1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

UCC Hits Bottom, and Starts Digging

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Lyle_JP, Apr 22, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Icon

    844
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    I was raised in the UCC Church. Baptized in it. Had my Confirmation in it. I even attended UCC conferences at Asilomar, and met my first wife at one of their church camps (Cazadero) when I was a teenager. Our wedding was presided over by two UCC-ordained ministers.

    In my early 20's I drifted away from the church, mostly because I personally rejected the concept of organized religion. Mind you, I have an enormous respect for most churches in this country, and respect those who believe and make church an important part of their lives. I just doesn't work for me.

    But now, I am ashamed that I was ever even remotely affiliated with the United Church of Christ. Their actions to "divest themselves from Israel" disgusts and sickens me to my very core. To identify the one nation in the Middle East which shares UCCs values of women's rights, democracy, tolerance, non-discrimination of gays, etc... as the bad guys is as Alice-inWonderland Topsy-Turvy as thought can get. It's appaling. It's obscene. A church which considers itself "liberal" siding with the worst of the Middle Easts terrorist scum who want nothing less that the extermination of all Jews and the wiping out of Israel from the map is, well, unthinkable.

    But it's happening.

    I will never set foot in one of their churches again. :flaiming
     
  2. Mikey

    Mikey Hall Of Fame

    1,295
    0
    Oct 26, 2004
    On the other hand, Israel has been occupying Arab land in Syria, Jordan and (until recently) Egypt since the 1967 war, in defiance of UN Resolution 242. Since the US went to war with Iraq over the occupation of a foreign country in defiance of UN mandates, it would be a double-standard to treat Israel differently. Israel needs to take the high road in this affair, and stop playing the "victim" card.
     
  3. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    A church which considers itself "liberal" siding with the worst of the Middle Easts terrorist scum who want nothing less that the extermination of all Jews and the wiping out of Israel from the map is, well, unthinkable.

    After reading over the resolutions, I fail to see how they are "siding with terrorists".

    Do you believe Israel is 100% innocent in this conflict? Do you believe that all palestinians are terrorists?
     
  4. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Icon

    844
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Both Egypt and Jordan have relenquished claims on those lands. That means that they are not occupied. They are, in fact, part of Israel. Israel no longer occupies Syrian land. This "occupation" myth comes from people who actually believe there is or ever was a sovereign nation called "Palestine" (there isn't) and that Israel is occupying it (it isn't). The "refugee" problem stems from the fact that no Arab nation will allow "Palestinians" to immigrate there becuase they need to continually beat Israel with the "right of return" stick.

    To believe that Israel is "occupying Egyptian and Jordanian land", you would also have to still believe that the United States is "occupying Mexican land in New Mexico, Arizona, and California". There is the reality on the ground, and then there is the fantasy of the lunatic fringe.
     
  5. RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Let's do a little review of our historical facts here...

    Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait in a unilateral, unprovoked attack, correct? The US routed the invaders with permission and even some material support from nations in the region, correct?

    In the 1967 war with its neighbors, Israel successfully fought off a coordinated, unprovoked attack, pushing back and occupying the land that had been used to stage the invasion. Continuing to hold this land provides a strategic advantage against any further attacks by its neighbors, although Egypt and Jordan have since agreed not to repeat their mistake. Correct?
     
  6. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Icon

    844
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Israel is "guilty" of doing what it takes to defend itself against the barbarians at the gates. They have to live with a daily threat of terrorism that we have only experienced one day of. If anything, Israel should have heaps of praise for showing as much restraint as they have for all these decades.

    Israel has no desire to "push every Arab into the sea". I'm sorry, there is no moral equivalence here.
     
  7. Mikey

    Mikey Hall Of Fame

    1,295
    0
    Oct 26, 2004
    Actually, you are wrong. Israel started the 1967 war in a pre-emptive strike against Egypt and Syria, effectively destroying their air forces on the ground.

    At the same time, Israel attacked a US Navy vessel, the USS Liberty, killing 5 of the crew. Israel calls this an "accident". The Liberty was an intelligence collection platform under the direction of the National Security Agency. I've spoken to a survivor, who doen't believe Israel's story.

    Occupying a foreign land for a strategic advantage doen't make it legal, in any sense.
     
  8. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Israel is "guilty" of doing what it takes to defend itself against the barbarians at the gates.

    Sorry, I don't buy that. Allowing illegal settlements isn't something done in the name of defense. Indeed, it has just escalated hostilities.

    Building the "security wall" is one thing, but building it on disputed territory is another matter.

    You seem to take the point of view that Israel is not at all to blame for any of their current problems, and that simply is not realistic.

    Israel has no desire to "push every Arab into the sea". I'm sorry, there is no moral equivalence here.

    Moral equivalence to WHAT? What exactly is the UCC doing that you find so distainful. They have asked to STUDY the question to see if Israeli companies are acting in a manner that agitates the situation and profits from the war rather than helps to settle it. This isn't an anti-Israel action, its a pro-peace action.

    Actually, you are wrong. Israel started the 1967 war in a pre-emptive strike against Egypt and Syria, effectively destroying their air forces on the ground.

    To be fair, Nassar and other arab leaders were very publicly stating their intention to invade, and moving troops adjacent to the borders... so the pre-emptive strike was not unwarranted.

    However I think that Israel was never in any serious danger. The ease by which they finished the job in only 6 days attests to the fact that they had military superiority, and could easily have chosen to not gone to war if they wished.

    As one Israeli secretary of state later attested,
    To put it simply, Israel called Nassar's bluff, and greatly increased their territory in the process.
     
  9. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Israel, by any objective standard, is the ultimate "rogue state", in violation and openly contemptuous of more UN resolutions than Saddam could have ever dreamed of. A four decade brutal, illegal military occupation finds most of its "citizens" living in a totalitarian state not unlike apartheid South Africa, and about as "democratic". Palestinians are essentially restricted to the "territories", the PC equivalent of SA's "townships", with no freedom of movement in or out without the proper "papers", and a massive military presence enforces these conditions with checkpoints, guns, tanks and attack helicopters and fighter-jets.

    The difference is Israel is OUR rogue state, fully supported and insured of survival by massive US economic and military aid. The "peace process" to date is one where we present ourselves as a neutral broker when of course we are nothing of the sort. It is a "process" where Israel is never compelled to give up anything and Palestinians are required to surrender all, where hundreds of "settlements"(PC for colonies) evict Palestinians from their own land, much of the best of their land, and land they and their families have occupied for centuries if not longer. Any resistance to Israeli occupation or the settlements is catagorized as terrorism and ruthless response to it is justified as "retaliation" or "self-defense". Of course the very idea an occupying military power can justifiably act in retaliation or self-defense in the lands they occupy is more then a little oxymoronic, as we are now learning the hard way in Iraq.

    And then there's the blind, willful ignorance of the American press and public to these facts, the result of a brilliant and totally encompassing PR and lobbying campaign from various pro-Israel lobbys(probably in total the most powerful group of lobbiests in the nation), an intense PR machine, as well as public efforts by both the US and Israel governments. We are made acutely aware of the "suffering" of Israeli victims of Palestinian violence, but rarely are exposed to the constant suffering of Palestinians under the Israeli occupation. We are told there is a period of "relative calm" when fewer Israeli lives are lost while Palestinians continue to be killed and injured at the same rate.

    The American public seems to largely "disconnect" the situation in Israel from terrorism against ourselves and others outside Israel and the occupied territories. And likewise we cannot connect the dots between our unswerving support for Israel, no matter what they do, and radical Islamic fundamentalism. In fact they are closely related and are prominently mentioned as justification for most acts of terrorism against the US, including 9/11.

    I am not suggesting we abandon our support for Israel, only that we use that support, a considerable influence, to ensure an equitable settlement of the Palestinian question. We would not only "solve" many of the pressing problems in the mid-east, we would also undoubtedly insure the civilians of Israel, which we seem to have so much concern for over their Palestinian neighbors, would also be less subject to terror attacks.
     
  10. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    The difference is Israel is OUR rogue state,

    That sounds like moral relativism to me!
     
  11. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,838
    186
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    That'll show 'em. I am sure they'll miss you and your dollar. :rolleyes:

    Find some other, perhaps more proactive way to demonstrate your displeasure. Maybe something that actually requires you to get up off your ass and do something? :shrug:
     
  12. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Oh really?

    Then the problem is solved very simply. Just allow the citizens or these non-existent "territories" to vote in national elections of the country they are now part of.

    Or do we only believe in "bringing democracy" to Iraq???
     
  13. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Relativistic? Yes. But mostly depending on whose relativism you prefer.

    Again, objectively, can you explain how a nation that came into being largely through the use of sabotage and guerrilla tactics, what we today would deem "terrorism", has since been at war numerous times with their neighbor states, often initiating the conflicts, AND has conquered and occupied their territories in violation of international law and despite dozens of UN resolutions, could be considered anything BUT a "rogue state"?

    Once more, the ONLY reason Israel is not more universally considered a rogue state is because they are a favored nation under the umbrella of our(US's) sphere of influence. And it is precisely this protection that allows them to be continually belligerent and intransigent in their dealings with the Palestinians and their other Arab neighbors.

    Personally, I don't really care if Israel exists and I don't see how the US, as a nation should care either. Like any other nation, as long as they keep their sh!t together, arrange for relatively peaceful coexistence with their bordering nations and don't too blatantly abuse the people under their dominion, they DO have a right to exist among the community of nations. Unfortunately, by the above criteria, Israel is awfully close to forfeiting that right, IMHO anyway.

    And FYI, there is no traditional or historical imperitive Israel should exist as a Jewish state. Through recorded history Israel, or Israel/Judea, have existed as independent Jewish states for a total of probably 3-500 years, in any one continuous stretch, certainly much less. By right of previous sovereign occupation then, Arabs and Muslims certainly have just as much "right" to the land as any Hebrew contingent. Besides, if previous occupation is the measure, regardless of how brief, then we should all be preparing to subjugate ourselves to the rule of the Indian nations, or in my case, the Hawaiian monarchy.

    And once again, lest we forget, Israel exists as it is today almost entirely because they are kept afloat on an ocean of US taxpayer funded American aid and assistance, virtually with no strings attached. A country about the size of New Jersey with 6-7 million inhabitants receives billions of dollars in annual aid from the US. Looked at that way, those feisty people and their "miracle in the desert", ain't so miraculous after all.
     
  14. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    And how is that to help the "peace" process. There could be peace tomorrow, could have been peace there since 1948 for that matter - all that is required is that the surrounding Arab states simple agree not to try and exterminate the jews. sheesh, you guys really don't get it do you. How is pressuring Israel going to help that? And help for the palestinians? Where are their Arab brothers - they have no love for the palestinians, except to use them and stir hatred toward Israel. Sorry, it takes two for peace - it cannot be won unilaterally.

    Apparently not everyone in the UCC feels agreement with the national office (no great surprise there I guess). I found this link interesting:
    The issue of divestment is one that would have serious consequences for our denomination. While the national office thrives on the "culture war" issues, divestment is not the traditional "right vs. left" debate and support or opposition to divestment cannot be clearly defined in the usual political terms the UCC likes to use. Because of the lopsidedness in it's response to the Middle-East conflict, divestment is neither constructive nor proactive in bringing resolution to this very old issue.

    Politically, the national offices of the United Church of Christ can't afford to support a divestment resolution at General Synod. Even a watered-down resolution that would support further study of the matter would cause a real problem for interfaith relationships and the negative publicity would only further erode the denomination's influence.

    http://www.ucctruths.com/
     
  15. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Before the Zionist movement that culminated in "1948", Jews and Arabs of the Holy Land had existed in peaceful coexistence for well over a thousand years, since the seventh century. In fact, except for bloodthirsty Christian crusaders, the region had been relatively free of conflict for that entire period. And FYI, the crusaders were not there to reestablish Jewish rule.:nono:

    What happened? A group of religious extremists, Jewish fundamentalists if you will, using the Bible as justification, decided they should forcibly build a sectarian Jewish state in the region, by any means necessary! As mentioned previously, these "means" included sabotage and bombings of civilian targets, what today we would classify as "terrorism".

    Granted, Zionists felt justified by the very real sense of world-wide anti-semitism, including very much so in these United States. And western powers, particularly Britain and France in a last gasp of European colonialism, did much more harm than good in the situation. There was no "Palestinian state" because after WWI, with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, these colonial empires had carved up the region with arbitrary borders into political entities they thought they could control. These included Trans-Jordan(Israel) and ironically Iraq also. We can argue forever about the identity of the Palestinians, or who and what they are, but essentially they were the Muslim Arabs, and yes, some Jews and Christians too, who had permanently and relatively peacefully occupied the region for a thousand years or so.

    The year 1948 is significant as the culmination of the Zionist movement. Many European Jews had fled there to escape the repression of the Nazis, partially because the aforementioned world-wide anti-semitism prevented them from escaping elsewhere, including the US. This added local strength, along with the collective white-man's guilt over what Christians had done to European Jewry allowed them the military strength and the newly formed UN the political license to form the current Jewish state.

    That's the history. And again, while I have no particular beef with there being a Jewish state, in Israel or anywhere else, I believe there should be some dispensation for the centuries previous inhabitants of the area Israel now occupies. The general arrangement since 1948 has been these "Palestinians" have the "right" to live ONLY on land Israelis have no desire to live on and for the past 35 years or so, this has been enforced by a strict Israeli military occupation of ALL the potential Palestinian lands. AND, should Jewish Iraelis, even recently arrived "Israelis", so desire, they are allowed to dispossess Palestinians of whatever land they wish and establish "Jewish settlements".

    Pressuring Israel? What "pressure"? Israel doesn't act like they are under any "pressure", certainly not from the US. As long as the US unequivocally supports Israel as we now do to take whatever actions Israel desires, there is no "pressure" for them do do anything other then what they want to. In perhaps the ultimate twist of fate, in the effort to create a Jewish state, aided, abetted and funded by the US, we have succeeded in creating another oppressed, dispossessed people to be the martyr cause celebre of another huge and growing segment of Earth's population.
     
  16. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Icon

    844
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Yeah, so long as Jews never forgot their Dhimmi status and always payed the Jizya on time. :rolleyes:

    Here's the real history, jon. In 1948 The UN designated a Jewish Palestinian Territory and an Arab Territory of nearly equal sizes. You can argue "fairness" of that decision all you want, but the fact of the matter is that originally there was to be very little Muslim displacement. All the Arabs had to do was agree. They didn't. Jordan, Syria, and Egypt all told Muslims living in the area to leave, because the Arabs were going to wipe out the Jews, and then the Palestinian Arabs could come back when they were finished.

    Of course, that didn't work out so well for the Arabs. Now tell me, why are people who voluntarily left an area to help facilitate a genocide entitled to any form of "right of return", or "compensation"? Those lands were forfeit.

    At the end of the day, the Arabs want to turn back the clock to before 1948, when there was no Israel. But that is absurd, because the reality on the ground is that there is a now well-established culturally vibrant economically powerful country of Israel that is not going anywhere, and it's a country that has the same rights of any other country: The right to defend its borders, the right to repel and prevent enemy invasions and terrorism, and most basically, the right to survive and exist.

    But for that, liberal "intellectuals" (who never met an underdog, no matter how reprehensible, that they didn't have a sick love-affair with) demonize Israel and romanticize Hamas, Hezbollah, and other killers who strap high explosives to their own children and party in the streets whenever Jewish blood is spilled.

    Really? Apparently you were unaware (as most liberals in this country seem to be) that there is a large Muslim population who live in Israel proper (not the West Bank or Gaza). Ironically, within this so-called "Rogue apartheid racist state", these Muslim Arabs enjoy more civil rights, more economic opportunity, have access to better medical services, and are better educated that Arabs in any other Arab nation in the Middle East! Kinda takes a lot of air out of your POV, jon.

    As for Israel thumbing its nose at so-called UN Resolutions, it's important to point out that none of those resolutions are binding, unlike the resolutions against Saddam. Non-binding resolutions are passed against Israel all the time, because there is always a guaranteed 26 Muslim votes for any anti-semitic resolution that comes along.
     
  17. Ray_Clum

    Ray_Clum Hall Of Fame

    1,131
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Just wanted to point out, Lyle, that anti-semitic is not equal to anti-Jew. Arabs are semites as well...
     
  18. AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    I don't see why I should give a rat's rear end about Israel. We had a mutually beneficial relationship during the cold war, but we have no real need for them now. They have used us and our wealth to bully their neighbors in a way that I don't like.

    Sharon has acknowledged that he believes establishing settlements will cause the settlers to develop a oneness with the land and cause them to want to defend it. Sit there long enough and claim it's yours. Government-sponsored squatters.

    The people we should be trying to be on friendly terms with in the Middle East are in the Arab/Muslim world. Siding with their enemy isn't just unwise, it's stupid. Giving Israel money to continue the status quo is insane.

    If we hadn't been so supportive of Israel, two very tall building would still be sitting in New York, we wouldn't be living in a state protected by "homeland security," and we wouldn't have been involved in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We'd all be fatter and happier.

    I am not anti-Jew. I have many good friends who happen to be Jewish and I have great respect for their intellect, abilities and work ethic. I sympathize with the Jews in Israel who are living with the situation there, but it's their problem - not mine.
     
  19. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Icon

    844
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Oh, I see. 9/11 was the Jews fault. Or was it our fault? Aparently, it was anybodys fault except Muslims (who actually did it, if you hadn't heard), the people you think we should have been siding with all along.
     
  20. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    :lol::rotfl:

    Was that before or after they threw the premmies on the cold linoleum and stole the incubators?:sure:

    The sad part is you probably believe that myth too.:nono:

    Were there foolish words of bravado bandied about like "we're going to drive the Jews into the sea"? Of course there was. There ALWAYS is before a war, regardless of who has the ability or who is expected to win. And "Muslims living in the area" left because they were assured the Jews would be wiped out? What sense does that make? If the Jews were going to be "wiped out", and the "Muslims living in the area" hated Jews so much, wouldn't they stick around to witness it? Maybe join in the "genocide" themselves? The whole thing's a propaganda myth fabricated to justify denying "any form of 'right of return', or 'compensation'."

    Is it possible those who could picked up their families, grabbed a few possessions and left because they knew a WAR was coming? Like people in every culture and of every religious persuation have done throughout history when finding themselves in harm's way? Ya think???:scratchin

    Anyway, at least in modern times, people leaving an area with their families to get out of the path of warring armies do not forfeit anything, particularly property rights or the right to return when the conflict is over. And it doesn't matter if they suspect genocide is possible. In fact it especially doesn't matter if genocide is a realistic proposition. All the more reason to take yourself and your family and LEAVE!

    As for-
    So, given compatable opportunity and rights, "Muslim Arabs" can be fully integrated, productive Israeli citizens who don't blow themselves up at bus stops? Well, why doesn't Israel just grant those same opportunities and rights to the rest of their "Muslim Arab" population? Seems like that would solve a lot of their problems and conflicts. The dilemma is, it would introduce a whole new problem, one the current Israeli leadership will never accept, Jews would start losing elections.:eek: So, in fact this MAKES my POV. At least in the sense Israel is based on apartheid principles. If you want people of a certain ethnic, religious and cultural group to win elections, and they are a minority, you simply cannot give the vote to others NOT of the chosen group. It's the very essence of apartheid.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page