Hi Darryl, Lawrence, Roger, David B., Miguel, (Glenn, Rob, Rod, Rasheed)
and all,
LAWRENCE to Jonathan
<<I did in fact check my facts. Most explicitly, I did pull the numbers
I
used from the Web site I cited. I explicitly noted that the numbers
were
suspect. And then I *asked* for additional information from the list.
I
did this because I did, and do, respect those who are on this list. I
would
ask the same courtesy of others.
I would also note that you didn't really address my question: What is
the
correct term for a country that is dominated by religion to the extent
that
Israel is? If it is not a "functional theocracy," what is it?
>>>
You are welcome to the correction on the facts.
I did actually answer your question - you even recognise this . .
."dominated by religion to the EXTENT that Israel is".
My corrections to your previous assumptions indicate that Israel is NOT
dominated by the Jewish religion to the EXTENT you previously claimed.
DARRYL
<<<
However, beyond that, I would submit that just because it is a common
experience for many people of the world to have grown up under such a
set of
circumstances does not make it right. I suppose it is, as has been
observed, insane to reject the world as it is, but that doesn't make it
wrong to do so either.>>>
DAVID B.
<<<Instead of asking if Israel is a Theocracy, maybe
we ought just ask "how theocratic is it?". To which I'd answer, "very".
>>>
Now, I haven't seen either Lawrence, nor David B. criticising other
countries for being theocratic, and they have not substantiated their
claim that Israel is MORE theocratic than other countries. It thus
appears that they have singled out Israel, applying standards that they
do not apply to other countries. Many Israelis consider that to be
anti-Semitism. What do you say?
Finally ROGER has unveiled something that looks like a positive idea. I
support the ultimate goal (Israel and Palestine peaceful neighbour
states), but think that the implementation is problematic, especially
now.
LAWRENCE's "Maybe if we just taught Sharon and Arafat how to use
email..." actually might be a suggestion in the right direction.
Actually, I think we should ship off Israeli leaders and Palestinian
leaders to a holiday resort, or a desert island, but not let them talk
about the Mid East for a month. They should be forced to talk about
other things - home, family, etc. and engage in recreational activities
together. (Hey, let's put them on Survivor!!!!). Only when they have
gotten to know one another should they be allowed to start talking about
peace.
But Lawrence, please DO get your facts straight . . .
<<<Israel finally opposed the establishment of an independent Palestine,
reneging on what it had agreed to do in the Oslo accords. >>>
Israel has not "finally" decided anything. Even Ariel Sharon has gone on
record saying that he will accept full Palestinian sovereignty.
As for Oslo, it was more about process, not borders and independence.
The latter were left deliberately vague, because the parties were not
yet able to agree. I think that we ALL agree that had Oslo stayed on
track, it probably WOULD have led to an independent Palestinian state.
<<<The Palestinians
would be delighted, and this is all that they have been asking for, even
since before Jewish settlers started to stream into Palestine. (See the
Hussein-McMahon correspondence, culminating in the Agreement to this
effect
between the UK and Arabs.)>>>
Lawrence, first you should know that substantial Jewish immigration
(from Russia and Yemen) started long before 1915. By 1900, Jerusalem had
a Jewish majority.
Since you keep going on about the Hussein-McMahon 1915 agreement, I did
some hunting to see if its contents were as I remembered. Firstly, it
had little to do with the Palestinians. Hussein was Sherif of Mecca,
living down in Arabia. The agreement was to get Hussein to revolt
against the Turks during WWI. I don't know exactly how, but Hussein lost
control of Mecca to the Saudi family. The British provided compensation
in other territories they had conquered. Transjordan was created as a
Kingdom for one son, Abdullah (great-grandfather of Abdullah II). The
other son, Feisal, was first installed as king of Syria until the French
kicked him out - he then got the throne of Iraq.
I found an EXCELLENT discussion of the history at
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_arabrevolt.html. You will note that
the source is not a party to the Zionist conspiracy. I invite everyone
to look at this, because it doesn't exactly support what Lawrence has
been hinting at.
Have a good read everyone.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:10 BST