty much the same in the Bible Belt. Historically, Muslims have been vastly more tolerant than Christians in accomodating the beliefs of others. Just one example - Christians are proud of the expulsion of the Arabs from the Southern half of Spain, yet under the Arabs both Jews and Christians were free to worship as they wished, and scholarship reached levels unheard of in other parts of Europe. It isn't the racial designation 'Arab' or the religious designation 'Muslim' that is the problem; it's the actions of a fundamentalist minority. Lebanon was a cultured and sophisticated state; it simply couldn't cope with the external factions taking advantage of its territory. And the Palestinian Arabs do have a legitimate grievance: why were Israeli settlements built on their land, and why does such a small proportion of the Israeli GDP find its way into Arab ateas?
And finally, the matter of US handouts. Under the present administration, the US is fond of trumpeting the fact that it is the biggest donor to countries in need. Yes, that's true. But in terms of the donation per capita of population it doesn't make the top of the list. It does, however, hold one other unenviable first place; of all international donors, it is the country which expends the greatest proportion of its 'donation' within its own economy - in salaries, etc, to US 'experts'.
I say again - if you want to get somewhere near to the truth - DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!!!
[Updated on: Tue, 09 October 2007 04:38]
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thougth we were getting into boxer briefs, oops, wrong getting into. 
I dont read national pornographic. there is nothing about native boobs that turn me on. Ive seen the pics of towns and houses in Israel and then at homes and towns in Arab states and the difference is striking. Obviously the arab archetects arnt very good.
Then again Im 17 and what do I know.
Sweet dreams till sunbeams find you......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Curtis
Most often it is dangerous to deduce generalisations about peoples and nations. Don't forget that 20% of the citizens of the State of Israel are Arabs. When the State of Palestine is created (and it must be created) I am willing to bet my last shekel (read dollar, if you prefer) that not one of the Israeli Arabs will opt for Palestinian nationality. They know which side of their bread is buttered.
These Israeli Arabs (who gladly admit they they are also Palestinians) have full citizen rights. They have elected ten members to the Knesset (out of 120) who represent Arab parties. Some of these Israeli Arabs live in some of the big cities, but they usually prefer to live in neighbourhoods which reflect their culture and society: in Haifa, in Tel-Aviv, in Ramla, in Lod etc. Most of them (for the same reasons) live in towns and villages that are 100% Arab: in Nazereth, in Umm-el-Fahm, in Taybeh etc.
So, the standard of living and the standard of housing is not so much a function of ethnicity as it is a function of civil rights and the standard of civil administration.
While Israeli Arabs have full citizen rights they do not have equal citizen duties. Israeli Arabs do not have to be conscripted into the army at the age of 18 (as all Jewish youths must). This is to prevent a situation in which they might be required to fight against their own Palestinian brethren. However, many of them do volunteer for army service. Beduin soldiers form the backbone of the Israeli army's Border Police and "trackers". The Druze community (non-Moslem Arabs) by their own communal decision have made army service compulsory for their youth - and many of them have reached the higher eschelons of the army service.
So, Curtis, beware of tarring all peoples with the same brush: people who don't know you might suspect racism or xenophobia - and I am sure that they would be absolutely wrong.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie.............. Do you speak Gaidhlig?
Oh that some power the gift give us
That we see ourselves as they see us
[Updated on: Tue, 09 October 2007 21:03]
Sweet dreams till sunbeams find you......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Only a few essential phrases, such as 'Uisge-beatha' (Whisky - essential if drinking in a Gaelic pub!)
Actually, Scots Gaelic is only spoken as a first language in the far North-West of Scotland and some of the Hebridean Islands. Gaelic speakers represent only a tiny percentage of the population of Scotland, and they all speak English as well, so there's little incentive to learn Gaelic inless you live in a Gaelic community or are involved in literary or historical research.
My current signature line is actually written in Lowland Scots dialect; it's a quote from the poem 'To a Louse, On seeing one on a Lady's Bonnet at Church', written in 1786 by Scotland's national poet, Robert Burns. Your translation is pretty much accurate, it reflects a common local expression 'If only we could see ourselves as other see us'.
Burns died young, at 37 (1759-1796), but his output was prolific. He occasionally wrote in Standard English, but most of his poetry is in Lowland Scots. Like the Bible, he's often quoted by people who may not realise the source they are quoting; for example, the title of the novel 'Of Mice and Men' by US author John Steinbeck is taken from a passage in Burns' poem 'To a Mouse, on turning her up in her Nest with the Plough, November 1785': 'The best-laid schemes o' Mice an' Men / Gang aft agley. (= Often go wrong).
There's a (probably spurious) tradition that Americans acquired the Mexican nickname 'Gringos' from the fact that troops of soldiers often sang the song 'Green Grow the Rashes, O'. No doubt the song in question was the later cumulative form beginning 'I'll give you one, O', but the original was a Burns poem:
'Green grow the rashes, O;
Green grow the rashes , O;
The sweetest hours that e'er I spend,
Are spent amang the lasses, O.'
You can substitute 'laddies' for 'lassies' if you like!
Burns' greatest poem was probably 'For a' that an' a' that', written in 1795, which is quotable throughout but ends with what must be one of the most relevant exhortations in the history of poetry:
'Then let us pray that come it may,
As come it will, for a' that -
That man tae man the warld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that!
'For a' that' is a Lowland Scots / Northen English dialect expression which can roughly be translated as 'nevertheless'.
But the Burns verse you are most likely to know is -
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And auld lang syne!
English translation -
Should old friendships be forgotten
And never called to mind?
Should old friendships be forgotten
And days of long ago!
(Literally, Auld lang syne = Old long since)
I know I've gone on a bit, but sensible sassenachs (= non-Scots) never draw attention to Robert Burns. Let's face it, in Scotland the anniversary of his birth (25 January) is celebrated at 'Burns Nichts' with an almost religious fervour, far surpassing the celebration of our Patron Saint, St. Andrew's Day (30 November).
Oh, and about the Arabs. I endorse all that JFR has said, but my point was simply that Western journalists choose the photographs which support their agenda; that doesn't mean that they are representative of the reality. Before making derogatory comments about Arab architects, you need to google-up Ankara, or - better still - the United Arab Emirates.
I wholeheartedly deplore Islamic fundamentalism, as I deplore the Christian fundamentalism of the US Bible belt. Both illustrate the dangers of literal acceptance in the face of overwhelming logic. But Islamic fundamentalists represent a very small (and by no means well-regarded) proportion of the Islamic community. That brings me back to what I said before - DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ IN THE PAPERS!!!!!!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's nane thats blessed of human kind,
But the cheerful and the gay, man,
Fal,la,la &c
Here's a bottle and an honest friend!
What would ye wish for mair, man?
Wha kens, befor his life may end,
What his share may be o' care man
Then catch the moments as they fly,
And use the as ye aught, man:
Believe me, happiness is shy,
And comes not aye when sought, man.
My mom told me that my emerald eyes and dark hair comes from the Scottish on my dads side. My dad may not claim me all he wants but the emerald eyes are dead proff hes my dad.
Robert burns I know and Robert Frost also. I think they were the greatest poets ever.
Im not really putting down Arab archetects, but I have seen enough to know that the Imams supress their people and keep them living in the past. There are exceptions for sure but its because the Imams arnt running things.
Sweet dreams till sunbeams find you......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Curtis, you are obviously a man of considerable aesthetic sensitivity!
I confess that I'm not familiar with the work of Robert Frost, but after a few excursions courtesy of Google I realise that it has been my loss, and I'll remedy the deficiency as soon as I can!
To be honest, mousy brown is the prevalent hair colour among Scots - as it is in much of North-West Europe - but we do seem to have a reputation for producing a higher-than-average proportion of strawberry blondes - OK, auburn - OK, dammit, bloody ginger offspring. Emerald eyes are rare in the UK, but probably more common in the Irish Republic - but you're one lucky dude, so make the most of it!
And as regards Imams, what - in essence - differentiates them from the likes of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe or the military junta in Myanmar? Surely they are all examples of the exploitation of political power for personal benefit?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Curtis, Eldon, Please note: 
