Slashdot Mirror
Israel, Palestine Wage Web War
An anonymous reader writes "A war has erupted on the Internet between Israel and Palestine, alongside the war being fought on the ground in Gaza. A new report claims that a group called the 'DNS Team' has defaced an Israeli Website, with anti-Israel graphical images — one in a series of instances of 'e-vandalism.' This sort of e-vandalism, says the author, is not only an inconvenience for Webmasters, but many of the images contain malware links and 'redirects or Flash links to Jihadist forums or blogs.' However, while the Jihadist forums are registered in Saudi Arabia, they are hosted by companies like Layered Tech and SoftLayer in Plano, Texas. On the Israeli side, 'A fascinating approach over the last few days is being made by an Israeli Website, "Help Israel Win," which provides a download so your PC can become part of a worldwide pro-Israeli botnet. So far 7,786 have joined, already a fairly powerful global computing force...'"
This is a natural extension of war now-a-days. This is akin to saying, "Soldiers Now Using Bullets in War".
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Lets have a little bit of perspective and not put some web sites being trashed in the same category as bombs and missiles flying around. The world could do with a little less drama and over statements. Honestly, its OK, you are still important.
wow, at first I was going to say your obviously pro Jew however, to be honest just by your own rhetoric you sound more like a extremist very similar to that of hamas(sp)
hatred is negative no matter who uses it, and the fact is truth and history will always come down to a matter of perspective.
I wish all wars were web wars. The papers today said the Isralies killed dozens in a UN school, and that nowhere in Gaza was safe.
Go, web warriers! Go away, bullet and rocket warriors. He who lives by the RPG dies by the RPG.
Free Martian Whores!
When I started reading, I interpreted the above as a joke (albeit in poor taste). I am now thinking it was perhaps more flamebait.
The notes at first seem to be correct on the Israeli side with exaggeration on the Islamic side. They then goes into more extremist positions.
The point to which I take special exception is perhaps a minor one in the mind of many--the "leading contributors..." line for Islamics contains a ridiculous statement--The entire force of Western educational structure developed as a result of interaction between Christian and Islamic theologians/scholars in the 1100s and following. Avicena, though I disagree with his philosophical base, was a clear thinker and prompted a response from many in the West.
This makes me think of the old Star Trek episode - A Taste of Armageddon, where no actual fighting takes place but a computer determines the casualties on each side and then those number of people on each side have to enter a machine to be killed.
I'm a Jew and definite supporter of Israel, but some of your points are frighteningly mistaken.
"The cancer that is Islam"? Come on. Every religion has it's share of crazy fundamentalist quacks reading too much into parts of their holy literature - currently, the fundamentalists of Islam just happen to be a little more numerous and (considerably) more vocal than those of the other major religions. Look back in time - at one point, Christians had a little thing called the Crusades. Hindus in India have been known to form mobs and beat and kill their Muslim neighbors. As for Jews...well, some might even consider the current crisis an example of fundamentalism, though I vehemently do not.
Which leads me the next point: the fallacy that Jews somehow "don't really care that much about religion". What? Sure, they may not go out and scream "TO THE GLORY OF YWHW" before blowing themselves up in a crowded mosque, but that doesn't mean they don't have an incredible fundamentalist and mainstream religious fervor. Watch people rock back and forth in tears and prayer in front of the Wailing Wall and then tell me Jews in Israel "don't really care that much about religion."
"Haven't done shit since 1000 B.C. when they gave up the last of their rational humanistic thought. Sit on patches of oil and get fat." Oy vey. For one, there are Muslims outside the Arab world. For another, back to point one: stop generalizing. Just because a religion has a few (or even a lot) of nutjobs, doesn't mean that the religion itself is to blame.
The rest of your flamebait suffers the same problem. You say Muslims are savages. It would be more accurate to say some some Muslims are savages. It would be more accurate still to say some people are savages.
Such hatred! Gees, no wonder people are dying right and left
Jews: Isreal has the most gender-neutral society in the entire world.
Rank bullshit. perhaps the most gender-neutral in the middle east, I don't think anyone would argue with that, but I think you'll find most European nations (and nations who were settled by Europeans) to be far more gender neutral. In the US, the third in the Presidential sucession is a woman, speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
IslamoSavages
Flamebait. Grow up, boy.
Jews: Have the right to a homeland
So do the Palestinians.
IslamoSavages: Wish to indoctrinate the world into the cancer known as Islam.
And Bhuddists sish to indoctrinate the world to Bhuddism and Christians (I'm one) want everyone to accept Christ as savior. Your point?
Jews: Act only in self-defense, strike from afar only at those whose fingers are on the trigger or detonator. Collateral damage is accidental.
Israel shells near UN school, killing at least 30
Savages, you say? Seventy dead innocents to kill two soldiers? That's barbaric. Israel should be ashamed of itself, if I was an Israli I'd be at the wailing wall in sackcloth and ashes begging God's forgiveness.
Jews: Don't really care that much about religion.
I see you've not met many Jews. The ones I know are very religious.
Jews: Leading contributors to cutting-edge science and technology.
Gates, Jobs, Torvalds, all Jews? Where do you come up with all this rank bullshit?
Damn it's hard to keep from responding to these damned trolls.
Free Martian Whores!
To be fair, considering what the Jewish people have gone through in the last few thousand years, I'd wager the siege mentality predates the state of Israel.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
There is no winning this war. As much as I support Israel and their right to exist without rockets being fired on them left and right they are the bad guys in this case. They usually are these days if you look at the body count. The Hamas was provoked into breaking the ceasefire. The IDF sent a special forces unit into Gaza to break up a tunnel for smuggeling. They could have done that on the Isrealy side.
But elections are coming up and Baraks popularity (Ehud Barak is a former PM, currently heads the defense department and masterminded the war) has surged. The whole thing could easily backfire as we have seen with the war in Lebanon and the political end of Peres.
The blockade of Gaza for such a long time should be considered an act of war. The whole Gaza strip is practically a prison. And Egypt is not helping either.
Back to the web: The occupation of former Jordanian areas (where the Palestinians now live) is being used by all the nationalistic arab governments of the region to divert public interest away from their corrupt regimes. So there is always a lot of propaganda going on. And that propaganda has moved to the web. There are a lot of very ugly anti Israel webpages out there. With tons of very ugly lies.
This is one of the things that puzzles me. All of the battles launched by the Arabs began with, "We will be victorious and wipe Israel from the map, God willing." And yet they were unsuccessful in 1948 and 1973, and caught off-guard in 1967 when Israel attacked prior to a likely attack by the forces from three Arab nations. Hezbollah and Hamas repeatedly cite their mere survival as God showing them favor (despite the kill ratio of 50:1 or more enjoyed by the Israelis).
I understand the idea that they may perceive these as challenges from God to be overcome, but at some point, someone has to be thinking that maybe these are messages from God telling them that they're not going to win.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Well of course there are going to be different strategies. The Palestinians don't have anything. They're being suppressed by Israel who is systematically cutting off all food, water, and medicine into the region with a huge military funded by the US.
Israel bombs the hell out of them and the Palestinians shoot a few rockets back and deface a couple websites.
It's interesting how the media treats this as well. "Israel retaliates against terrorist rocket attacks." We have situation where an entire group of people is being oppressed by one of the most well-funded militaries on the planet, can barely get their hands on a few rockets to defend themselves, or food to feed themselves, and when Israel breaks the cease-fire agreement the US media is sympathetic to Israel.
If the difference between a legitimate military campaign and terrorism is a plan, what does that make the US invasion of Iraq? What does that make the Hezbollah resistance in 2006, which many would claim to have been executed with a well-defined plan? Also, how would we know that those perpetrating this vandalism are at all associated with the Hamas leadership? How are we to know what plans Hamas has for defense of Gaza, given that no journalists have been allowed inside by Israel, which has explicitly (and quite understandably) stated they want to control the images coming out of Gaza?
Methinks your definitions are troublesome.
Another thing that makes defining terrorism troubling. A Hamas missle hit an empty Israeli school here a few days back. That was terrorism. Today, an Israeli bomb hit a Palestinian school, killing 30. We assume good faith for the Israelis, saying their action was a mistake or that the school was really a Hamas hideout, despite what the outcome of their action was (a bunch of dead children). My gut tells me it's a lot easier to miss a target with a homemade rocket than a smart bomb, so are we so quick (in this specific instance) to demonize Hamas while being lenient towards Israel? To me, both acts were acts of terrorism.
I'm not trying to argue with you, really. In fact, the only point I'm trying to make is calling some group "terrorists" makes a very complicated situation one with a moral "good" and "evil" side. The "good" can do no wrong, while the "evil" can do no right. That's no way to work towards a solution.
Disclaimer: I believe that the IDF has committed acts of terrorism in the name of national defense of equal or (more often) greater magnitude to those committed by Hamas in the name of nationalism, and I further believe that my point is backed up by the deathtoll on each side over the past ten years.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
I was not attempting to say that violence, as long as it is well planned out, was ok. I meant to simply point out an apparent difference in organization. Israel seems to always have been well organized in this area.
I don't think Hamas is necessarily making their own rockets. Sure, Israel isn't either, but I don't think we should paint Hamas as these poor, innocent folks that barely scrape up enough metal to make a homemade rocket and it's not their fault if it misses, either. I'm not supporting killing of innocent Palestinians nor innocent Israelites.
However, I think you miss one crucial point in not liking Hamas to be termed a terrorist group: Hamas has absolutely no qualms about their explicit mission statement to kill all the Jews. No, not "release Gaza" or "free Gaza" or "Retake their homeland," it's that they want no Jews on earth. Same thing Hitler wanted to do to the Jews (as well as a bunch of other groupings of people).
Can Israel do wrong? Sure. Their humans, too. But at least Israel IS interested in peace. They've put up with constant terrorist attacks pretty much since 1948, as well as other countries attacking them.
I don't think Hamas commits anything in the name of nationalism... they seem to commit what they do in the name of getting rid of an evil people (the Jews).
I wished this sort of crap would stop.
I'll be the first to say that I dislike the entire notion of the US supporting Israel. Israel never needed to be created and certainly doesn't need the U.S.'s help to exist -- if it should exist, it would exist under its own power. But with all that said, it doesn't mean "I hate Jews."
I know a lot of Jewish people and every single one of them have one thing in common -- they are not all the same!! Some think supporting Israel is important, some do not. Some will have a ham sandwich for lunch with you and some will not. Your own cultural and/or ethnic identity, whatever is may be, is not of "one mind" so why does anyone else expect this to be true of Jews? The same goes for anyone who thinks the people of the U.S. are just like Bush?
I say down with Judaism. I also say down with Christianity, Islam and every religion -- especially those that believe in invisible beings that created us and tell us how to live our lives. The evidence for Zeus is every bit as valid as the evidence for "God." Why do people have to believe in stupid stuff like that anyway?
There will always be reasons and excuses for one person to want to kill another. We don't need religion for that. But when religion becomes involved as a motivating factor, suddenly the problem becomes a LOT bigger, bloodier and more dangerous. So down with all of it I say... or... let them all kill themselves and leave us out of it.
Unfortunately, you can't just say 'Down with religion!' because religion has taken up residence in a very vital human activity; culture and community. People will fight to the death to keep their tribes.
In my own experience, this has been demonstrated to me time and again (though I don't know that I understand the reasons - just that they must exist); that nearly every Jew I've met is strongly in favor of the Jewish state. Maybe there is something to that.
All that said, Israel should stop killing recklessly. 550 Palestinian deaths to 5 Israeli deaths is so lopsided that it has to be stopped. The solution to the situation is actually pretty simple; it's money. Once the non-country of Palestine isn't made up of mostly the desperate poor, with a few warlords manipulating them, then you'll see peace. Alas, no one is likely to pony up.
[Ego]out
Israel bombs the hell out of them and the Palestinians shoot a few rockets back and deface a couple websites.
Palestinians were shooting rockets for over 8 years now. A "few"?
We don't need religion for that. But when religion becomes involved as a motivating factor, suddenly the problem becomes a LOT bigger, bloodier and more dangerous. So down with all of it I say... or... let them all kill themselves and leave us out of it.
Right because Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot didn't really kill all that many people compared to say the Spanish Inquisition.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The Islamic people call the Jews "The People of the Book", and it is their position that those sort of power structures are sinful and wrong.
This is just plain wrong. The "People of the Book" just means that muslims faith is presented as a continuation of Judaism (in the same way christians are; only that christians believe the final prophet was Jesus, muslims believe it was Mohammed or Mahoma, and jews believe it's still due to appear sometime in the future). The Book here is the Ancient Testament, or the Torah. To muslims, People of the Book are jews, christians and muslims themselves, as opposed to pagan people (which was the first enemy of muslims).
You are right that they don't have a religious structure like a catholic or anglican church and that to be imam all they needed is to be recognized as it by its community, but most of the muslim people live in pretty well organized countries. I suspect the issue here is that is more efficient a plain, semi-independent organization than a hierchical one when all of your offices are under constant risk of being shot a missile by Israel.
Why can't
Uh, they posted video of mortars being fired from that school last week. Was it currently being used? We have no way of knowing, but that's how all intelligence works.
Point being the elected government of Gaza was using a UN non-military building as a base of operations to launch attacks on a civilian populace.
According to the Israelis what happened was small arms fire coming from the direction of the UN school which in their opinion made it worth firing at. In short, according to the latest news reports, it appears that two Hamas fighters are dead at the cost of some 30+ kids and their care takers being killed as well. The sad thing is that many lives could probably have been saved over the last few days if the Israelis hadn't embargoed all sorts of medical equipment which has been piling up at the border for months. If Israel shot it self in the foot with the invasion and bombardment of Lebanon back in 2006 it is now shooting it self in both feet with this latest raid on Gaza. It is an awsome manifestation of the unshakeable US/Israeli belief that conflicts like this one are best resolved with the lavish over use of firepower but in the long run it won't do anything to end Hamas' resistance efforts. Even if Hamas is "cynically using civilians as a human shield" like the Israelis are claiming it still won't help Israel's cause very much in the long run. All the world will remember is the dead kids. I am no friend of Hamas but no matter how hard you try you won't succeed in making the sheer galactic stupidity of what Israel is currently doing in Gaza sound like a good idea.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
So in the summary, the Palestinians are accused of e-vandalism, then it finishes with a call to join a pro-israeli bot-net.
Complete and utter hipocrasy, which leads my bullshit filter to tell me that the so-called anonymous contributer is pro-israeli, using an unwitting kdawson to try and garner support by the slashdot crowd.
Fuck war. I just got to a peaceful country after living through years of civil war and the effects on the average person are a thousand times worse than you'll see on the internet/TV/newspapers. NO-ONE involved in ANY war has any moral credence. Cyber-recruiters using people's ignorance are just as much a part of it, too.
Dont forget the botnet could be used as a social engineering tool and send out phishing email to everybody @yourmilitary.mil.fu . Get all these people to click on a phising webpage hosted somewhere on your botnet. Hit the right personnel and you could land yourself some valuable information.
Not likely. If the IT infrastructure in other countries is anything like the U.S. military's, then computers that can send and receive Internet e-mail are most assuredly NOT connected to any sensitive networks. Military and civilian personnel working for the DOD and the various branches of the armed services have completely separate machine -- usually even located in different rooms.
Even if both machines are on a given individual's desk, the one with the Internet connection will either have all physical drives removed or secured by a locking device. This includes USB ports, firewire ports, etc. Procedures for getting software or data from the Internet onto a secured military network involve jumping through many, many hoops, usually including approval and clearance from appropriate personnel.
My blog
I wished this sort of crap would stop.
wow, pot, kettle, black. Your very post is the kind if unintelligible drivel that's blatantly hypocritical that I wish people would shut up and read a book or something because they need some education.
First you point out someone for being an intolerant fool (intolerant of Judaism, which was more likely a Troll to incite some response) while you turn around and claim "down with religion" and an equally intolerant fool who probably believes in their own Agnostic/Atheist faith, but refuses to accept others of different faith.
If you want to ask a question, why don't you ask why people can't fucking let people live the way they want to live without the persecution of others for their life style, assuming they're not harming others in the process. You know these kind of people, because you sir, are one of them. Someone who refuses to accept the idea that someone might have some sort of spiritual belief, a belief you do not accept, but instead of understanding and tolerance these people, you'd rather try to control and eliminate them so they think... just... like... you.
Well, I can tell you. You're questions will never get answered until you can open your own eyes and start accepting people for who they are instead of denouncing them, should they have a different belief than you.
Arrogant fool.
Wait...
You claim you can find an insurance policy that cover your files or server so completely that they would need to invoke the "act of war" clause to deny you coverage for damages caused by hackers ?
I'm curious to see who would actually offer that kind of coverage.
I mean, coverage against flood or fire I can believe, but coverage against hacked password,software security holes and DDoS ???
Disclaimer for contextual reading of this comment: I am pro-Israel, anti-terrorism, and I really do think Israel wants peace and Hamas wants no-live-Jew-on-face-of-earth. This is not an anti-Jew post.
I used to think that but then I read some history and started following current events. I now think it's "Israel wants land (which hasn't belonged to them in >2000 years) and Hamas (who represent people that they took it from) wants it back". At one point I think that the majority of Palistinians would have settled for "Just don't take any more." but that has unfortunately passed.
You don't really buy the no-live-jew-on-the-face of-earth line do you? That's a bunch of rhetoric that you too would probably spout were you and your family evicted from your house/land.
Jews and Arabs (and christians for that matter) have lived peacefully together, in that area, for hundreds of years at a time. There's nothing intrinsic in either religion that can't tolerate the existence of the other.
As F$%#@ed up as Hamas is (and I in no way support their tactics), you simply can't move in, displace millions, and expect peace.
I have sympathy for the innocent victims on both sides but Israel as a nation is reaping what it sows.
Sadly, I see no humane solution.
More to the point, the definitions of "enemy combatant" used by both Hamas and the IDF (but not the International Red Cross or the Geneva Convention) include people providing material support. This is the justification Hamas use for firing rockets into Israel and the IDF use for destroying civilian ministries, schools, etc.
So, do you /really/ want to start actively supporting one side?
Atheism is not an absense of belief in things like gods and faries. It is a belief in the absense of things like gods and faries.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
So far the UN reports that the civilian casualty rate (the percentage of casualties who were civilians) is 25%. That means a 75% military rate. Unfortunately, that rate is far better than almost any modern war.
If you're going to lump all the non-religious movements together, then you should do the same with the groups acting in support of some religious cause. Looking at it from that perspective, atheism per se has led to far less violence than religion.
Otherwise, if you want to classify the groups based on their actual motivation, then you should only count those who were killed in the name of atheism, or because of their non-atheistic beliefs. Political and social movements that just happen to have atheistic leaders should be grouped separately based on their goals. Again, the movements supporting specific religious beliefs and personality cults tend to dominate when it comes to violence, compared those populated by freethinkers.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
We don't call it a religious belief if you deny the existence of fairies or unicorns, so why is it any different with god?
The burden of proof is on the believer. An atheist doesn't have to prove there is no God, the believer has to prove that there is. I've met no atheists that have said with 100% certainty that there is no god, simply because it cannot be disproved. Atheists just think there is not enough evidence to support the proposition, and the probability of there being such a being is very low.
I'm sure there are atheists who are 100% sure that god does not exist. But I've never met one. In fact, I bet if you took a poll among atheists, you would find that very few state that there is no god as a matter of fact.
Muslims worship a God which is not triune. Therefore, the Muslim God cannot be the Christian God.
From your response I can tell you are a Southern Baptist who has been exposed to "The Mormon Question" or know someone who has. It saddens me to see you so naively misled. Using the doctrine of the Trinity as a bright-line distinction between Mormons and Christians (or Muslims and Christians in this case) might be the kind of comforting safety blanked that lets you rest easy, but sadly it has no basis in fact.
The fact is that there's no such thing as the Trinity in the Bible.
"The formal doctrine of the trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament." - Harper's Bible Dictionary (Protestant Source)
"The formulation of 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century... Among Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - New Catholic Encyclopedia (Catholic Source)
The Bible's teaching on God's nature is ambiguous. Sure, Christ says he's "one with the Father", but then he also prays that his disciples will be one in the same sense of the word, which seriously jeopardizes subsequent metaphysical gymnastics required to invent the "one in three, three in one" formulation. At best the Bible is compatible with the Trinity, but it most certainly doesn't require it or preach it.
Oops.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
If "theism" is a belief in a god or gods, then what is "atheism"? When something is asymmetrical, it is without symmetry. If something is amoral, it is without morals -- which is, please note, different than being immoral. The prefix "a-" simply means "without, or lacking". Ergo, in its simplest form, atheism is "without a belief in a god or gods".
It's certainly true that some atheists take a more positive view and assert that a god or gods cannot or do not exist. But at its root, atheism does not require this assertion -- simply not having a belief is sufficient to be classified as atheist.
This gets twisted around a lot in theological arguments; the atheist will sit back and sneer that the theist is the one making the assertion ("A god exists.") and is therefore carrying the burden of proof. The theist will counter that the atheist is also making an assertion ("A god does not exist.") and is thus just as burdened to prove his claim as the theist.
The reason theists like this argument so much is because they realise that they carry some burden of proof, because they acknowledge they are making an assertion about the nature of reality. Yet they also find it difficult to present any objective evidence to back their claim. This puts the atheist at an advantage, until the theist uses the above argument. Suddenly the atheist is faced with an impossible situation -- how do you prove something doesn't exist, especially when the something in question is a god?
No matter what the atheist says, the theist can claim that the god somehow manipulated the observation or outcome. And thus, the theist has now placed himself on superior ground in the debate, for while the theist may be able to dredge up a few interesting things the atheist can't explain, there is nothing the atheist can say which cannot immediately be explained away by the theist as some whim of the deity.
It is disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst to consider both of these stances equal in terms of burden of proof. There are people who genuinely believe that Reptilians from other planets walk among us and have infiltrated the highest levels of our governments. Should you encounter such a person, I suggest you don't engage them in dialogue, but if you did, you might ask what their proof is. Would you feel it fair if the Reptile Believer countered that you should have to prove there aren't Reptilians? Do you consider yourself some sort of active disbeliever in Reptilians, or just someone without even a passing interest on the topic?
I'm not trying to say which side is correct here, as both can make compelling arguments, but clouding the issue with incorrect definitions does nothing to advance the debate.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Disbelief in God is easily supported. The atheist should simply reply with "I have no sensory, analytical, logical, epistemic, or other evidence that God does exist. In addition, all arguments for His (Her/It/Whatever) existence have been proven false time and time again, while arguments against His existence have, many times, proven quite strong. Until you provide an argument for His existence that has merit, the disexistence of God remains the most likely choice to me."
Precisely. GP post is an absolute load of nonsense, and of course fails to cite any sources for his/her diatribe.
Well, it's not *absolute* nonsense, there is a valid point being made even if it goes to far in actually blaming atheism. And he shouldn't really have to cite sources for the deaths caused by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
The majority of "atheist"-caused deaths which are presumably being referred to were motivated by a desire to obtain and maintain political and social control, not to 'eradicate religion' because of its ideological conflict with atheism. The fact that the perpetrators were from ideologies which were also atheistic does not mean that any of those deaths are attributable to atheism.
The majority of all deaths ever were motivated by a desire for power, control, land, resources. Philosophy, religious or political, is used as a justification or a method to gain the support of the people being sent to war. I mean you don't think the Crusades were really about Christianity, even though that's what the Kings told the knights and the footmen? Was the Inquisition really about weeding out heresy, or was it about wielding terror as a method of social control?
All those leaders I mentioned self-identified as atheists, and persecuted the religious, and slew millions in the names of their political philosophies. We are all wise enough to realize that this truly was in name only, and that their true motivations were to acquire and hold power.
Yet not in the cases where the leaders self-identified as religious?
That's the valid point being made. Religion doesn't cause war any more than non-religion does. Lust for power causes war, and that's a trait that is not unique to any philosophy. As proven by the fact that the many of the largest body counts of the last century, the largest body counts of human history, belonged to those of non-religious philosophies. And it wasn't their philosophy that was the problem!
The enemies of Democracy are
We all worship the God of Abraham. Jesus said to worship this God. It's the same God even if there are disagreements about Him.
Oh and the last Christian prophet was of course John the Baptist. ;)
The enemies of Democracy are
What time period is that? At no point has anyone on the Palestinian side said that. The 1948 partition was no good, the 1967 lines were no good for years, no the Clinton parameters are no good.
Most of Israel has abandoned Greater Israel... Golan is a different matter than the west bank of the Jordan or the Gaza strip... and the old city of Jerusalem.
However, if the Palestinians were serious about peace, they would agree the the Right of Return is not realistic, and that a financial settlement INCLUDING the displaced Jews from Arab lands and the displaced Arabs in now-Jewish lands would be worked out.
If that were the case, we'd be arguing over borders.
You are welcome to wish/dream/pray that Israel will cease to exist as a nation... but if you think that the Israelis will stand by and let that happen, you're dreaming... and you're not advocating peace.
Israel normally gets massive amounts of terror and destruction in response to giving up land... when they do what you don't want them to do, occupy and settle land, they get relative peace and tranquility. When they abandon the land and retreat, they get attacked from that land. So regardless of what you think is right, if you were Israel, would you keep trading land for peace, or say screw it, and return to occupation.
Correct, however, Islam isn't a problem. RAMBAM ruled that Islam wasn't worshiping of false gods or idolatry, and therefore a valid Noachide faith. While Ashkenazi law doesn't really deal with Islam, Sephardic law generally follows RAMBAM, and in theory for land based issues, Sephardic law governs Israel because it's in the Sephardic area. Ashkenazi customs don't dispute RAMBAM's ruling, so there is ZERO problem, under Orthodox Judaism, for Muslims to live and dwell within the land referred to as Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel, basically Jewish lands).
The Mosque on top of the Temple Mount is a separate issue, mostly because it's inconveniently located where the Third Temple will stand. However, without an unblemished red heffer, you can't purify people to enter the holiest areas, so under Orthodox law, Jews can't enter there. So while Orthodox Jewish law may prohibit the Dome of the Rock, nobody can really do anything about it, so it's an academic issue.
Regarding Christianity, there is no issue with non-Jews worshiping Jesus as messiah. There is a question of whether the worship of the trinity, statues of saints (in Catholic Churches), renders Christianity idolatry... but no ruling that it is... the the rule of thumb is not to enter a Church, in case it IS idolatry, but that the non Jewish Christians inside it aren't necessarily engaged in idolatry so the rules regarding idolatry don't apply either.
Now I have ZERO clue what the law says regarding a Hindu Temple setting up shop in Israel, but that's WAY above my pay grade. If you want real explanations, and not a very lay explanation on Slashdot, consult your local Orthodox Rabbi.
Any issues that lay Jews have with Christianity isn't theological in nature, but rather a series of rulings during centuries of Christian persecution, which likely colored the judgment of the Ashkenazi Rabbis.
I agree that this war needs to stop, Palestinians and Israelies need to sit down and freaking figure out how to not kill 600+ people over a weekend.
That's not the problem. The majorities on both sides are willing to negotiate. They are just not able to keep the lid on their respective radical factions.
We have ours in the USA as well. And we can't control them either.
Have gnu, will travel.
empathy for the victims, not increase them.
There's nothing wrong with empathy for the victims. There's everything wrong with blaming Israel for their predicament. If Hamas obeyed the laws of war and fought in the open under uniform I suspect that civilian casualties would be greatly reduced.
If Hamas did that they'd get wiped out in the first week. And they would have to know that, so they fight in a way that gives them a chance.
And leads to the death of the population they represent. Sounds pretty selfish, unless you buy into the Hamas rhetoric that they "are the people" and "are the culture" in which case there are no victims.
When the French Resistance killed German occupiers there were reprisals against the native population too. Who do you side with on that one?
no, you can't argue like that. knowing what the words in ancient greek mean does not allow you to dogmatically impose this meaning on modern english.
Since when did the French Resistance shell German villages?
There is plenty of unsused space in Russia, enough to comfortably accomodate every Jew in the World. In fact we already have an autonomous republic set-up specially for Jews. Welcome to Birobidzhan!
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Except it is much more complicated than you portray. Look both words up in wikipedia.
You are portraying "strong atheism" and "weak agnosticism". Sorry, but the words have come a long way from their greek and french roots.