Sermon on the Mount

[pr126]

From the religion of peace and tolerance:

MEMRI video

Muhammad Salah “Abu Rajab”: Brothers, we must constantly remind the world, and everyone who has forgotten… The world must hear, via these cameras and via the Internet: This is Gaza! This is the place of trenches and guns! This is the West Bank! This is the place of bombs and daggers! This is Jerusalem… Jerusalem is the code word… This is Jerusalem… Much can be told about Jerusalem. This is where the soldiers of the Prophet Muhammad are. This is the grace of Allah. The soldiers of the Prophet Muhammad are here. Brothers, this is why we recall today what Allah did to the Jews. We recall what He did to them in Khaybar.

...

Now, we are imposing a curfew with daggers, and in the next phase, which is Allah willing, about to be realized… We shall not send you back to Russia, Bulgaria, the Ukraine, or Poland. We shall not send you back there. You have come here… The Islamic military court has ruled… This court, presided over by the Prophet’s Companion Sad Ibn Mu’adh, has ruled… Sa’d Ibn Mu’adh has reappeared â€" in the West Bank. Sa’d Ibn Mu’adh is now in the streets of Jerusalem, Afula, Tel Aviv, and the Negev. The Islamic military court has made the divined ruling: You will get nothing in our land except for slaughtering or stabbing. Why? The world will say that we are terrorists, that we incite. Yes! “Oh Prophet, sufficient for you and for whoever follows you of the believers is Allah. Oh Prophet of Allah, incite the believers to fight.” Why? Oh America, oh Crusader aggressors, oh Arab Zionists, oh Zionists from among the criminal Jews: Are we aggressors? You have come of your own volition to be slaughtered on our land.

How many Christian pastors, priests do you see delivering such a sermon on a Sunday morning?

[josephpalazzo]

I don't remember who said it, and paraphrasing: there will be peace only when Palestinian mothers value the life of their sons more than destroying Israel. As long as the Palestinians continue their armed resistance that will only strengthen the Israeli Right. And the retaliation will be merciless. Of course the right- wing factions on both sides benefit from this. The Palestinian armed resistance begets the Israeli Right retaliation, which begets more Palestinian armed resistance, which begets... It's a never ending cycle of violence.

[Baruch]

With pacifism we might better withstand self destruction, but we might not have survived the Serengeti.  Human beings are an omnivorous balance between pacifism, action and reaction.  I can see myself in both Israeli and Palestinian ... because of being a descendent of immigrants but never fully at peace with the consequences of that.  Choosing peace over war is a choice .. that too many make wrongly.  Being aggressive or aggrieved both begin with "agg"!

[josephpalazzo]

With pacifism we might better withstand self destruction, but we might not have survived the Serengeti.  Human beings are an omnivorous balance between pacifism, action and reaction.  I can see myself in both Israeli and Palestinian ... because of being a descendent of immigrants but never fully at peace with the consequences of that.  Choosing peace over war is a choice .. that too many make wrongly.  Being aggressive or aggrieved both begin with "agg"!

The Palestinian can choose to end this cycle of violence by renouncing their ludicrous claim of destroying the state of Israel and start building a state in spite of Israeli opposition. But they have been bamboozled by the religious fanatics. The end result is a total lack of ingenuity.

[jonb]

How many Christian pastors, priests do you see delivering such a sermon on a Sunday morning?

Catholics 'breed like rabbits and multiply like vermin'

"Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs; Catholic churches were attacked and burned because they were arsenals and priests handed out sub-machine guns to parishioners"

"I denounce you, Anti-Christ! I refuse you as Christ's enemy and Antichrist with all your false doctrine"

addressing Pope John Paul II


Rev Ian Paisley.

[josephpalazzo]

addressing Pope John Paul II


Rev Ian Paisley.

However, Paisley's party, the DUP, finally agreed to share power with the republican party Sinn Féin in 2007. Can you say the same with any of the Palestinian leadership that one day, it will renounce the destruction of Israel and work to build a state for the Palestinians?

[jonb]

Bli'me your asking for prophecies from me now!

[Poison Tree]

The Palestinian can choose to end this cycle of violence by renouncing their ludicrous claim of destroying the state of Israel and start building a state in spite of Israeli opposition.

Remind me again how the cycle of violence ended on September 9, 1993

[josephpalazzo]

Bli'me your asking for prophecies from me now!

No, just an assessment of the present situation as to where it could go.

[jonb]

My personal opinion is I don't see anybody that wants piece.
There is an enjoyment of baying for your enemies blood in the coliseum.
https://youtu.be/o4Nj_6N1Byc

Then you don't have to question yourself.

[josephpalazzo]

Remind me again how the cycle of violence ended on September 9, 1993

A lot of things happened since that time, notably the failed Camp David 2000 Summit between Barak and Arafat, the Israel disengagement of the Gaza Strip in 2006, followed by the on-going shelling by Palestinians and multiple incursions from Israel. I'm not sure why you want to go back to September 9, 1993. The recognition of the state of Israel by the PLO fizzled out. You can easily point out what each side did wrong but it's pretty much academic by now when taking into considerations of all the things that has happened since that day.

[Poison Tree]

it's pretty much academic by now when taking into considerations of all the things that has happened since that day.

And all the things that haven't happened since then. Which was the point. Palestinians simply "renouncing their ludicrous claim of destroying the state of Israel" will not end the violence, just like it did not end the violence, because it doesn't actually solve the underlying issues. It didn't (and won't) solve, among others, the issue of Israeli settlements, the right of return or the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque problem--which has, ultimately, been the spark that set off both the Second Intifada and the current round of escalated violence.

[Baruch]

The First Intifada went pretty well for the Palestinians (they were using MLK tactics), unfortunately the politicians and terrorists got involved, and Palestinians have made no progress since.  I think at that time, there were forces on both sides, that wanted to make sure no settlement was reached.

[josephpalazzo]

And all the things that haven't happened since then. Which was the point. Palestinians simply "renouncing their ludicrous claim of destroying the state of Israel" will not end the violence, just like it did not end the violence, because it doesn't actually solve the underlying issues. It didn't (and won't) solve, among others, the issue of Israeli settlements, the right of return or the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque problem--which has, ultimately, been the spark that set off both the Second Intifada and the current round of escalated violence.

Since you brought up September 1993, what developed after is crucial to your point. Arafat who had signed on deferred that the Palestinian National Council (PNC) had to approve. There followed a long series of wrangling as to what was going to be accepted by the PNC, especially with their demands, in particular with the Palestinian right to return, a no go clause as far the Israelis are concerned. The PNC never accepted the agreement, so that the Palestinians never  really renounced their armed struggle. It was just a lull. As of 1998, Arafat wrote to Clinton that the PNC had in effect rejected the agreement. After a series of further communications that led to the 2000 Camp David, and we know what happened there.

Lets put it this way: the Israelis are never going to leave. And they are never going to renounce their own state. Unless you have enough nukes to destroy the entire region, you're going to have to deal with them and on their own terms. The Palestinians have two choices: either continue their armed struggle; or focus on building a state under which Palestinians can live in relative peace. So far, they have chosen the first option. It's their choice and they must live with the consequences.

[Poison Tree]

Lets put it this way: the Israelis are never going to leave.

And neither are the Palestinians; the ultimate big issue underlying the conflict: Two peoples, one land.

or focus on building a state under which Palestinians can live in relative peace.

That is a fine idea, but not a realistic one. Even setting aside Jerusalem and settlement expansion into areas nominally under Palestinian control, we can't realistically expect Palestinians to build a state in 39% of the West Bank while being denied access to the rest (including most of the areas resources) or the ability to travel between areas under their control.

We also can't expect Israel to simply hand control of the West Bank back (especially after how Gaza went--although, unfortunately, the message once again sent to Palestinians is that Hamas gets shit done and the PLO/Fatah is ineffectual), expel settlers or relinquish claims their claims to (more of) Jerusalem. We have a situation where neither side can honestly be expected to make concessions necessary to make peace but, for some reason, people actually do expect with ever side they dislike most to unilaterally make all the concessions while their favorite side reaps all the benefits.