Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict?

What are the "anti-Semitic" comments?

I could list them all and you would still deny it.

With most of them in this forum I have pointed them out.

Really? Maybe before you leap to criticise CI you should make yourself au fais with what the other side is putting out.

Let's face it Finn, your reasoning on this is all based on your gut. You like Israelis, they're all lovely and westernised, and they speak with American accents. Not like those weirdo, raghead Palestinians.

Finn, this is as nutty as Setanta's obsession that Miller and Foofie are one and the same.

The reason this shocks me so is that you don't do nutty.

I would not deny it; how can I if it's already posted and can't be edited?

Come on; bring it on!

I have not been on this forum very long, but I've yet to see an anti-Semitic post here. It is reasonably possible the pointing out of Israeli faults by posters might have taken its toll on you, predisposing your belief some posters are anti-Semitic? I will admit there is much criticism of Israeli policies against the Palestinians on any Middle East thread (how can one deny their own eyes to Israel's failings against the Palestinian people?!), and also many times, hearing negative attacks on Israeli policies might hurt, causing much emotional stress..... the continual pointing out of Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights can wear one down, particularly one who is protective of the Zionist nation.

UN inquiry, a few months ago, calls for sanctions against Israel over West Bank settlements.

HRC fact-finding mission's report released Thursday is the international body's harshest condemnation of Israeli policy in West Bank since 1967; UN investigators say Israel must withdraw all settlers at once; Israel's Foreign Ministry: Report is one-sided and biased.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-inquiry-calls-for-sanctions-against-israel-over-west-bank-settlements.premium-1.500565

A UN Human Rights Council fact-finding mission on Thursday released its harshest report over Israeli policy in the West Bank since 1967, urging governments and private corporations across the world to consider economic and political sanctions against Israel over its construction in the settlements. This is the first time such a call has been made from within the United Nations.

You are vastly incorrect.

Obama revealed classified information about Israel's military program and that was the most endangering event of his whole presidency. Religion, my child ?
Look at the big picture

Here is one report in a liberal news source
http://www.naturalnews.com/051638_Iran_nuclear_weapons_President_Obama.html#

But you have no conception of people with no God orientation at all using religion to evil ends. Wild thing to say? No, you admit there are evil people in the world, why would they care about their calling themselves by a religious title

Not true...must you use that stupid meaningless enraging term 'right wing' ?
Does the whole world fall on a one-dimensional line for you, right to left ??

Logically when you see supposed high correlations like that you should always consider that they are not related to each other but rather have a common third cause.

============
his fallacy has the following general structure:

A and B are regularly connected (but no third, common cause is looked for).
Therefore A is the cause of B.
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one thing causes another simply because they are regularly associated. More formally, this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are regularly connected. Further, the causal conclusion is drawn without considering the possibility that a third factor might be the cause of both A and B.

The report was declassified back in 1987 during the Reagan Administration. The Obama Administration was responding to an open records request. It informed the state of Israel and the latter expressed no objections.

Read more here.

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread, though?

You are way incorrect AND ILLOGICAL.

Many people have a third, common reason for their faith and their stance on Israel-Palestine. I am a Catholic convert and was pro-Israel before and after my conversion but all due to a third reason : Islam constantly feeds that conflict by withholding money and housing and necessities from those people and by hateful rhetoric about the Holocaust.

I didn't need religion to just SEE.
Do you really think I oppose peace and you represent it.
People like you, with that attitude, fuel war and always have.

What do you intend to do if 'religion' is a problem to you? Attack, persecute, and kill ? How about talk and discussion. Try it.

I haven't really been paying attention to this thread... I just popped back in. But I want to answer you Augustine Brother.

First of all, Islam is a religion. You are accusing Islam of "feeding the conflict". So you are in fact agreeing with me that religion is fueling this conflict even though you then go on to say that you are disagreeing with me. Religious people and "hateful rhetoric" (as you say) often seem to go together.

I hope you can see the irony there. Of course you are taking a very one-sided view of the conflict, but even so you are acknowledging the negative effect of religion.

Second, my thesis is that without the strong religious views (which I believe are, as you say, "feeding the conflict") that peace would be possible. I have never supported attacking, or killing.

The way to peace is for Palestinian Muslims (and Christians) to accept the humanity of Israelis, and for Israeli Jews to accept the humanity of Palestinian Muslims. The political solution is fairly well understood. Israel needs to be given security, and the Palestinians need to be given an economically viable, contiguous state. The peace process should more or less revolve around the 1967 borders with some negotiating around Jerusalem.

This is what a non-religious, peaceful solution looks like.

YOu really see things in a screwed up way...

First of all, you ignore a Common Cause. I find that people who are religious and who are pro-Israel are so not because one causes the other but because both are the result of a desire to know what is right.

Description of Ignoring a Common Cause

This fallacy has the following general structure:

A and B are regularly connected (but no third, common cause is looked for).
Therefore A is the cause of B.
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one thing causes another simply because they are regularly associated. More formally, this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are regularly connected. Further, the causal conclusion is drawn without considering the possibility that a third factor might be the cause of both A and B.

=============

Why do you "religiously" ignore the secular case for Israeli rights to the land?

Whether the following is right or not, this is the first place I WENT. And it fits what I say about a third common cause:

From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine
by Joan Peters

"This monumental and fascinating book, the product of seven years of original research, will forever change the terms of the debate about the conflicting claims of the Arabs and the Jews in the Middle East.
The weight of the comprehensive evidence found and brilliantly analyzed by historian and journalist Joan Peters answers many crucial questions, among them: Why are the Arab refugees from Israel seen in a different light from all the other, far more numerous peoples who were displaced after World War II? Why, indeed, are they seen differently from the Jewish refugees who were forced, in 1948 and after, to leave the Arab countries to find a haven in Israel? Who, in fact, are the Arabs who were living within the borders of present-day Israel, and where did they come from?

Joan Peters's highly readable and moving development of the answers to these and related questions will appear startling, even to those on both sides of the argument who have considered themselves to be in command of the facts."

I think political hypocrisy is number one here and I am puzzled why you don't even consider it.

Is this not amazing ?

"In a highly controversial move, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has approved a $147 million economic support package to the Palestinian people despite a hold on these funds by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The move contradicts previous statements from Clinton that she would never send aid to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

"We will not deal with nor in any way fund a Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless and until Hamas has renounced violence, recognized Israel and agreed to follow the previous obligations of the Palestinian Authority," Clinton told Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., during a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing in April 2009."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-clinton-sides-with-palestinians-over-republicans/article/636910

Also: http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm

I have visited Israel a couple of times, and have seen the discrimination against Palestinians. The license plates of Palestinian cars is green. There are checkpoints in Israel with armed guards that control the free flow of Palestinians in that country.
The Jews control the food and water flow into Gaza.
On my last visit to Israel, we were able to have a discussion with a young Palestinian woman. Her family has lived in Israel for more than three generations, and she doesn't have many freedoms in her own country.
Compare that to the US where we have immigrants coming to the US with all the equal freedoms available to all.

Someone once said "Blessed are the Peacemakers."

Sending an economic support package to the Palestinian people seems like peace making to me. The fact that so many Christians oppose this makes the point the Christianity now no longer has anything to do with the gospel of Christ.

LIke I said, you ignore the big players.

Critics Aghast at 'Disgusting Speech' Clinton Just Gave to AIPAC

Hillary Clinton’s AIPAC Speech Was a Symphony of Craven, Delusional Pandering

And here is the Jerusalem Post with article on why it seems in Israel their is overwhelming support for Trump on the Middle East
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/News-flash-from-Israel-Trumps-policies-are-better-463284

I read today that in Israel support is overwhelmingly in favor of Trump. Trump religious ?

No you didn't read that Israel "support is overwhelmingly in favor of Trump". It isn't. Maybe you should read that again... or post a link and I will read it for you and tell you why you are wrong.

Or you could read this http://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-prefer-hillary-for-president-study-finds/

News flash from Israel: Trump's policies are better - Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/.../News-flash-from-Israel-Trumps-policies-are-bet...
The Jerusalem Post
5 days ago

]QUOTES

I found three policy differences that garner the most attention among Israelis: (1) the Palestinian peace process, (2) Iran, and (3) world leadership.

On this policy issue, my sense is that Israelis overwhelmingly support Trump.

On this policy issue also, my sense is that Israelis overwhelmingly support Trump.


Once again, on this policy issue my sense is that Israelis (and especially Israeli Arabs) overwhelmingly support Trump.