Nathaniel Roberts <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx> says:
>To call it "Jewish violence" or to blame Jews for what is happening is to
>subscribe to the very racist and binary logic that we oppose.
In the early 1900s, there was aparently a sort of ethnic cleansing going on
by Jewish settlers in Palestine. Perhaps they were motivated by the last
few lines of the Book of Ezra - who knows.
That could be referred to as Jewish Violence and that tradition could be
seen continued today. What was the Stern Gang? ... not sure. In any
event, the action was to create a Jewish State of Isreal. With the aid of
Masonic influenced British, the State of Isreal was formed. I commented
once before on this list that Masonic ritual is laced with implications that
Jews belong in Isreal; mind you Masonic ritual is based on Old and New
Testiment stories - promised land stuff.
If we believe the Biblical stories, then there were Jews established in
Isreal 5,000 years ago. The 12 Tribes (plus the 13th Levi or preist Tribe)
split up and some stayed and others went away. The story goes that the
Tribles of Judah and Benjamine remained in Isreal and that there is
continuity in that part of the world through those families:
'When Solomon^Òs son Rehoboam became king, the tribes sought relief from the
high taxes his father placed on them. He refused their request, so 9 of the
13 tribes seceded and created the Kingdom of Israel, leaving 4 remaining
tribes (Judah, Benjamin, Simeon and most of Levi) to become the Kingdom of
Judea. ... In time the 9 tribes of the Kingdom of Israel plus the tribe of
Simeon fell into sin through idol worship and casting off the Sabbath,'
So, Isreal is the name of the Lost Tribes, who eventually left Palestine.
It could follow, to call the place Isreal implies that these people who left
5,000 years ago are returning. In this light Judea might be a more settling
name. But it is not. Logic tells me that the someone was displaced from
their land 50 years ago, they have more right to that land than people who
were displaced 5,000 years ago. But this discourse is not about logic it is
What happened in the 1940s under NAZIism has blinded the world to other
Building on what Nathaniel says, not all Christians, Muslims, Jews or others
are violent, but when violence is conducted in the name of a specific
religion then surely it could be labelled with that religion? I don't know.
I am not siding either way, I am just reacting to Nathaniel's refusal to
accept what the violence is motivated by religion. Furthermore, I am not
saying this from an anti-Jewish perspective. I think the Jews have every
right to protect their interests (especially given the 2,000 year history of
anti-semetism), but I question their right to carry their discourse to the
extent that Palestinians react by blowing themselves up.
God Bless and Live in Peace
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp