Churches hating Jew's

Moishe3rd: When the United Nations decided to give a disproportionately large chunk of the region called Palestine to the Jews (who were predominantly European), there was no treaty with the people of that region and the Palestinians were not the losers of a war at the time the UN gave their land away. Does the fact that the U.N. has parceled out other people's land to foreigners make this right?


Are the Palestinians more harmful to themselves than Israel is to itself? That doesn't seem to be the case. Are the Palestinians more harmful to themselves than Israel is the Palestinians? Certainly not. Are the Palestinians more harmful to Israel than Israel is to the Palestinians? Certainly not--far more Palestinians are killed by Israelis than Israelis are killed by Palestinians. It appears that Israel merits a greater share of the blame for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the Palestinians.

As for the neighboring countries--their internal status is immaterial to this discussion. Neither they nor Israel are particularly harmful to the world. Even when one considers terrorist attacks, which are horrible and headline grabbing, the Arab countries (those that support and/or harbor terrorists) have not proven that threatening in a material sense; you're far more likely to lose your life in an auto accident or slipping in your own bathtub than you are to lose it in a terrorist attack; you're livelihood is more likely to be lost or negatively affected by corporate mismanagement or fraud than by terrorism.

Now if we want to talk about their potential for threat in the region: Israel has the best equipped and funded military there, and it has the loyal backing of the world's only remaining super power.

Where we seem to keep missing each is on the Palestinian-Israeli issue. The American churches who are divesting themselves of Israeli stock (recall that this issue began the thread) aren't critical of Israel because they think Israel is worse than it's neighbors, but because of its unjust dealings with the Palestinians living under their occupation. My argument has never been that Israel is worse than her neighbors, but that Israel is dealing with the Palestinians in an unjust and inhumane fashion.

I was trying to be specific in terms of how land was parceled out and re-arranged without going into the details of each country and region.
If you are disputing the idea and need specific information as to how land and populations were parceled out and re-arranged; with or without treaties; with or without wars; by the United Nations or other foreign powers, during the twentieth century in the Middle East; Africa; Europe; and Asia - I will provide details. It is, however, an extremely simple fact to google, or simply look up in an encyclopedia. I don't believe that it arguable.
If you are claiming that the State of Israel got a "disproportionately large chunk of the region called Palestine" in 1948, and therefore "foreigners" dispossessed "native Palestinians," in an arbitrary fashion that is unique in history, then I would humbly suggest that you need to study some more history.
One small fact in the above scenario is that there were no "Palestinians" in 1948. The only "Palestinians" that anyone, including all of the Arab peoples surrounding Israel referred to as "Palestinians" were the Jews.
The peoples that lived in what is now Israel were called by a number of different names - usually tribal and ethnic, such as Arabs or Bedouins, to be inclusive.
A "disproportionately large chunk of the region called Palestine" was given to the Hashemite dynasty of King Hussein by the British. We call that country Jordan. A remaining "disproportionately large chunk of the region called Palestine" was annexed by the country called Jordan in 1948. Today this area is generally referred to as either the West Bank or Judea and Samaria, since Israel took it away from Jordan in 1967.
Your insistence that this conflict was different from any of the other conflicts throughout the world in the twentieth century flies in the face of fact.

This I understand.
However, in order for you (and the "churches") to make this judgement, you have to have a scale of value.
Some things must be more "just" in order for Israel to treat the Palestinians unjustly.
Some things must be more "humane" in order for Israel to treat the Palestinians inhumanely.
By singling out Israel as "dealing with the Palestinians in an unjust and inhumane fashion," you are declaring that there are nations or peoples in the world that deal with similiar problems in a more just and humane fashion.
Which nation might that be?
What people might that be?
What country has dealt more justly or humanely with a people that have vowed, repeatedly, to destroy it and who, on a daily basis, have tried to murder its citizens (and anyone else who happens to be in the way)?
In order for there to be injustice, you must have a just comparison.
In order for there to be inhumanity, you must have a humane comparison.
Otherwise, you are simply singling out Israel for censure and condemnation based on some other criteria...
And, therefore, that criteria should be legitimately questioned....

You are incorrect moishe. You do not have to have a scale of value. To determine what is just and unjust, and humane and inhumane you have to have definitions, criteria, and apply them to the situation.

So, it is a logical error to say, "The nazis' injustice and inhumanity were worse, therefor we are just and humane." Along the same lines, it is a logical error to say, "The Arabs' injustice and inhumanity are worse, therefore we are just and humane."

All of the compensational gymnastics the state of Israel puts itself through is to try to mitigate the effects of its bigoted raison d'etre: an exclusivist ethnocentric state imposed on the peoples of that region who are not of that ethnicity from without. The compensational gymnastics will never work because it avoids this central tort.

To discuss Israel's injustice and inhumanity in a thread titled "Churches hating Jew's (sic)" isn't to single out Israel for censure and condemnation based on some other criteria, it's to stay on the topic of the thread.

Nice to see you're still on point Infra.
Good for you.

However, I did not posit what you are trying to say.
I am simply posing the question: who is better than Israel in terms of the accusations that have been leveled?
If the answer is nobody, then I really don't care what scale you are using. If nobody is better than Israel at dealing, in a humane fashion, with self-appointed, avowed murderers pledged to the destruction of Israel, then the words become meaningless.
Which, of course, is exactly the case.
It is high fashion for those who hate Israel to simply make up words and definitions of words to suit their purposes.
That this does not have any bearing on reality is irrelevant to those that wish to see Israel not exist.
I am not adding "therefore." You are.
I am merely asking for factual agreements as to what words mean.
I choose dictionary definitions so as to create common ground.

Your scale is a red herring and irrelevant, moishe.

Moishe3rd: A historical precedent makes something just? It doesn't matter if the U.N. or world powers have parceled out the lands of one, a dozen, or ten-dozen groups of people without those groups' consent--it simply isn't right. It doesn't matter that foreign people have displaced indigenous people many times throughout history--it simply isn't right. Thousands of murders take place in the world everyday, but it still isn't right. That an act has precedence is no justification of that act.

And no, you do not need a scale; you simply need to be able to tell right from wrong. Once again, no one is singling Israel out; there are many, many groups working to end the injustices of countries all over the world. The question isn't why are so many people protesting Israel now, but what took them so long to start?

And, you are of course, correct.


This is good that no one is singling Israel out.
It is good that Israel is and should be on the same footing as the rest of the world.
And, as vis a vis the title of this thread, I was unaware that the Churches were divesting from all companies involved with France, for its murderous oppression in Africa; and China, for its murderous oppression of Tibet; and Turkey, for its murderous oppression of the Kurds; and Sudan; and Russia; and Brazil; and Iran; and Nigeria; and so on ad infinitum.
But, as Israel has not been singled out, according to you, I must have simply missed those Churches' condemnations and divestment from the rest of the world...

Unfortunately, we have no information as to whether or not these churches are divesting or have already divested themselves of stock in companies operating in other nations that are profiting from violence (the article simply provides no such context). And they're not divesting themselves of stock in Israeli companies generally, but specifically of stock in those (both Israeli and American companies) profiting from violence in Israel and Palestine.

It might be helpful to realize that divestment has been used as a tool of protest for quite some time now; indeed, it's based on precisely the same principle as boycotting. Many corporations--including Coke, Pepsi and Nike--have been subjected to divestment drives for knowingly supporting injustices in various countries. Many of the corporations providing arms and equipment to the U.S. have been the subjects of divestment drives whenever we've gone to war since Vietnam. Once again, it really doesn't seem to be the case that Israel is being singled out.