Israel wants White House to explain U.S. official's Western Wall comment

[sanemax]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmm. You believe that God spoke to Mohammed?

If that is so, then God also told him to stone adulterers and kill homosexuals and apostates. So much for the religion of peace.

I believe that happened as much as I believe a burning bush gave Moses the 10 commandments.

Given that the Koran was not written by Mohammed, and none of us were around then, it's as likely that it was due to the Jews killing Muslims as it is for any of the other  reasons given.

 

BTW, the hadiths were written by the religious leaders and not dictated by Mohammed, so I put as much faith in them as I do in the teachings of Paul, the Roman stooge sent to convert Christians to a Roman approved version of Christianity.

He wasn't fond of homosexuals either- what is it with those religious people?

Not at all and that wasnt the point of my post .

You did previously state that Jews massacred Muslims and that was the reason why Muslims fled to Mecca .

   Your claim was incorrect and I posted whyMuslims really left

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Naam said:

let's be fair! the "religion of peace" adopted ("copied and pasted" ) this as well as hundreds of other "commandments" from the Bible.

True. The old testament is full of violence and death. I refuse to believe that the "God of love" espoused by modern Christians is the same as the old one, but that sort of goes against the concept of "one god".

Regardless, humans have killed a large chunk of the human race in the name of "god".

Still going on as I write. I guess humans will never learn.

[thaibeachlovers]

48 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Not at all and that wasnt the point of my post .

You did previously state that Jews massacred Muslims and that was the reason why Muslims fled to Mecca .

   Your claim was incorrect and I posted whyMuslims really left

With all respect to your beliefs, no one alive knows the truth as to anything that happened so long ago.

It was not my opinion that the Jews massacred the Muslims which caused the change, but that of a scholar that I read long ago ( don't ask me who, as I don't remember ). However, it is documented in the old testament that the Jews did a significant amount of killing of the opposition, so entirely possible they did the one I reference.

I repeat, I don't know- I wasn't there, but what is more likely, Jews killing Muslims or "God" speaking to Mohammed?

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, the same criticism can be applied to the Jewish bible which calls for capital punishments for all sorts of things we would regard as minor infractions. And I believe Leviticus says when you sell your daughters into slavery it's for life.

 

And Paul was a stooge for the Romans? And to show their gratitude for his fine work they executed him?

 

As for your comment about Jews killing Muslims as the reason for Mecca replacing Jerusalem,  you can make anything up and it's just as likely to be true as existing historical evidence?  You have learned well from the master: Donald Trump..

 

And your comment about the hadiths is just ridiculous.

 

I wasn't discussing the Bible, but yes, you are correct about it. Bloodthirsty lot back then.

 

Just what do you find ridiculous about saying the Hadiths were not dictated by Mohammed? Are you saying they were?

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wasn't discussing the Bible, but yes, you are correct about it. Bloodthirsty lot back then.

 

Just what do you find ridiculous about saying the Hadiths were not dictated by Mohammed? Are you saying they were?

Whether or not they were dictated they are reported as being said by Mohammed. There are strong hadith and weak hadith. The strong ones being more likely to have been said by Mohammed.

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

With all respect to your beliefs, no one alive knows the truth as to anything that happened so long ago.

It was not my opinion that the Jews massacred the Muslims which caused the change, but that of a scholar that I read long ago ( don't ask me who, as I don't remember ). However, it is documented in the old testament that the Jews did a significant amount of killing of the opposition, so entirely possible they did the one I reference.

I repeat, I don't know- I wasn't there, but what is more likely, Jews killing Muslims or "God" speaking to Mohammed?

My beliefs are Atheist , So, You dont know whether violence was used by Jews towards Muslims at that time , no one claimed that it was in any of the "reports"

   It states in the Bible that Jews did a significant amount of killing , so you thought violence did occur, so you wrote that as a fact ?

   You re-wrote the history books on a basis of you reading something by someone whom you dont remember who wrote it .

   I do not believe that God spoke to Mohammed , but I do believe that was the reason for Muslims going to Mecca .

   That may sound complicated, but it really isnt , for example . I do believe that Muslim Woman wear veils because they believe that God told them to do so, that is the reason given, which I do believe , but then again, I do not believe that God told them to do so

   

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, sanemax said:

My beliefs are Atheist , So, You dont know whether violence was used by Jews towards Muslims at that time , no one claimed that it was in any of the "reports"

   It states in the Bible that Jews did a significant amount of killing , so you thought violence did occur, so you wrote that as a fact ?

   You re-wrote the history books on a basis of you reading something by someone whom you dont remember who wrote it .

   I do not believe that God spoke to Mohammed , but I do believe that was the reason for Muslims going to Mecca .

   That may sound complicated, but it really isnt , for example . I do believe that Muslim Woman wear veils because they believe that God told them to do so, that is the reason given, which I do believe , but then again, I do not believe that God told them to do so

   

Actually we do know that violence was used by all societies back then. It's all well documented by historians.

Muslim women don't veil because of a "commandment", they do so because men don't want other men looking at their property.

It's not even in the Koran.

There is no such thing as "Islamic" dress. It's all cultural. An American Muslim can dress differently from an Afghan Muslim, but it's the same religion. They don't even have to cover their hair if they don't want to.

[sanemax]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Muslim women don't veil because of a "commandment", they do so because men don't want other men looking at their property.

It's not even in the Koran.

Please read up on the reason why , rather than just stating what you think and then portraying that as a fact

 

"There are a myriad of reasons why, but the easy, one sentence answer is, because they believe God has made it an obligation for believing women.  In the Quran God tells the believing men and women to lower their gaze and to dress modestly.  He (God) specifically addresses women when He asks them not to show off their adornment, except that which is apparent, and draw their veils over their bodies.  (Quran 24:30-31)"

[Naam]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

And your comment about the hadiths is just ridiculous.

actually, his comment pertaining to hadiths, Thaibeachlover is correct. since centuries Islamic scholars are trying to sort out authentic and invented ones as well as interpreting (or misinterpreting) their content. a parallel to Jewish scholars who do same with ancient Jewish scripts since a couple of thousand years.

[Naam]

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

He asks them not to show off their adornment, except that which is apparent, and draw their veils over their bodies.  (Quran 24:30-31)"

another point of disagreement between scholars! non-fundamentalists argue that the face is not meant.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Naam

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, Naam said:

another point of disagreement between scholars! non-fundamentalists argue that the face is not meant.

Yes, I know, but that wasnt the point .

My point was that I can understand why people carry out things in the name of Religion, even if I am an Atheist and that was just an example

[the guest]

Netanyahu is a muppet ! 

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, Naam said:

actually, his comment pertaining to hadiths, Thaibeachlover is correct. since centuries Islamic scholars are trying to sort out authentic and invented ones as well as interpreting (or misinterpreting) their content. a parallel to Jewish scholars who do same with ancient Jewish scripts since a couple of thousand years.

It's accurate only in the very trivial sense that some people somewhere along the line had to write down these sayings. But the sayings were not invented by these scribes.  There are lots of disputes about the authenticity of hadiths. The strong hadiths are those which are more likely to have been the words of Mohammed.

[Scott]

I believe that this has gone off-topic.   I don't have a problem with that as long as the discussion remains informative and civil.  

 

[Morch]

23 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

With all respect to your beliefs, no one alive knows the truth as to anything that happened so long ago.

It was not my opinion that the Jews massacred the Muslims which caused the change, but that of a scholar that I read long ago ( don't ask me who, as I don't remember ). However, it is documented in the old testament that the Jews did a significant amount of killing of the opposition, so entirely possible they did the one I reference.

I repeat, I don't know- I wasn't there, but what is more likely, Jews killing Muslims or "God" speaking to Mohammed?

 

Reminiscent of Trump's explanation for dodgy comments - heard it somewhere, can't recall where, adds general unrelated claim.

[JHolmesJr]

15 hours ago, the guest said:

Netanyahu is a muppet ! 

a very dangerous muppet at that.

 

I believe it was his stance against moderate jews that got yitzhak rabin murdered.

[Ramen087]

On 5/16/2017 at 3:00 PM, sanemax said:

It isnt. Jerusalem is quite insignificant to Islam , Mecca and Medina are Islams Religiously important places, whilst the Western Wall is Judaisms important place . 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26934435

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem

 

https://sites.dartmouth.edu/crusadememory/2016/04/24/jerusalem-in-judaism-christianity-and-islam/

 

three sources that differ with your assertion that jerusalem is quite insignificant, and these three are not the only sources...

[Morch]

On 5/19/2017 at 10:10 AM, mrwebb8825 said:

I wonder what both sides would think about making Jerusalem a sort of Neutral Zone or Safe Zone with no Israeli OR Palestinian soldiers allowed. Move the US embassy there with a dividing wall (inside the new embassy building, not through the whole city) so 1 side deals with Israel and the other side deals with Palestine. Install a U.N. Peacekeeping force to patrol the city. Israelis on the east and Palestinians on the west, the new US embassy AND a new U.N. Headquarters right in the middle.

Set up its own court system and security system similar to the Vatican. Aggression by either side would come with reprisals from the U.N. and not any 1 country to downplay bias of action. Afterall, isn't that what the U.N. was created for in the 1st place? :)

 

Neither side is willing to relinquish claims over Jerusalem, at least not to the degree suggested above. There could be more localized security arrangements relying on some international presence in core areas, but that's about it. Ceding sovereignty to the UN is not an option discussed.

 

Other than getting the directions wrong,  doubt much familiarity with Jerusalem in the above. Not a city able to support anything on the level of UN HQ. 

 

As for jurisdiction and "reprisals" by the UN, perhaps try this model in a less trouble prone area first, before initiating an epic fail.

[sanemax]

17 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26934435

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem

 

https://sites.dartmouth.edu/crusadememory/2016/04/24/jerusalem-in-judaism-christianity-and-islam/

 

three sources that differ with your assertion that jerusalem is quite insignificant, and these three are not the only sources...

I did actually say that Jerusalem is quite insignificant to Islam , reason being that there are other more important places for Muslims , I.E. Mecca and Medina

   I didnt say that Jerusalem was insignificant full stop

[daveAustin]

Sounds like a lot of huff over nothing.

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

Sounds like a lot of huff over nothing.

I hardly think the status of the western wall is nothing. 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I hardly think the status of the western wall is nothing. 

But the current episode is.

The US did not change it's official policy, more like a breach of diplomatic PC.

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Morch

[thaibeachlovers]

On 5/19/2017 at 2:13 PM, sanemax said:

Please read up on the reason why , rather than just stating what you think and then portraying that as a fact

 

"There are a myriad of reasons why, but the easy, one sentence answer is, because they believe God has made it an obligation for believing women.  In the Quran God tells the believing men and women to lower their gaze and to dress modestly.  He (God) specifically addresses women when He asks them not to show off their adornment, except that which is apparent, and draw their veils over their bodies.  (Quran 24:30-31)"

Anyone supporting the literal Koran supports the subjugation of women and considers them to be worth less than men.

The Koran does do that with many edicts such as women inherit less than men and it takes 4 women to witness rape for a conviction etc etc.

Not one single person alive on the planet knows the "reason" for anything that happened back then. All we have is what men with a desire for power wrote down to justify their position in society.

While I support faith, I have little time for the men in funny hats with their fairy stories ( religion ).

Edited May 20, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I can only assume that you support the subjugation of women and consider them to worth less than men with your apparent support of forcing women to veil.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I just changed that to remove the personal element. I don't know what you do support. 

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I just changed that to remove the personal element. I don't know what you do support. 

TBH, I can see this developing into a stupid argument, where neither of us can understand the other person, so, I will leave it at that

[mrwebb8825]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Neither side is willing to relinquish claims over Jerusalem, at least not to the degree suggested above. There could be more localized security arrangements relying on some international presence in core areas, but that's about it. Ceding sovereignty to the UN is not an option discussed.

 

Other than getting the directions wrong,  doubt much familiarity with Jerusalem in the above. Not a city able to support anything on the level of UN HQ. 

 

As for jurisdiction and "reprisals" by the UN, perhaps try this model in a less trouble prone area first, before initiating an epic fail.

I know neither side is willing to relinquish control but isn't that the main reason UN troops are sent in to other areas of the world? To establish peace? They have established "Safe Zones" near Mogadishu where the warring groups are kept at bay. People wishing to live in peace accept their military control and those who don't are escorted out to live elsewhere.

Dubbing it an "epic fail" is why it would fail if nobody tries.

As for getting the directions wrong, does the OP not state: "Friedman is an orthodox Jew who has raised funds for a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank that Israel captured together with East Jerusalem 50 years ago."  So, unless East Jerusalem is actually on the westside...

[Morch]

46 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

I know neither side is willing to relinquish control but isn't that the main reason UN troops are sent in to other areas of the world? To establish peace? They have established "Safe Zones" near Mogadishu where the warring groups are kept at bay. People wishing to live in peace accept their military control and those who don't are escorted out to live elsewhere.

Dubbing it an "epic fail" is why it would fail if nobody tries.

As for getting the directions wrong, does the OP not state: "Friedman is an orthodox Jew who has raised funds for a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank that Israel captured together with East Jerusalem 50 years ago."  So, unless East Jerusalem is actually on the westside...

 

UN peacekeeping missions are usually deployed after agreements (even if these initial and partial ones). Their main role is not to establish peace, but to keep the peace. This is usually applied with the agreement of all involved sides, and under specified and agreed upon guidelines. Often, these guidelines place restrictions on UN peacekeeping forces authority and jurisdiction. And, of course, the situation in Somalia doesn't not necessarily reflect on conditions relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

Some posters see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an appropriate testing ground for doubtful political and security constructs or initiatives. Asserting that the situation is volatile enough without adding even more potentially problematic elements is only prudent and reasonable.

 

The West Bank is usually used as reference to the Palestinian territory as a whole (other than the Gaza Strip). Jerusalem is situated on the Western edge of this territory, and the 1967 lines divided it in two - with the Israelis controlling Western side. The Palestinian wish to claim the East part of the city as their capital. The original comment replied to was: "... Israelis on the east and Palestinians on the west...".

Edited May 20, 2017 by Morch

[mrwebb8825]

30 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

UN peacekeeping missions are usually deployed after agreements (even if these initial and partial ones). Their main role is not to establish peace, but to keep the peace. This is usually applied with the agreement of all involved sides, and under specified and agreed upon guidelines. Often, these guidelines place restrictions on UN peacekeeping forces authority and jurisdiction. And, of course, the situation in Somalia doesn't not necessarily reflect on conditions relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

Some posters see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an appropriate testing ground for doubtful political and security constructs or initiatives. Asserting that the situation is volatile enough without adding even more potentially problematic elements is only prudent and reasonable.

 

The West Bank is usually used as reference to the Palestinian territory as a whole (other than the Gaza Strip). Jerusalem is situated on the Western edge of this territory, and the 1967 lines divided it in two - with the Israelis controlling Western side. The Palestinian wish to claim the East part of the city as their capital. The original comment replied to was: "... Israelis on the east and Palestinians on the west...".

I guess that's where it gets confusing to me since the article clearly states that the Israelis captured East Jerusalem which in my mind, says the Palestinians control west Jerusalem.

They wouldn't need to really concede to each other if the UN made a directive to recognize both countries as countries IF they simply split Jerusalem into 2 capitols with each side controling 1/2 but a UN Military overseeing the peace keeping a buffer zone between the other 2 militaries.

[sanemax]

5 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

I guess that's where it gets confusing to me since the article clearly states that the Israelis captured East Jerusalem which in my mind, says the Palestinians control west Jerusalem.

West Jerusalem is a modern Jewish Israel town , East Jerusalem is the Old City