babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Not a kosher security measure

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Not a kosher security measure
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 29 October 2003 10:40 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's come to this:

"Rabbis back Israeli 'guard pigs'

An organisation in Israel has gained rabbinical approval to train pigs to guard Jewish settlements in the West Bank."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3221079.stm


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 29 October 2003 10:44 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They have such a simplistic view of Islam, too.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 29 October 2003 11:07 AM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Around the world geese had always been used for security measures. Perhaps the pigs will be used in the hopes that these religious fanatic suicide bombers will be more reluctant to cross the path of a pig.... hey, if they can be conned into believing that they are about to meet their maker and be presented with 72 virgins perhaps they'll stay away from pigs.

Could be a good idea given the intended purpose and directed against that bunch of murdering "martyrs".


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
DavidB-D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4572

posted 29 October 2003 11:31 AM      Profile for DavidB-D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In my simplistic view, it makes sense.
From: ON | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 29 October 2003 11:39 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So even the staunchest Muslim literalist believes that it is intentions that matter more than the act itself. If they didn't put the pig there, if the pig was intended as an obstacle by an enemy, then it's not their responsibility--it's their enemy's! Has no bearing whatsoever on the Muslim afterlife.

This was tried before in the Phillipines, a brutal USian war to crush a local population many decades ago. It was stupid then and it's stupid now.

Imagine if people thought these things about Jews. Really. This would not be taken as a serious threat, but rather as an insult. Is it their intention to insult Islam or to defend themselves in their illegal presence?

[ 29 October 2003: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 29 October 2003 11:39 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EMGEE:

Perhaps the pigs will be used in the hopes that these religious fanatic suicide bombers will be more reluctant to cross the path of a pig.... hey, if they can be conned into believing that they are about to meet their maker and be presented with 72 virgins perhaps they'll stay away from pigs.


Suicide bombers don't go after the illegal settlements. The illegal settlements are attacked in more traditional ways, and for quite understandable reasons. If there are any "religious fanatics" on the west bank, they tend to be the fundamentalist settlers.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 29 October 2003 04:58 PM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is it their intention to insult Islam or to defend themselves in their illegal presence?


Mandos, the pork would be as objectionable to those Jews as to those Muslims so I don't think it is purely a religious thing.

But Mandos, just because you were the one to say it here, why is it that Israel's presence is "illegal"? At best, the situation of the territories is disputable. Illegal? That could apply to both sides until the issues are resolved.


Also, can anyone explain to me why it is that these settlements in Israel are such an obstacle? Is it to be expected that when there finally is a two state solution that the settlements would be dismantled but so will the the Arab settlements (homes and businesses)inside of "Israel proper"?

If the Israelis are to be "expelled" from "palestine" will the Arabs be "expelled" from Israel.

Or is it the intention to make sure that "palestine" will be devoid of any Jewish populace. And if there is to be a Jewish presence allowed, why should we be demanding the dismantling of those "Jewish" settlements? Why can't they just remain there under "palestinian authority" in the same way that the Arabs are currently living under Israeli authority?


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 29 October 2003 05:10 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Also, can anyone explain to me why it is that these settlements in Israel are such an obstacle?"

They are not in Israel. That is the problem.

"But Mandos, just because you were the one to say it here, why is it that Israel's presence is "illegal"?"

I believe I was the one who said. And it is illegal to settle conquered land under international law. Just as it is illegal to displace the native population as part of that settlement activity. Both of which Israel has done.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 29 October 2003 05:46 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, I think it would be perfectly acceptable for Jewish settlers to remain in the new nation of Palestine once its borders are finalized. Of course, they'd be subject to the authority of the Palestinian government, and they'd have to return the land that was taken from Palestinian citizens, and they'd have to give up their Israeli citizenship. But if they want to do all that, I imagine it'd be just fine.

I need a sarcasm smiley, I really do.


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 29 October 2003 06:55 PM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Josh the land in question was rejected by Jordan when a peace offering was made between Jordan and Israel. Since there is no peace between the Palestinian populace and the Israeli gov't, the land, if anything is "in dispute". Same thing applies to Gaza. Why didn't Egypt want it back??? From what I understand even the Israelis don't want Gaza since even their "biblical claims" don't include that land.

I've only been here a while but I read on one of these posts that fully 80% of what was once called Palestine by the Ottomans was given over to create Jordan. Of the other 20% it looks to me that Israel, as created by the united nations, occupies at least half of that and then the west bank is the other half (10%). Of that other half, Israel has repeatedly offered to settle for a peaceful division with "Palestine" giving up only 10% of it's territory. So in effect, the way I look at it is that all this bloody killing and suffering back and forth is over under 1% of the original Ottoman Empire "Palestine". I just look at the map of the middle east and shake my head that so much hatred can be packed into one sliver of land.

There's got to be more to this than the Palestinian demand for their 1%.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
DavidB-D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4572

posted 29 October 2003 07:43 PM      Profile for DavidB-D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And it is illegal to settle conquered land under international law. Just as it is illegal to displace the native population as part of that settlement activity. Both of which Israel has done.

Hope that that is not retroactive ... where would we, American and Canadian non-aboriginals, go? (Fine ones we are, to tell Israel what not to do!)

From: ON | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 29 October 2003 07:55 PM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's a good point David. The same could be said for a great many peoples in a great many lands.

I'd still like to see the Kurds get their own state. I don't know what else thay have to do to prove that they (unlike the Palestinians) deserve one.

Just BEING a person dosen't in itself give you the right to an independent state. There's got to be a formula of qualifications that a people must exhibit to be elligable for a land of their own.

Could we come up with a formual here? We could just as easily call it the "Geneva Requirements".

Quick, someone call the press.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 29 October 2003 07:59 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EMGEE:
[QB]

I've only been here a while but I read on one of these posts that fully 80% of what was once called Palestine by the Ottomans was given over to create Jordan.


It wasn't the Ottoman definition of Palestine which was reflected in the Partition Agreement, but that constituted by the Mandate Authority. The British Mandate definition, from the 1920's on, did not consider the lands east of the Jordan river (then called Trans-Jordan) as part of the potential site for a Jewish/Palstinian Arab state(s).

You gotta read slower, and think faster.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 29 October 2003 08:04 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EMGEE:
[QB]That's a good point David. The same could be said for a great many peoples in a great many lands.

I'd still like to see the Kurds get their own state.


But they don't exist, since Kurdistan doesn't exist, isn't that right EMGEE?

quote:
Just BEING a person dosen't in itself give you the right to an independent state. There's got to be a formula of qualifications that a people must exhibit to be elligable for a land of their own.

Who do they petition to? Who gets to be the final arbiter? This is a far more fundamental question than a 'formula' for deserving statehood, and of course by your definition, nationhood.

But wait, wouldn't this mean that groups would already be nations in order to get a state, an doesn't that contradict your thesis on another thread?

Of course it does, and if I thought you were just doing parody, I would give you kudos. Unfortunately, it is apparent that you really are as unreasonable as you seem.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 29 October 2003 08:08 PM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry courage but there is just so much to go through and I really want to be fair to both sides.

I don't think I care much about who's definition we use because then we would never come to a conclusion.

The land originally reffered to as Palestine was really big. I've gone back and done some reading and now I see that in fact most of that original land was in fact given over to create Jordan (what's Trans-Jordan?). Looks to me that the great number of Palestinians could easily take claim over Jordan... why go after only a tiny piece of what was once theirs (even though it was taken originally from the Jews).

So what are we fighten for hu? Absolutely nothing!

What percentage of the population of Jordan are actually Palestinians?


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 29 October 2003 10:16 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I've only been here a while but I read on one of these posts that fully 80% of what was once called Palestine by the Ottomans was given over to create Jordan.
---------
Hope that that is not retroactive ... where would we, American and Canadian non-aboriginals, go? (Fine ones we are, to tell Israel what not to do!)

I suppose much depends on whose maps you look at. The areas of Palestine, Trans-Jordan (or Cisjordanie for any chemists here tonight), Lebanon, and Syria were all known as part of "Syria" under the Ottomans.

Kind of throws a curve into some of the arguments being used here, what?

The question of our aboriginal populations, shameful as their treatment at the hands of Europeans has been, is not an exact parallel with the natives of Palestine, for a couple of reasons at least.

First Nations people can live anywhere in Canada (where economic restrictions that many of us face aren't prohibitive), and nobody is arguing that they move to Bengal or Pradesh because other Indians live there.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DavidB-D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4572

posted 30 October 2003 09:21 AM      Profile for DavidB-D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The question of our aboriginal populations, shameful as their treatment at the hands of Europeans has been, is not an exact parallel with the natives of Palestine, for a couple of reasons at least.

First Nations people can live anywhere in Canada (where economic restrictions that many of us face aren't prohibitive), and nobody is arguing that they move to Bengal or Pradesh because other Indians live there.



What a load of unadulterated crap! (I wonder if al-Qa'bong walks around standing on his head. It must be a topsy-turvy world he lives in.)

From: ON | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 30 October 2003 02:21 PM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
First Nations people can live anywhere in Canada (where economic restrictions that many of us face aren't prohibitive), and nobody is arguing that they move to Bengal or Pradesh because other Indians live there.


David, I don't see that as being "a load of unadulterated crap!" at all!!!

I don't know where you come from but in Canada our Native Peoples can live anywhere that they want and no one tells them to get back to the reservation!

Al's got a good point there but does he also extend it to the Israeli side given the fact that no where in the middle east are any countries that give full and unbiased rights to Jews the way that Israel gives rights to its Arab citizens.

I'd like to know why so many Arabs still live in Israel and so many are more than content to live there while I keep hearing that all the Jewish settlements must be demolished and the Jews tossed out of that state-to-be-created.

There's even Arabs in the Israeli parliament!!!! Contrast that to the Jews in Arab countries... they are only allowed into the prisons.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 30 October 2003 02:37 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Just BEING a person dosen't in itself give you the right to an independent state. There's got to be a formula of qualifications that a people must exhibit to be elligable for a land of their own.

No, but Israel doesn't want to give these people Israeli citizenship because they are not the right race. They want the land, but they want the people on it to die or go away. That's why they occupy the territory and push the Arabs off it bit by bit. If Israel were willing to treat the Palestinian Arabs as Israelis, give them the same rights and privileges as Jewish Israelis, perhaps they wouldn't want their own state. But it's not willing to do that.

As for that land being originally stolen from the Jews, well, according to the Bible it was originally stolen from the Canaanites. And maybe the Canaanites stole it from someone else. How far back do you want to go?

Essentially, what's being said here is that if a group of aboriginal native Ontarians decided they were going to take back their land, and were able to organize an army, they would be within their rights to destroy my house in Toronto and bundle me off to a refugee camp in the Netherlands, 'cause hey, there's white people there too.

quote:
There's even Arabs in the Israeli parliament!!!! Contrast that to the Jews in Arab countries... they are only allowed into the prisons.

So if my neighbour murders someone, it's okay for me to beat up my other neighbour and steal his stuff? After all, it's not like I'm murdering anyone...

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 30 October 2003 05:43 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What a load of unadulterated crap! (I wonder if al-Qa'bong walks around standing on his head. It must be a topsy-turvy world he lives in.)

My my, your precise analysis and careful parsing of my post certainly is edifying, oh he of the comic book name.

Colour me enlightened.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 30 October 2003 06:20 PM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Smith says:

quote:
No, but Israel doesn't want to give these people Israeli citizenship because they are not the right race.


BUT IF Israel was created as a Jewish state and recognized as such by its creators (the UN) shouldn't it be perpetuated as a Jewish State???

There's no doubt that the Arabs also have a "requirement" for citizenship. Not that that makes it right to us Canadians but it is the policy of the majority of countries in the world and we may not think that it is right but it is what it is and why do we fault one side for what the other side ALSO does.

I don't want to take the side of Israel on this site. I don't do so in discussions with my friends (which have become far more interesting since I came to this site, thank you.) but here I seem to get pushed that way because of how I'm being pushed.

Take a look at ALL my posts and unless they are responses, very few start out "pro" anybody. I seem never to have to defend anything that I say negative about Israel. It is only when I do defend them because I am forced to defend my stance, that I get attacked as having a hidden agenda or being biased.

Actually, IF I had to choose sides I'd come out in favour of a democracy and a people who live more "like me" and my country. So maybe I am biased in that regard.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 30 October 2003 06:30 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For someone "neutral," you say pretty dreadful things about Arabs. Sorry, not buying it.

quote:
There's no doubt that the Arabs also have a "requirement" for citizenship. Not that that makes it right to us Canadians but it is the policy of the majority of countries in the world and we may not think that it is right but it is what it is and why do we fault one side for what the other side ALSO does.

How many times do we have to go through this argument?

1) Israel gets billions of dollars in aid from the USA every year. More than any country on earth, as I recall. What other country gets that level of no-strings-attached aid from the USA? That's right: none.

2) Israel has powerful lobbyists working for it in North America and elsewhere. Now, before Mishei (our resident lobbyist) starts foaming at the mouth, let me state clearly who those lobbyists are: not just several mainstream Jewish groups, but fundamentalist Christians, right-wing neoconservative groups of all sorts, and anyone stuck in the Cold War.

3) People recruit for the Israeli army here. Or try to. When was the last time someone tried to recruit for the Iranian army on a Canadian campus?

4) Other nations do not claim to be democratic, pluralistic, or fair to all races. They do not claim that their aggressive behaviour is exclusively for "security." Or if they do, their claims are not accepted by members of the mainstream Canadian press. Therefore, there is no need for us to debunk those claims. No one is selling Egypt or Pakistan as a democratic Shangri-La threatened by savages on all sides.

We've gone through this in about five kajillion threads already. Pay more attention.

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
DavidB-D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4572

posted 30 October 2003 08:10 PM      Profile for DavidB-D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We've gone through this in about five kajillion threads already.

For all the good it has done (you).

From: ON | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 30 October 2003 08:54 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh my, the pain of the nonsensical burn.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca