I've converted. No, I'm still a crazy zionist - don't get your hopes up. That won't change. However, I will now be blogging using Wordpress (seeing as it totally dominates Livejournal). Wordpress is a lot more professional/"blogger" oriented as opposed to LJ's more personal/private-diary-ish feel. Plus, this blog was getting way too cluttered... seriously driving me crazy. Wordpress allots more organizational tools to its users so it's easier to keep track of entries, blog hits, etc. I imported a lot of my posts from "zionists," so they won't just sit here and rot away. My username has changed, but that does not mean I won't be blogging about Israel anymore. It also does not mean that my stance has altered in any way. However, I will most likely ramble about a larger array of topics now that my id. isn't so specific. It just makes more sense to do it this way. I won't be deleting "zionists," but I probably will not update it anymore. Time to move on and see how this Wordpressing works out. Goodbye, zionists - it has been a good two or so years. If anyone ever reads this, my new blog can be found here:
This is "old" news, but a great example of turnspeak and topic changing. Watch closely:
"You might argue that the Jews have the right to have a government. We're not against that. But where?" "They like to live in their own lands, to have the right to self-determination" (talking about the Palestinians)
I will be addressing those points, especially focusing on self-determination (and turnspeak used in this instance), shortly.
Got to love the 'United' Nations. Their "Human Rights" Council has issued eight anti-Israel resolutions in the past. It is of absolutely no surprise that they now are insisting on probing Israel for "'violations' of international law in the territories - until such time as it withdraws to the pre-1967 border." Some issues they will be complaining about: Israel's action in the Gaza strip after Cpl. Gilad Schalit was kidnapped, Israel's construction of an access ramp to the Mughrabi Gate. Basically, they just don't want Israel to exist and will use lame political excuses to try to achieve their very nonobjective means and assert how evil and inhuman Israel is. Oh boy, what a joke.
"...How often in talks with Rogers, Kissinger, Sisco and others has Egypt heard the Americans say, in effect, 'we're not interested in raking over the past: lets look at the situation as it is today.' But today's situation is the creation of yesterday." -Mohamed Heikal, The Road to Ramadan
Were Arab-Muslim "Palestinians" emotionally tied to their own plot of land in Palestine, based on a consistent presence for thousands of years, as it is sometimes said? Ignorance and unawareness about ongoing events and conditions in 'Palestine' for the past 2,500-something-years up until present day have created a distorted view of the Middle East conflict. Those who say that what happened in the past is not relevant or of importance when it comes to what is happening NOW, are dead wrong. It doesn't make any sense to not look at the past. I believe the quote by Mohamed Heikal states the matter quite simply. The past has everything to do with what's happening today. You cannot solve a problem with a lack of understanding and an insensitivity about the problem's very roots. ( It is often said that... )
A very good point/clarification is made at 3:03-1:48. Oftentimes the reality of the situation is overlooked. Fortunately, people still exist who see more than the surface level - mainly those that actually live in such areas/have experienced more than visits now and then. It's funny to hear Americans or Westernized people of different ethnicities make claims like the one demonstrated. This time it took Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Somalia to set the record straight and tell it like it is. Yeah. He couldn't respond to that.
Can someone provide answers to the following inquiries without ignoring historical fact and prancing around the actual question? Some say ignorance is bliss, but in this case ignorance is a blindfold that causes the ones wearing it to slam into a brick wall and damage their brains even more.
How can a group of people (ie - the Jews) be considered "colonialists" in their ancestral homeland? Why is it that so often Jews who reside in Israel/fought for their land are compared to the early Americans and Palestinians to the Native Americans? Why is it that archeology, anthropology, history, and oral traditions all prove that Israel, Judea, and Samaria make up the ancestral Jewish homeland and people still claim that the Jews took what didn't belong to them? Is there any evidence for a group of "Palestinian" people before the birth of Zionism? Did you know that "Palestinian Arabs" are native to Israel and surrounding areas (meaning they were born there), but they, in fact do not originate from Israel? If Zionism is so evil, destructive and demeaning toward Arabs, then why do thousands flock there and take advantage of rights that are trampled upon in other Arab nations? Where are/were the Palestinian borders? What was the Palestinian culture like from the 1930s to '50s? Who led the Palestinian government in 1923? Who was the top general of the Palestinian Army in 1948? How many casualties did the Palestinian Army encounter during the 1948 Israeli-Arab War? Before Israel, what was the Palestinian currency? Was the Palestinian economy capatalist, socialist or communist? Who was the president before terrorist Yassar Arafat? Before Israelis, how was the Palestinian government structured? How does anti-Zionism show interest in allowing for the existence and protection of minorities that should be allowed to live under Palestinian Authority rule? Why are Palestinian Arabs discriminated against in every single Arab League nation, showing that Arab nations are hostile toward Israel for reasons other than Palestinian Arab human rights? Why is it that "Fatah," the organization that Arafat started in the late 1950s before Israel acquired the West Bank and Gaza, means "Conquest" in English, and yet people still claim the Jews are stirring up the peace? Why wouldn't Jews be entitled the right to return to their homeland? How can the Arab conquest circa 633-637 (of what is now known as Israel) and the persecution and discriminatory laws they inflicted on the Jews be dismissed? Are Israel and its Jewish residents the cause of terrorism/discrimination today (think terrorism AND discrimination in areas such as Sudan [Darfur], Egypt, Israel, Europe, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Comoro Islands, Iran, Kuwait, Indonesia, ETC.)? How has Israel (mainly its Jewish residents) perpetuated violence in the Middle East more than Palestinians and Arabs? How do you explain the fact that Jews have constituted the majority in Jerusalem since at least 1830? Why was the Temple Mount (where the al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock sit) mostly unused and falling apart until the birth of modern Zionism? How do the Arabs have more historical rights to the land than the Jews?
And, for the trillionth time: I know there is a refugee crisis among the Arabs in Israel. But the fact is - this crisis was created and prolonged by the surrounding Arab nations. People who continually point to this issue/blame the Jews, believing it trumps everything else that has happened, are missing the big picture. In fact, they're missing the picture in general. The proven truth is, Jews have always, to some degree (even after all the conquests) maintained a presence in Israel. They have been trampled on and persecuted in their own homeland, not mention every other corner of the world. This doesn't justify what is happening to the Arabs in refugee camps, etc. - However, the finger should be pointed elsewhere.
An interesting development is taking place in Jerusalem. While embarking on (and causing a lot of unprovoked, but typical RAGE from the Muslim community) an eight month construction project to replace the old stone ramp located in the outer parameters of the Temple Mount, Israeli archeologists uncovered something unexpected. On Wednesday the 7th, it was announced that an ancient cistern had been discovered in the process of excavating. Laying near “the southeastern corner of the upper platform of the Temple Mount,” this old cistern could very well be the one priests used to draw water from while carrying out purification and sacrificial duties during the Second Temple period. Based on several factors (which I’m not getting into for time’s sake), Patrich (the archaeologist expert) believes that the Second Temple is really “further to the east and south than earlier thought.” This means that the rock (a.k.a. the site where Abraham nearly sacrificed his son, Isaac) over which the Dome of the Rock was built is really OUTSIDE the confines of the Temple.
The Temple Mount is the first holiest site in Judaism, and the third holiest site in Islam. Needless to say, the recent commotion and discoveries around this area have sparked fear and anger in many Muslims. The Fatah-affiliated Aksa Martyrs Brigades threatened to attack synagogues if Israel continued the work. Haniyeh also claimed that the “continued Israeli aggression on Al-Aksa Mosque and Jerusalem require(s) all Palestinians to unite and remember that (their) battle is with the occupation." Aggression, huh? After dealing with lots of stone throwing, name calling, and threats to burn synagogues, Israeli workers have attempted to appease the boiling pot by installing real-time cameras to supervise their every move and prove that they have no malicious intentions. Funny - doesn't this area belong to Israel (the Jews), anyway? 1967... Six Day War victory ringing any bells? They had the capibility to blow up the Dome of the Rock right then and there. A few hours after the territory fell into Jewish hands, Rabbi Shlomo Goren said, "Now is the time to put 100 kilograms of explosives into the Mosque of Omar so that we may rid ourselves of it once and for all." But no. It would disturb the "peace." Instead, they invested the Muslim Waqf with authority to oversee the Temple Mount. So cry me a river. The Jews are repairing an old bridge outside the premises. Anyone who has a problem with this should be grateful they even have their third holy site. So many examples of hypocrisy pop up everyday. It's completely unsuprising and makes me laugh. Anyway... tangent...
It's good to know there are still people left who realize that simply sitting back and not challenging something wrong, for fear of causing adversity, isn't necessarily positive. Daniel Scot is a real man. He doesn't waver back and forth between the book of political correctness and convictions. To tell it like it is - that's a rare trait in people these days. Sharing Christ's love while maintaining a strong moral center can be a balancing act, and most seem to fall into the trap of avoiding confrontation for fear of scaring others away (that or they act like total cuckoos and truly do scare people away). But how much is accomplished when one just sits back, politely disagrees, nods their head, and smiles? Personally, whether I agree with someone's conviction or not, I'd respect them more if they were firm about it and had some passion. It sure as heck draws more attention (positive and negative) to what you have to say. This doesn't mean I think that calling one a sinner and telling them that they're going to hell is the way to go. Because it's definitely not. Simply being firm about what is WRONG and what is right, is enough. Apathy and uncertainty are eating away at our society... and it's a sad, sad thing. I think Mr. Scot demonstrates what I mean by this pretty well. I REALLY wish there were more men like him. So much more would be accomplished in this world, that's for sure. NEW YORK— Daniel Scot steps to the lectern wearing a buttoned-up shirt and carefully combed, close-cut hair—clearly the mathematics professor that he is, more at home in a classroom of students than this ballroom of chandeliers and cocktail dresses. A bit of numbers and history is necessary to understand what has summoned the 55-year-old Pakistani-born pastor to be guest of honor at the Metropolitan Club, a Renaissance revival mansion commissioned by J.P. Morgan just a block off New York's Central Park.
Scot's journey to the lectern began nearly five long years—and over half a million dollars—ago. In March 2002 he spoke at a seminar on the differences between Christianity and Islam and described ways Christians can reach out to Muslims. Like his speech in New York, his talks are sprinkled with frequent reference to passages in the Quran, traced out with the precision of a quadratic equation. For those remarks an Islamic council brought him up on charges of "religious vilification" and a judge found him guilty on 19 counts.
In his native Pakistan, where Christians make up less than 3 percent of the population and blasphemy laws quickly lead to death sentences, such a ruling would be tame. But this case unfolded in Australia, where Scot has worked as a professor and pastor since 1987 and is now a naturalized citizen. The charges were brought in Melbourne, a city better known for lively coffee bars and generous beaches than for restricting free speech. But a law passed in Victoria state in 2001, the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, criminalized not only race discrimination but any "vilifying conduct" against "a religious belief or activity."
Similar laws have been drafted but not passed in three other Australian states, including Sydney's New South Wales. A law that bans "stirring up hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds" has been circulating the British parliament since 2001, repeatedly amended or voted down by the House of Lords. Such laws, legal experts contend, could ban both the Bible and the Quran from public debate and other forums. In Britain even comedians weighed in against such a bill, concerned that jokes with religious or ethnic tones could be criminalized under the legislation's vague wording. In Canada Islamic groups this month are petitioning the government to deport a Muslim convert to Christianity after he spoke against Islamic extremism at a church in Ontario. They too cite an obscure criminal code against spreading hatred. ( read more )
Who will strike first? Israel, the U.S., or nobody? My bet is that if anyone takes action against Iran it will more than likely be Israel. Wow, one can only imagine how crazy the Middle East would be after an event like that.
In light of the recent Hamas and Fatah clashes, I thought I'd share this quote. I know it doesn't represent how all Palestinians think (as some would say that violence is the way to go), but it's a point made nonetheless:
"We [the Palestinian people] are telling the world that we don't deserve a state because we are murdering each other and destroying our universities, colleges, mosques and hospitals. Today I'm ashamed to say that I'm a Palestinian." - Shireen Atiyeh, Palestinian Authority ministry worker (02/4/2007)
Also, Israel appointed its first Muslim cabinet member. Very enlightened move on Israel's behalf. I'm sure this will bring about peace in the region. After all, isn't it evident that everyone is so willing to cooperate? Of course another diplomat's presence - especially one that is Muslim - will fix things up. We'll see how long he supports Jewish settlements. Facing pressure from both sides, it's bound to be a fun ride for him.
Scot's journey to the lectern began nearly five long years—and over half a million dollars—ago. In March 2002 he spoke at a seminar on the differences between Christianity and Islam and described ways Christians can reach out to Muslims. Like his speech in New York, his talks are sprinkled with frequent reference to passages in the Quran, traced out with the precision of a quadratic equation. For those remarks an Islamic council brought him up on charges of "religious vilification" and a judge found him guilty on 19 counts. 