Interruptions, yelling and expulsions took place in the Knesset Wednesday morning as former minister Bennie Begin listened to speakers from both ends of the political spectrum criticize his proposed law to regulate Beduin settlement in the Negev within five years.
MK Miri Regev (Likud), chairwoman of the Interior Committee, firmly controlled the discussion, constantly calling for quiet from those interrupting the proceedings. She also expelled or threatened to kick out several MKs from the session.
Several Israeli Arab MKs and supporters from various human rights NGOs railed against the bill, claiming it would result in up to 40,000 Beduin losing their land.
Begin is handling the Prawer-Begin bill for the government and is hoping to see it through the legislative process so that it becomes law.
This was the bill’s second discussion.
The first took place on November 6.
Balad MK Jamal Zahalka said that like the “nakba” (catastrophe) of the founding of the state in 1948, this was another plan meant to wipe Arabs from their lands – people who have lived in the Negev since before the establishment of the state.
Zahalka called the plan “real chutzpah” on the part of the state, adding that in any case “it will not work – the people will not agree to this.”
Furthermore, he complained, the state was approving the building of Jewish settlements in the Negev in places where Beduin currently live.
MK Esawi Frej (Meretz) told Begin he did not think he was racist, but “when the state treats me this way,” it is like getting a slap in the face. He said it was racist “to move Arabs and put Jews in their place.”
Hadash MK Dov Henin said he was very worried about this law. “It seeks to uproot citizens from their homes on a national basis” while it also calls for harsh punishment of up to two years in prison if someone remains on his land, he said.
“This law will bring us to a catastrophe!” Henin warned.
Instead, he said, the government should sit down with the Beduin and formulate an alternative plan.
Responding to criticism from the Arab parties and the Left, members of the Right also criticized the plan for being too generous.
Bayit Yehudi MK Zvulun Kalfa said he was a Negev resident and has known it for the past 50 years. He added that the Beduin had already asked the courts to recognize their land claims, but not one of the courts did.
“I see here all these human rights organizations, and I am surprised,” Kalfa said. “If human rights is so important to you, where were you when they expelled me from my home in Gush Katif? I do not recall your representatives arriving to protect my rights.”
During one of many interruptions by Arab MKs, Kalfa retorted: “In Syria and Saudi Arabia there is justice?” MK Orit Struck of Bayit Yehudi bluntly stated that the Negev did not belong to the Beduin but to the Jewish nation.
“All of these human rights organizations are not for human rights, but for human rights for Arabs,” she said.
Struck also said that the proposed legislation lacked details and numbers.
Fellow Bayit Yehudi MK Yoni Chetboun said that like Arab MKs he was against the law, but did not understand their opposition since its terms were generous to them.
Chetboun was heckled by Arab MKs after he called them “cowards,” saying their opposition was due to fear of the country’s Islamic movement.
Likud MK Moshe Feiglin said he found himself on the same side as the Arab MKs. He explained that his opposition to the legislation was a matter of national struggle for sovereignty.
“This is a bad law because it gives the Negev to the Arabs,” he said, adding that what was going on was a “war” over the Land of Israel.
A representative of Regavim, an NGO seeking to ensure responsible, legal and accountable use of Israel’s national lands, said the government was already spending large sums of money on the Beduin although they do not pay property taxes.
Regarding the government plan to build Jewish settlements in the Negev, the representative pointed out that plans for the Jewish town of Hiran had been on the table for 21 years, and in the meantime Beduin had come purposely and settled illegally in the area.
Prof. Gerald Steinberg of Bar- Ilan University and head of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor group, said human rights organizations were carrying out a parallel mission in the European Parliament and other international institutions in an entirely one-sided fashion and were being financed by foreign – and largely European – governments.
After the hearing, Steinberg told The Jerusalem Post that these organizations “are characterized by all-too-familiar incitement which exploits the Beduin issue, including terms such as ‘apartheid,’ ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘racism.’ This language is central to the political warfare against Israel and Jewish sovereign equality.”
Haia Noach, CEO of the Negev Coexistence Forum, an NGO that supports the Beduin, told the Post she believed the government was trying to push the bill through as quickly as possible, wanting to show that a “democratic process” was involved.
“But this isn’t democracy,” she said, calling it instead a “tyranny of the majority.”
Noach said she believed the Beduin would remain steadfast, as “they did for many generations, since the government isn’t offering a fair and just solution.”
You have no understanding of Christianity, if you say that. It is you who lack understanding.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Pick your version of NT. Don’t think I misquoted any of them. Don’t know Nehemiah so give me a link and I will look at it.
Menashe the king of Judah murdered Isaiah – his own grandfather, not the rabbis.
Jeremiah was freed by the Babylonians and as far as we know he died a natural death in Egypt. It was not the rabbis who threw him in the cistern which was dry. I’ve seen it myself in the city of David excavations.
Wasn’t easy being a Prophet. Nobody likes hearing doom and bad news especially the Powerful.
There is no doubt they would have killed your deity a second time and a third and fourth if need be. If he ever existed he deserved to be killed.
You can’t have respect for that which you do not understand and negate as the true revelation of G-d…If Judaism is true christianity is false and the converse.
Not surprising and you know I don’t give a _____________(fill in any expletive of choice) what you think of me. 😛
Again, a misquote.
There is a marvellous lecture by the Jewish scholar Gordon Nehemiah where he shows the correct translation is:
The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever he [Moses] bid you observe
Nice try! But the rabbis regularly killed the prophets. Jeremiah was thrown in a well while Isaiah was sawed in half. So when Moshiach came, they were going to get real nasty.
I have great respect for Judaism, but not much for clerics whether priests, preachers, rabbis. I have no respect for Islam; and little respect for you, Yamit.
@ CuriousAmerican:
loonwatchexposed Said:
Postmillennialism and Premillennialism
Postmillennialists are not Christian Zionists. They are adherents of Christian Reconstructionism or Dominion Theology. They represent the most extreme constituency of the Religious Right. They are the activists who claim the United States is a “Christian nation,” calling for the United States to return to Old Testament Biblical law.
They don’t believe in the rapture theory, or that we are living in the End Times before Christ returns. Leading Reconstructionist author, the late David Chilton, explains that the last days ended with the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D:
the expression “the last days” and similar terms, are used in the Bible to refer, not to the end of the physical world, but to the last days of the nation of Israel, the “last days” which ended with the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. (Paradise, p12)
Gary North, a prolific Christian Reconstruction writer points out in The Unannounced Reason Behind American Fundamentalism’s Support for the State of Israel:
Postmillennialists believe that Christians must take domionion, or control over most of the secular institutions in the world in order for Christ to return. Therefore, they encourage Christians who share their biblical worldview to become politically active.
From George Grant, a leading postmillennial writer in The Changing of the Guard , Biblical Principles for Political Action:
Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less… Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. (pp. 50-51)
Christian Zionists Are Premillenniallists
Of the many theories about when Christ will return, the most popular is called premillennial dispensationalism. It is depicted in the best-selling Left Behind novels by the Reverend Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.
LaHaye named humanism as the great evil threatening to destroy America and coined the term “pre-tribulation tribulation” to characterize what will come about if humanists are allowed to take control of the government.
In 1980 LaHaye published The Battle for the Mind where he asked, “Is a Humanist Tribulation Necessary?” LaHaye answered that the Great Tribulation,
Susan Friend Harding, a Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, has published widely on fundamentalist Christianity. She wrote Chapter 3, Imagining the Last Days, the Politics of Apocalyptic Language in the fourth Volume of the Fundamentalism Project. The Fundamentalism Project was sponsored by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences to study the rise of fundamentalism worldwide. The volumes are published by the University of Chicago Press. Harding writes:
LaHaye urged Christians to pray and witness as usual and also to help the victims of humanism … to join the national drive to register Christian voters … to run for public office … (pp. 69)
[Falwell] argued that unless born-again Christians acted politically … they would lose their … [ability] to fulfill Biblical prophecy. (p. 70)
In other words, political involvement is required to get raptured. While pre and post millennialism differs on the subject of Israel, adherents share similar political goals for the United States government: dominion by those Christians who share their Biblical worldview. People of both belief systems support political candidates who support their narrow theocratic agenda, and they oppose the secular government, or godless Constitution that our founders gave us.
What did George W. Bush believe? It’s not clear. Unlike former President Ronald Reagan, who talked openly about his fascination with Armageddon, President Bush did not mentioned the Rapture or Armageddon. His road map for peace calls for a Palestinian state — something opposed by Christian Zionists. His domestic policies, however, are consistent with Dominion Theology. http://www.theocracywatch.org/christian_zionism.htm
CuriousAmerican Said:
I gave you direct Hebrew translation all in the present and past tense and the correct contexts. Hebrew scripture know very well when and where to apply future tense. These verses are not never where nor intended. Go to any Hebrew Tanach with any translation into any language and you will see I am correct. Christians again messed with our scriptures and the words of our G-d. Shame on you all.
Re: Lamb and Ram in Gen 22. It was Abraham not G-d who said a lamb would be provided and it was g-d who provided a ram entangled in the brush by his horns. Both animals are permitted as sacrifices: chapter 22 ofGen, where G-d says to Avraham
“Please, take your son… Yitzhak and go to Moriah, where you are to take him up as a sacrifice onto that one of the hills which I will indicate to you” (Gen 22:2).
Almost all christian “versions” translate that verse using the verb “to offer” or the verb “to sacrifice”. The Hebrew word used in the verse is, however, ha’aléhu which doesn’t actually mean to offer or to sacrifice. ha’al is the imperative of the verb ha’aléh, the hif’il (“causation”) conjugation of the verb (to “ascend” or “go up”), so its literal meaning is “cause [someone or something] to ascend” or “bring up”. Moses uses exactly the same word in Exodus 33:12, but no-one ever claims that he was saying to G-d “You have told me to offer up this nation…”!
As always, the error made by christians in Gen 22:2 is that of ignoring the context. Verse 1 makes it abundantly clear that the entire incident was merely a test of faith. G-d didn’t want Avraham actually to slaughter Yitzhak, His intention was only to see whether Avraham was willing to go through with it. This is proved by the narrative itself, because when the time came, G-d stopped him at the critical moment when his hand was raised holding the slaughtering-knife and about to deliver the death-stroke. Avraham had to think that G-d was asking him to sacrifice Yitzh?ak or there would have been no “test”, but G-d never actually told him to slaughter his son, just to “take him up onto the hill prepared (i.e. trussed up) like a sacrifice”. The language used by G-d was deliberately ambiguous, but it didn’t fool Avraham – he had such trust in G-d’s intrinsic goodness that he knew his son would be coming back with him: in verse 5, he says to his two servants who had accompanied him and Yitzhak on their journey to Moriah, “Stay here with the donkey while Yitzhak and I go over there; when we have worshipped we will come back to you“.
Our sages asked the question what about Abraham did G-d see in him that caused him to test Abraham? What defect?
Hint” 7 generations paid for the sin of Abraham!
yamit82 Said:
Which end time beliefs? christian Zionists support a Jewish Israel remember they want all Jews to immigrate to Israel. They are the most ardent supporters of Zionism, even if they only want us here for their ‘jesus’.
CA is not a zionist. I went back to the threads here to read his comments, and he most certainly is not a Christian. His beliefs are in line with Ali Abunimah and he is not a Christian. Ali Abunimah types resent the support Christian Zionists give to a Jewish Israel. You are fooled by CA. why would he support annexation if he doesn’t support a Jewish Israel? He provokes you to make anti Christian comments to turn off Christian supporters. That is why he pretends to be Christian.
The Muslim Arabs who want Israel gone support a greater Israel but no Jewish Israel because they want a democracy which they can later use against Jews. This because they know they havn’t a prayer of defeating Israel militarily. The BDS cult support this too.
Oh come now! You know very well that many languages use present tense for historical or prophetic narrative. Spanish does.
If you read the books, you would know there was a Roman census. So they went to Bethlehem for census. While in Bethlehem, the child was born.
At a later point, they moved back to Nazareth.
One Gospel just has more detail; but they do NOT conflict. It isn’t crazy. There are similar issues in some of the Old Testament narratives, but you do not abandon Judaism.
For ex:
Gen 22:8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.
The Akedah story.
And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket …
The problem: Abraham said a lamb would be provided; but instead a ram showed up. Interesting discrepancy.
Two different words for lamb and ram. Different species.
Lots of theology could come out of that discrepancy; but I do not call the story crazy.
Likewise, the Gospels hold up marvellously, inspite of your false dilemma.
Ted, however has asked that we do not go down that path of religious debate. So let’s end it there.
comment to CA in moderation I wonder why?
CuriousAmerican Said:
In a way your opposition to the religious dominance by orthodoxy here is an attempt to define us.
There are reasons both pro and con re: civil marriages in Israel. Any couple can inter into a legal contractual relationship in Israel. Israel recognizes common law relationships in law as well. Orthodox religious marriages are preferred by over 90% of Jews in Israel and so is religious burials. No body forces Israeli Jews to circumcise their sons but over 90% do. Nobody forces Jews to put Mezzusot on their door posts yet nearly 100% do. Over 80% of Israeli Jews have bar mitzvas and Bat mitzvas yet nobody forces them to do so. Nobody complains about the total lockdown of the country on Yom Kippur and most Israelis attend synagogue and fast. Nobody forces them to observe.
A key maybe the most important key to the longevity and future continuation of the Jewish people resides in maintaining Jewish marriages Jews marrying Jews. If you want to destroy the Jewish people as seen in American and other Western cuntries civil and intermarriage is the way to go. So I suspect you already perceive this fact and are now making it an issue. Most conservative and reform rabbis are in fact either atheists or agnostics and none I wager believes in the Jewish revelation at Sinai. Few have the scholarship which would entitle them to ordination by any orthodox Beit Din. Why would we want them to have equal footing, authority and recognition with our orthodox rabbis?
That said if the anti-Zionist reform Jews had come to Israel in any significant numbers they might have influenced the makeup of our religious institutios and had popular acceptance. They didn’t and now they don’t. Now in 20-39 Years forward those orthodox in all flavors will makeup the majority in Israel and I fully expect their co-coreligionists in America and Europe to join them making their majority even more solid.
We have a problem with non Jews who do not declare other religions and mixed Jewish -non Jewish marriages but they are really small in absolute numbers and ways can be found to accommodate their needs if they choose to stay. Nobody is forcing them to stay either and since they are mostly non Jews there is no reason to upset the working status quo. We are not in the business of bending over backwards to accommodate non Jews living in Israel. Granted we would have a major problem if the majority or a large minority of American Jews were to seek to immigrate to Israel. So far that hasn’t happened and nobody expects them to change their minds.
I can understand your negativeness and that’s another reason why we should not change a thing. 😉
Comment to Loonwatch in moderation
loonwatchexposed Said:
You are correct at best he supports a home for all the Jews fits with his end times beliefs but not a religiously based home for the Jews because he is an enemy of Judaism. This he never denies especially Judaism who hold the oral Law and rabbis as authoritative.
He forgets, ignores or explains away that his man-god said: to obey the law and the rabbis!!!!
Only the Rabbis are authorized to interpret the law and to make binding judgements. CA as most christians follow the antisemitic verses of the NT in opposing the Torah as binding and the rabbis who uphold the truth of the Torah. Why because they would then have no need or excuse for their pagan theology. They need the Jews to substantiate their beliefs. Rabbis are blocking their way and we are holding up their big show finale.
They are a dishonest duplicitous lot:
IT DOES NOT SEEM VERY HONEST TO ME.
.
@ yamit82:
CA Said:
It is not considered a messianic verse in Judaism. “for a child has been born” – present tense. Christian ‘scholars’ have changed the verb’s tense and selectively translated the titles to turn it into a “Messianic Prophesy.” Since Isaiah used past tense verbs–all of them are past tense–the passage is historical. The child has already been born. It refers to Hezekiah, son of Ahaz.
Mikraot Gedolot – “For a child has been born to us – Although Achaz is wicked, his son …shall be a righteous man, and the authority of HKBH (The Holy One, blessed is He), and his yoke shall be on his shoulder, for he shhall engage in the Torah and observe the commandments, and he shall bend his shoulder to bear the burden of HKBH. – [Rashi]
and…called his name – HKBH (The Holy One, blessed is He), who gives wonderous councel, is a mighty G-d and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth wil be in his days. – [Rashi]”
Regarding the appelations:
“wonderous – for He performed the wonder of the sun going backwards when Hezekiah was cured of his illness.”
“advisor – for his plan was successful and Sancheriv’s plan was foiled.”
“mighty G-d – mighty, Omnipotent One, for, although Sancheriv approached with innumerable troops of mighty warriors, He destroyed them in a second.”
“everlasting Father – existing forever, the Father of time, and its creator, and in Whose power it lies. He was therefore able to add fifteen years to Hezekiah’s life.
CuriousAmerican Said:
The Hebrew Tanach reads: “For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us and authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God” Isaiah was referring to King Hezekiah, son of Ahaz. The ‘el’ in ‘el gibbor’ (almighty god) can and does refer to exceptional humans, as well as non-Jewish deities. In this sense, the most accurate translation would be ‘mighty hero’ or something of that nature. It is obvious why Isaiah would not write a “Messianic Prophesy” of a divine child being born: Judaism has no place for man-gods, and it is not the role of HaMashiach to be G-d on earth. That is a completely Hellenistic concept.
Stop looking at translations and look at the original Hebrew: Yulad= is born- (present tense) /Nitan= given (present tense)/ Vatehi = and is – (present tense)/Vayikra= called (past tense).
It is in the present tense when it states “rests on his shoulder”- future tense would not be “Vatehi” but “Vayehi”
In an attempt to insert a yeshu prophecy, the KJV changed the tense from the present to the future, making it, “A child is born, a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God”. [In Hebrew Hezekiah means “the mighty God.”] There is no reference to the future, it is discussing something that has already happened and is currently in the process of happening. To turn this into a messianic translation, it has been deliberately mistranslated into the future tense!
CuriousAmerican Said:
Misunderstanding: Interesting that in the 27 books of the NT, only 2 mention the Bethlehem story.
Luke begins by having the family travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem and Matthew has them begin in Bethlehem and after the birth move to a place called Nazareth. I didn’t write this crazy stuff. There is a slight divergence in the two narratives. Just compare the two genealogies?
What is obvious is that the authors of Luke and Matthew did not know Hebrew and were certainly not Jewish.
It is not considered a messianic verse in Judaism. “for a child has been born” – present tense. Christian ‘scholars’ have changed the verb’s tense and selectively translated the titles to turn it into a “Messianic Prophesy.” Since Isaiah used past tense verbs–all of them are past tense–the passage is historical. The child has already been born. It refers to Hezekiah, son of Ahaz.
The Hebrew Tanach reads: “For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us and authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God” Isaiah was referring to King Hezekiah, son of Ahaz. The ‘el’ in ‘el gibbor’ (almighty god) can and does refer to exceptional humans, as well as non-Jewish deities. In this sense, the most accurate translation would be ‘mighty hero’ or something of that nature. It is obvious why Isaiah would not write a “Messianic Prophesy” of a divine child being born: Judaism has no place for man-gods, and it is not the role of HaMashiach to be G-d on earth. That is a completely Hellenistic concept.
Stop looking at translations and look at the original Hebrew: Yulad= is born- (present tense) /Nitan= given (present tense)/ Vatehi = and is – (present tense)/Vayikra= called (past tense).
It is in the present tense when it states “rests on his shoulder”- future tense would not be “Vatehi” but “Vayehi”
In an attempt to insert a yeshu prophecy, the KJV changed the tense from the present to the future, making it, “A child is born, a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God”. [In Hebrew Hezekiah means “the mighty God.”] There is no reference to the future, it is discussing something that has already happened and is currently in the process of happening. To turn this into a messianic translation, it has been deliberately mistranslated into the future tense!
Mikraot Gedolot – “For a child has been born to us – Although Achaz is wicked, his son …shall be a righteous man, and the authority of HKBH (The Holy One, blessed is He), and his yoke shall be on his shoulder, for he shhall engage in the Torah and observe the commandments, and he shall bend his shoulder to bear the burden of HKBH. – [Rashi]
and…called his name – HKBH (The Holy One, blessed is He), who gives wonderous councel, is a mighty G-d and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth wil be in his days. – [Rashi]”
Regarding the appelations:
“wonderous – for He performed the wonder of the sun going backwards when Hezekiah was cured of his illness.”
“advisor – for his plan was successful and Sancheriv’s plan was foiled.”
“mighty G-d – mighty, Omnipotent One, for, although Sancheriv approached with innumerable troops of mighty warriors, He destroyed them in a second.”
“everlasting Father – existing forever, the Father of time, and its creator, and in Whose power it lies. He was therefore able to add fifteen years to Hezekiah’s life.
@ CuriousAmerican:
My Response was blocked by spam filter.
It is not considered a messianic verse in Judaism. “for a child has been born” – present tense. Christian ‘scholars’ have changed the verb’s tense and selectively translated the titles to turn it into a “Messianic Prophesy.” Since Isaiah used past tense verbs–all of them are past tense–the passage is historical. The child has already been born. It refers to Hezekiah, son of Ahaz.
The Hebrew Tanach reads: “For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us and authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God” Isaiah was referring to King Hezekiah, son of Ahaz. The ‘el’ in ‘el gibbor’ (almighty god) can and does refer to exceptional humans, as well as non-Jewish deities. In this sense, the most accurate translation would be ‘mighty hero’ or something of that nature. It is obvious why Isaiah would not write a “Messianic Prophesy” of a divine child being born: Judaism has no place for man-gods, and it is not the role of HaMashiach to be G-d on earth. That is a completely Hellenistic concept.
Stop looking at translations and look at the original Hebrew: Yulad= is born- (present tense) /Nitan= given (present tense)/ Vatehi = and is – (present tense)/Vayikra= called (past tense).
It is in the present tense when it states “rests on his shoulder”- future tense would not be “Vatehi” but “Vayehi”
In an attempt to insert a yeshu prophecy, the KJV changed the tense from the present to the future, making it, “A child is born, a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God”. [In Hebrew Hezekiah means “the mighty God.”] There is no reference to the future, it is discussing something that has already happened and is currently in the process of happening. To turn this into a messianic translation, it has been deliberately mistranslated into the future tense!
Mikraot Gedolot – “For a child has been born to us – Although Achaz is wicked, his son …shall be a righteous man, and the authority of HKBH (The Holy One, blessed is He), and his yoke shall be on his shoulder, for he shhall engage in the Torah and observe the commandments, and he shall bend his shoulder to bear the burden of HKBH. – [Rashi]
and…called his name – HKBH (The Holy One, blessed is He), who gives wonderous councel, is a mighty G-d and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth wil be in his days. – [Rashi]”
Regarding the appelations:
“wonderous – for He performed the wonder of the sun going backwards when Hezekiah was cured of his illness.”
“advisor – for his plan was successful and Sancheriv’s plan was foiled.”
“mighty G-d – mighty, Omnipotent One, for, although Sancheriv approached with innumerable troops of mighty warriors, He destroyed them in a second.”
“everlasting Father – existing forever, the Father of time, and its creator, and in Whose power it lies. He was therefore able to add fifteen years to Hezekiah’s life.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Misunderstanding: Interesting that in the 27 books of the NT, only 2 mention the Bethlehem story.
Luke begins by having the family travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem and Matthew has them begin in Bethlehem and after the birth move to a place called Nazareth. I didn’t write this crazy stuff. There is a slight divergence in the two narratives. Just compare the two genealogies?
What is obvious is that the authors of Luke and Matthew did not know Hebrew and were certainly not Jewish.
CuriousAmerican Said:
I believe that CA has been consistent in making the case for these policies. Like I said, you guys are way too hard on him.-
CuriousAmerican Said:
Such as where? Provide url to Arab boards where you trash Arabs.
Neither does Ali Abunimah. What are you views on his political solution for Israel?
But you do support equal rights for anti Zionist Arabs in the one state solution which is how you see the end of a Jewish Israel. Which is why you pretend that the Rabbinate is a threat. Try as you may to hide it you are an anti-semite if you say Rabbis should not define who is a Jew. Yamit wrote an appropriate response to that above.
Your solution would put anti Zionist Arabs in a position to end the Jewish right of return, hence the end of Zionism.
You didn’t reply to the question: Are you Chameleopn_x? A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this will suffice too
Are you a Zionist?
If by one state solution you mean a state where Arabs out number Jews, I NEVER ADVOCATED FOR THAT.
Mohammed was a thief, mass murderer, psychotic, pedophile.
I AM NOT MUSLIM.
Where do you make this up?
You have Right wing Zionists who want J&S annexed.
What I said was:
1) Annex J&S
2) Pay the Young Palestinians to leave (About half would go right now according to Martin Sherman)
3) Slowly start to enfranchise the remainder over time – not all at once- who by this point would be demographically smaller.
4) De-officialize the Arab language. Teach them Hebrew.
5) I Never asked for a right-of-return
Now my ideas are similar to right wingers.
False dilemma. He was born in Bethlehem but moved to Nazareth early in his life. Both Luke [Chapter 2] and Matthew have Jesus born in Bethlehem. [Matthew 2:1]
Read the book, not those who tear it down. Hmmm!!! :p
Nonsense!
What about Isaiah (9:5 in Jewish bibles) 9:6 in Christian bibles.
I will not quote the verse. You can find it yourself. Ted does not want us getting into theological debates; but all you seem willing to do is insult.
However, the state should allow civil marriages.
There are many states with a state religion who allow freedom of religion. Britain. Germany. Scandanavia. Argentina.
But the issue is civil marriage.
Why are Orthodox Rabbis given preference over Reformed and Conservative rabbis?
I do not tell Jews how to define Judaism, but the Rabbis should not have that monopoly either.
I try to be consistent. I trash Arabs on arab boards.
Give Israel radar coverage, and satellite info, real time. Sell Israel the needed bunker busters.
Because after Afghanistan and Iraq, getting an American consensus for direct involvement in another war would be impossible.
Supporting Israel is tenable. Direct attack is probably not politically possible.
Why would you want America to attack directly, when America would then use the attack as leverage over Netanyahu/whomever for a two state solution?
A single homeland of the Jewish people. Pay the Palestinians to leave.
I do not define who a Jew is, nor what Judaism is. But why should the rabbis have a monopoly on the the definition. I would think every Jew in the world should have a say in it — NOT JUST THE RABBIS!
Britain, even though it has a state religion allows civil marriage.
Thank you, Yamit. I’m smiling from ear to ear right now. Nothing more rewarding for a goy like me than a compliment from a tough Jew. Shabbat shalom.
MD
@ M Devolin:
@ M Devolin:
I’m with you buddy.
CuriousAmerican Said:
How should America support Israel in your opinion and why would you want then to have Israel attack Iran when American can do a better more complete job with potentially less causalities on all sides especially if America reduces Iran’s ability to retaliate?
CuriousAmerican Said:
define Israel?CuriousAmerican Said:
why?
Right? Based on what? What nation has a right to exist? Most nations are artificial concotions and have existed for less than a hundred years.
Unlike some I and most Jews do not base our claim to the land of Israel on San Remo, even though San Remo based it’s position on our aboriginal rights and historic/ religious attachment to the Land.
Liar I refuted both statements on another thread citing the Rabbinic authority as a carry over from the British and Feiglin is 100% in favor of a theocratic state just not now, for the reasons I supplied you. You can repeat lies and I will continue to call you a Liar and much more if you persist.
If you are against rabbinic authority over personal civil matters in Israel state you reasons but I will not allow you to define who is a Jew to us or what is Judaism either. So if I understand you you support a homeland for Jews but not a political sovereign state of the Jews? That you support an ethnic cultural Jews but not a religious Jew? Rabbis have too much power over marriage? They won’t officiate or sanction mixed marriages or unions between fags and dyks. Neither will the Catholic Church and since they make up the majority of christians in the world, you seem to hold a minority opinion. Muslims will not sanction mixed or devient marriages either and I know Hindus and Buddhists discourage them as well.
Confusing to whom? Why should anyone care? And why should you care? England has both a monarchy and a state religion does anyone care?
Whether we remain a republic, theocracy or monarchy is really our business. Most of our history as a sovereign nation on the land and even as vassals we maintained both a theocracy and or monarchy and they both worked for us reasonably well and no worse than what we have today and in many instances worked better. I believe every people should choose the political system that works best for themselves.
Why? and what are you in favor of then?
Big of you!! 🙂 What do you suggest we ship them all off to Chile at our expense?
So what? Even if there was some ethnic cleaning it was in comparison with every other nations formation mild and minimal in comparison and so were the causalities on their side. When the Jews are victimized you search the web to prove we are as bad as those who are the victimizeers when the Jews are even mildly complicit you equate them with the wort of our own victimizers. Your moral standards for us are not the same standards you hold everyone else to. Called double standard and any objective and knowledgeable bystander would label you a Jew hater and I do so again despite Belman wanting to give you an undeserved benefit of the doubt. His track record is less than perfect in his appraisal of pundits on this site. That’s because he is a good guy who wants to believe in the best of people. He is sometimes blind to the obvious truth.
Got news for you, there are civil rights abuses directed against everybody here and I can attest personal to having my rights abused. Big deal.
In many ways the Arabs have more civil rights than the Jews here. Examples they don’t serve in the military, theyget free education and University scholarships and stipends Jews don’t get because our government practices our version of affirmative action. They are the biggest sector who practice tax evasion most by working at jobs where income is undeclared or under-declared, since medical insurance is based on income they don’t pay their fair share thus placing the burden on Jewish tax payers. They rarely pay municipal taxes. Multiple wives allowed Bedouins and each wife and children get child subsidies not afforded to Jewish majority. They are allowed in Israel cultural and religious autonomy with their own schools and curricula all paid by the state. Mostof the crime in Israel is generated by Arabs and most of the prisons have an Arab majority which is a burden to the State first from the crime and then housing and maintaining them.
What did Rabbi Kahane say? “Be nice…..but don’t be too nice.”
One simply has to read the title to know when CA is going to show up in the comments section. He baits Jews, Ted. This is what anti-Semites do. There is enough sides to this debate without inviting the anti-Semites in the door.
This is my view:
1) Israel has a right to exist
2) Israel has a right to Judea and Samaria
3) Israel has a right to be a homeland for the Jewish people This is what was said in San Remo. The institutionalization of the Rabbinate was Ben Gurion’s mistake. Like Moshe Feiglin, I think the rabbis have too much power, over marriage, especially.
So I say homeland for the Jewish people, NOT Jewish state; because the latter terminology can be confused with a theocracy
4) I do NOT ask Israel to allow a right of return for those Palestinians outside Israel.
5) I am opposed to the two state solution
===== (THAT BEING SAID) =====
A) I do think the best solution is to pay the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria to leave. Jews will probably have to foot most of the bill. If you can get Christians to pay, good. If you can get Arabs to pay, better. But Israel would be the chief beneficiary and will probably have to pay most of the bill
B) I do not buy the official narrative. I think ethnic cleansing did occur. I do not lose sleep over this.
C) I think civil rights abuses occur against the Arabs
———————
I THINK OBAMA IS TREATING ISRAEL WRONG AND SHOULD SUPPORT AN ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN.
Ted Belman Said:
I depends on what you call anti-semitism. Ahmedinejad has good relations with Iranian Jews yet wanted Zionism and Israel gone. Anti-semitism to me is Anti-Zionism. Chameleon_x isn’t anti Judaism but nearly all Musilm anti Zionists who want Israel gone claim to be pro Jewish.
If you know him personally, I mean if you have met him in person and know that he is a Christian then I am prepared to retract what I said and acknowledge that I am wrong.
http://disqus.com/Chameleon_X/
loonwatchexposed Said:
No, he is not. He is who he represents himself to be. I don’t see him as antisemitic though I could be wrong. Just because he points out where the case for Israel has some holes in it, I don’t think this makes him an antisemite. Just because he at times tries to make the case for the Palestinians, doesn’t make him an antisemite.
There are plenty of tell tale signs. He talked about Cohen genes here.
You need to read his other comments there and compare them with the ones here. This is why I asked him why he supports a one state solution. He is obsessed with Cohen genes and Jewish matrilineal descent because he thinks that can be used to have Israel declared a nazi racist state. He is Muslim, not Christian. He wants the end of Zionism and thinks the Abrahamic covenent includes the Muslims and Christians and their right to live in Israel.
He wants the end of a Jewish state, and thats why he supports a one state solution. That is why I asked him why he wants J and S annexed, and he did not respond.
He has also posted certain url’s here which came from there.
Curious American are you Chameleon_x?
@ loonwatchexposed:
Don’t think they are the same person. Even those who attempt to mask their real identities always leave some tells which expose them. When comparing the two posters I don’t see any. If you do can you be more explicit?
Ted Belman Said:
If Curious American is the same person who uses the name Chameleon_X at Loon Watch then he is not a Christian. He is an Ali Abunimah type who hates Zionism. Do a google search with site:loonwatch.com with the name chameleon_x with the words Cohen, genes, nazi,
see this thread
http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/08/when-a-jewish-extremist-talks-like-a-nazi
yamit82 Said:
Hi is not a Christian, In fact if he is who I think he is, his mission is cause a rift between Christians and Jews. Christian supporters of Israel that is.
CuriousAmerican Said:
I don’t hate just despise.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Your comment deals entirely with the non issues. You give credence to the complaints which also ignore the only issue. By doing so you are legitimizing the Arab narrative. And you wonder why some readers get upset with you.
The Beduoin are squatters. They don’t own the land and therefore aren’t billed for taxes. They have no right to be there. Israel has every right and obligation to enforce the law and evict them. Why did you make such a long comment dealing with irrelevancies. Find something else to comment on here other that to support the false Arab narrative.
@ yamit82:Your comments are vulgar. Reign them in or I will.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Yes, I may be vulgar but that does not negate the truth underlying my vulgarity. The truth is always the truth no matter how it’s presented.
You confuse form over substance. You can argue my submitted form but not the substance.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Ever heard of the synoptic problem? Only 2 gospels relate to the birthplace of your deity. luke and matthew. They are not the same. One has him born in Bethlehem the other in Nazareth. Hmmm (couldn’t even agree on this) 😛
Origin of the myth that Bethlehem is the birthplace of your deity is from misunderstanding of Micah 5:1 in the Jewish Bible, which speaks of the Birthplace of King David not your deity. Bethlehem
If I do not say kill all Palestinians and insult Jesus Christ, you call me a bigot.
It is you who are a hater, not me.
My understanding is that the IDF told Bedouins to live in Um al-Hiram. So you cannot say they stole it.
In fact this is floating around the Internet as a copy of the IDF orders in 1956 for
the Bedouins to locate there.
http://972mag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/document.jpg
However, I am talking about Bedouins in general. Um al-Hiram is just one of many
I said REGAVIM might have a case. What is your problem?
So are Christians. Jesus Christ (Yeshua) [I despise your insulting use of Yeshu] was a Jew born in Bethlehem. Christianity is indigenous, too.
You are just vulgar.
@ CuriousAmerican:
You seem to have lost all restraint and have ceased trying to mask your Jew Hated and pro Arab anti Jewish biases.
For every Bedouin we allow to keep land he stole, we should destroy a christian church and evict a christian from Israel. It’s a reasonable and equitable tradeoff. At least the Bedouin are indigenous to the region.
You are Scum!!!!
So even Jewish building in what is clearly within sovereign Israeli territory is still considered “settlements”.
But its not racist to remove Jews and put Arabs in their place? In fact that is regarded as perfectly legitimate and actually desirable by “human rights” organizations.
So the bottom line is that anywhere Arabs decide to plant themselves becomes their land and Jews are forbidden to live there.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Some wonderful passages in this article. Every sentence is a charmer. Every sentence is amazing.
In the end … see the bottom … despite all my obervations … the key issue was brought up by Regavim. See my last comments. Taxes are the key. Everything else is just amazingly colorful debate.
What a wonderful description. I wish our Congress acted like this instead of the stultifyingly dull debates they do have. This is a healthy debate.
What?! I seriously suspect the Arab MKs are operating more from an Arab than an Islamic viewpoint. I suspect Chetboun is so smitten with the plan that he can’t imagine anyone opposing it but Islamicists.
This is a question of property not sovereignty. I am not sure if the question is framed properly. I do not think the Bedouin are asserting a different state; but merely property claims.
And Arabs are not human? She should have said, the NGOs don’t give a hoot about anyone but Arabs. She may be right in her observation, but the response was not phrased rightly.
That does look funny. If the place is fit for Jews to live in later, why was it unfit for Bedouin to remain there before?
Democracy is a tyranny of the majority. His complaint is vaild; but so what?!
This man does not understand governments. The source of liberty is NOT democracy but constitutional republics. This is why our Founding Fathers abhored democracy and chose a republican system.
If true, this is the key; the tie-breaker. If they have not paid property taxes. I bet there is more to this. For ex: Did the Israelis bill them for taxes? Hmmm?! They cannot pay if they are not billed.
Ans: Have them retro pay.
REGAVIM’s property tax observation may be the key … but only if Israel was billing them for taxes. If Israel was not billing them, then the fault may lay with Israel. The NGOs will say Israel did not bill them because Israel planned – ahead of time – to remove them; and hence this “outrage” has been planned for a long time.
However, even here, REGAVIM has an option; and could require that the Arabs pay back taxes.
The Arabs will say back taxes are only applicable where Israel allowed electric lines, and recognition.
REGAVIM still has options. For example: If the Arabs want to keep the property, a tax schedule must be agreed to and enforced in the future.
REGAVIM’s observation about taxes is the key. The Bedouins want recognition for their land holding. They want electicity and utilities run in.
Okay! Present them with equitable tax schedules for such recognition. If the land holding are as large as the Arabs claim, they will not be able to pay the bills. They will have to sell off large parcels to pay for the recognition.
REGAVIM has the key. Taxes.
THE KEY ISSUE
If the Arabs want to keep the land, and get recognized with utilities run in … THEY MUST AGREE TO TAX SCHEDULES. Even if back taxes are not assessed, because of past non-recognition, FUTURE TAXES MUST BE AGREED TO.
The Arabs will not be able to pay future taxes and will be forced to sell off.
Israel can then force the Arabs to cede most property and settle for a few small Arab villages – WITH LINES RUN IN.
TAXES are the key to this.